(M/S) Inspiration College of Teachers Education and Others … v. With Writ Petition No. 704 of 2025 (M/S) PITS B ED College Manpur Uttarkashi

year 2024-25, respondent no.2/Sri Dev Suman Uttarakhand Vishwavidhyalay, Badshahithaul, Tehri Garhwal (“the Vishwavidhyalay”) had conducted Uttarakhand State Combined B.Ed entrance test for filling the seats of B.Ed course of all the State Universities of Uttarakhand; there are total 7,500 B.Ed seats in the State of Uttarakhand; about 6,500 candidates appeared in the test, and out of it, the Vishwavidhyalay declared only 5,600 candidates successful. As many as 1,900 seats of B.Ed course in the State of Uttarakhand remained vacant. The petitioners-colleges could not fill up all the seats allotted to them for B.Ed course.

4. According to the petitioners, Section 10 of the 2006 Act provides for allocation of unfilled seats and according to it, if the seat or seats of a private institution remained unfilled, even after entrance test, due to unavailable candidates, the same shall be filled from the candidates of same category based on merit of qualifying examination by inviting applications again. The petitioners made representation for filling up of the unfilled seats in their respective colleges for B.Ed course. They did not receive any response. Thereafter, writ petitions in the Court seeking mandamus by directing the respondents to forthwith permit the petitioners to admit students as per the candidates’ merit in the qualifying examination after inviting applications from the desirable candidates seeking B.Ed admissions. Finally, by the impugned order, the representations of the petitioners have been rejected.

5. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent no.1/the State (“the State”) has wrongly observed that the petitioners were trying to provide eligibility for admission to ineligible candidates, i.e. candidates with lower merit than the category-wise cut-off marks in the State Joint Entrance Examination which was allegedly 3 inappropriate and impractical in view of maintaining the quality of Higher Education in professional courses.

6. According to the petitioners, they had prayed in their representations to invite fresh applications, as per proviso to Section 10 of the 2006 Act, and not to provide eligibility for admission to ineligible candidates. There was no question of compromising with merits. Reference has been made to the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) Regulations, 2014 (“NCTE Regulations 2014”).

7. The State has filed counter affidavit in WPMS No.704 of 2025 and WPMS No.705 of 2025. The Vishwavidhyalay has filed counter affidavit in all the petitions.

8. According the State, the petitioners failed understand that Section 3(s) of the 2006 Act defines “qualifying examination”, which means an examination as may be prescribed.

9. It is the case of the State that according to the Government Order No.497, dated 28.05.2024, a State Combined Common Entrance Test was to be conducted, which is the “qualifying examination” for admission in B.Ed course run by the State University and Government/Aided/Private colleges. It is further the case of the State that “the minimum eligibility” and “qualifying examination”, both are different. The representation has been decided in accordance with the provisions of the 2006 Act.

10. The Vishwavidhyalay, in its counter affidavit, has neither supported nor objected to the impugned order.

11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

12. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that Section 10 of the 2006 Act provides for allocation of unfilled seats and according to it, if seat or seats of a private institution remains unfilled, even after “common entrance test” due to non-availability of candidates, the same shall be filled from the candidates of same 4 category based on merit of “qualifying examination” by inviting applications. He further submits that NCTE Regulations, 2014 also provides for admission on the basis of marks obtained in the “qualifying examination.”

13. Learned counsel appearing for the Vishwavidhyalay, and the NCTE support the contention, as made by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners.

14. Learned State Counsel submits that examination to the B.Ed course may be made on the basis of “qualifying examination”, which is defined under Section 3(s) of the 2006 Act. He submits that State Government, by the Government Order dated 28.05.2024, entrusted the Vishwavidhyalay to conduct “common entrance test” and this is the “qualifying examination” for admission in B.Ed course across the State. There cannot be any other criteria for admission in B.Ed course.

15. Learned State Counsel submits that qualifying examination is only an entrance test; “qualifying examination” and “entrance test” both are one and the same.

16. Section 3(s) and Section 10 of the 2006 Act are as follows:- “3. Definitions. - In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires— .......................................................................................................... .................................................................................................... (s) "Qualifying examination" means an examination as may be prescribed”

10.“Allocation of unfilled seats - In case seats other than reserved seats, whether government and General seats or otherwise, remain unfilled due to non-availability of candidates through common entrance test and common counseling, such unfilled seats shall be filled from the candidates appeared in common entrance test in the order of merit based on waiting list; 5 Provided that if the seat or seats of a private institution remain unfilled even thereafter due to non-availability of candidates, the same shall be filed from the candidates of same category based on merit of Qualifying Examination by inviting applications again.”

17. Regulation 9 of the NCTE Regulations, 2014, prescribes norms and standards for various courses. Insofar as B.Ed. course is concerned, the norms and standards are given in Appendix-4 of it. Clause 3.2 and 3.3 of the Appendix-4 to the NCTE Regulations, 2014 deal with the eligibility and admission procedure. “3.2 Eligibility Candidates with at least fifty percent marks either in the Bachelor’s Degree and/or in the Master’s Degree in Sciences/Social Sciences/ Humanity, Bachelor’s in Engineering or Technology with specialization in Science and Mathematics with 55 % marks or any other qualification equivalent thereto, are eligible for admission to the programme. The reservation and relaxation for SC/ST/OBC/PWD and other categories shall be as per the rules of the Central Government/State Government, whichever is applicable.” “3.3 Admission Procedure Admission shall be made on merit on the basis of marks obtained in the qualifying examination and/or in the entrance examination or any other selection process as per the policy of the State Government/U.T. Administration and the University.”

18. A bare reading of Section 3(s) of the 2006 Act makes it abundantly clear that the “qualifying examination” may be prescribed and according to the learned State Counsel, by the Government Order dated 28.05.2024, the Vishwavidhyalay, was entrusted with this examination. But, it has to be read with Section 10 of the 2006 Act. The Vishwavidhyalay has been appointed nodal agency for conducting “Combined Entrance Test” for B.Ed. Course. The Government Order dated 28.05.2024 (It is Annexure No.2 to the counter affidavit filed by 6 the State in WPMS No.705 of 2025) does not prescribe for “qualifying examination”, as envisaged under Section 3(s) of the 2006 Act.

19. For B.Ed course, eligibility has been provided under Clause 3.2 of the Appendix 4 of the NCTE Regulations, 2014, which has already been quoted above. This is a basic benchmark, which a candidate must possess to take admission in B.Ed course. Now the question is that if a candidate possess the eligibility criteria to take admission in B.Ed course, how will he be admitted in the course?

20. All the seats of the B.Ed course should be filled up based on common entrance test. But if it is not so filled up, what would be the position?

21. The first paragraph of Section 10 of the 2006 Act makes provisions that a waiting list of the candidates so appeared in the “common entrance test” shall be put into use and the unfilled seats may be filled up from those candidates in waiting list.

22. The question is if the seats still remain vacant after merit in the “common entrance test” or “waiting list”, what will happen? Should the seats be allowed to remain vacant?

23. Proviso to Section 10 of the 2006 Act makes provision in this regard. According to it, under such circumstances, the unfilled seats shall be filled from the candidates of same category based on merit of “qualifying examination” by inviting applications. In first paragraph of Section 10 of the 2006 Act, the word used is “common entrance test”. The first paragraph of Section 10 deals with a situation when candidates are admitted based on merit in the ‘common entrance test’ or in the “waiting list”. Proviso to Section 10 does not speak of ‘common entrance test.’ It speaks of “qualifying examination”. The words “Common Entrance Test”, as used in the first paragraph of Section 10 and the words “qualifying examination”, as mentioned in 7 proviso to Section 10 of the 2006 Act are definitely different. They are not one and the same.

24. A candidate must have crossed the eligibility bar, as given under Clause 3.2 of the Appendix-4 of the NCTE Regulations, 2014 for taking admission in B.Ed course. It is only, thereafter, such candidates may appear in the “entrance test”. The “qualifying examination” in proviso to Section 10 of the 2006 Act is that “eligibility examination”, which is stipulated under Clause 3.2 of the Appendix-4 of the NCTE Regulation, 2014. Therefore, this Court is of the view that in the impugned order, it has wrongly been observed that the only mode to get admission in B.Ed course is “common entrance test”. The impugned order does not explain the eventuality in which proviso to Section 10 of the 2006 Act may come into play.

25. In the instant case, according to the petitioners, various seats in their colleges in B.Ed course are left vacant despite candidates having been admitted through “common entrance test” or from “waiting list”. In such eventuality, operation of proviso to Section 10 of the 2006 Act comes into play, and the unfilled seats can be filled from the candidates of same category based on merit of “qualifying examination”, as given under Clause 3.2 of the Appendix-4 of the NCTE Regulation 2014 by inviting applications again. To that extent, the impugned order deserves to be set aside as it denies admission based on merit of qualifying examination by inviting applications, as envisaged under the proviso to Section 10 of the 2006 Act.

26. The question in the instant matter is as to what would be its effect?

27. During the course of hearing, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the academic session starts from 01st July and it ends on 30th June. The question is as to whether the petitioners may be permitted to take admission now by resorting to 8 the Proviso to Section 10 of the 2006 Act for the Academic Session 2024-2026?

28. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that as per Clause 2 Appendix 4 of NCTE Regulation, 2014, the duration of B.Ed programme shall be of two academic years, which can be completed in maximum of 3 years from the date of admission to the programme. He submits that entire resources of the petitioners- colleges are not utilized; they are under-utilized. Therefore, if now petitioners are permitted to take admission by resorting to proviso to Section 10 of the 2006 Act, they may take extra classes of those students, who may be admitted for Academic Session 2024-2026 and complete the course.

29. Learned State Counsel submits that this may not be permitted because half of the course for Academic Session 2024-2026 is already complete.

30. Learned counsel for the NCTE submits that now the petitioners may not be permitted to invite applications for admission in B.Ed. course for the academic session 2024-2026. He submits that the Regulation 11 of the NCTE Regulations, 2014, prescribes for academic calendars, and according to it, the entire process of admission is to be completed within a period of 60 days from the date of publication of admission notice. He submits that for the academic session 2024- 2026, half of the session has already been completed. Therefore, almost after one year, such permission may not be granted to the petitioners. In addition to it, he submits that the petitioners have been allotted seats per year. It is based on the infrastructure or resources available with the petitioners. It is argued that for the academic session 2025-2027, the petitioners shall take students in B.Ed. course now according to the seats allotted to them, and if the petitioners are also permitted to take admission in B.Ed. course for academic session 9 2024-2026, it would exceed the limit of allotted seats to them, which is not permissible.

31. Regulation 11 of the NCTE Regulations, 2014 is as follows:-

11. Academic Calendars:- (1) It shall be incumbent upon the affiliating body to regulate the process of admission in teacher education institutions by prescribing the schedule of academic calendar in respect of each of the programmes specified in Appendix 1 to 15 under these regulations, at least three months in advance of the commencement of each academic session and to give due publicity by providing the following details, namely:- (a) date for the publication of notice inviting applications for admissions; (b) last date of receipt of applications for admissions for each programme; (c) date of selection test or interview; (d) date of publication of 1st, 2nd and 3rd list of candidates and last date of closure of admissions. (2) The entire process shall be completed within a period of sixty days from the date of publication of the admission notice. The affiliating body shall strictly adhere to the schedule or academic calendar notified by it. After closure of the admission, each teacher education institution shall submit the list of students admitted in each programme within two days from the last date of closure of admission to the respective affiliating or examining bodies and shall be made available on the website of the institution.

32. Definitely, for the academic session 2024-26, today is much beyond the time prescribed for completion of admission. This is one aspect of the matter.

33. Clause 2 of Appendix 4 of the NCTE Regulations, 2014, prescribes for Duration and Working Days for B.Ed. course. It reads as follows:- Duration and Working Days

2.1 Duration 10 The B.Ed. programme shall be of a duration of two academic years, which can be completed in a maximum of three years from the date of admission to the programme.

2.2 Working Days (a) There shall be at least two hundred working days each year exclusive of the period of examination and admission. (b) The institution shall work for a minimum of thirty six hours in a week (five or six days), during which physical presence in the institution of all the teachers and student teachers is necessary to ensure their availability for advice, guidance, dialogue and consultation as and when needed. (c) The minimum attendance of student-teachers shall have to be 80% for all course work and practicum, and 90% for school internship.

34. During the course of hearing, it is stated on behalf of the petitioners’ colleges that the first semester examination for academic session 2024-2026 has already been completed and now the classes of second semester are already underway.

35. A bare perusal of Clause 2 of the Appendix 4 of the NCTE Regulations, 2014, makes it clear that there shall be at least two hundred working days each year, and each week, there should be minimum of thirty six hours working. If by resorting to extra classes these days of a year to those hours of a week are permitted to be completed, it will definitely be an act of compromising with the quality of education. On that ground also, the petitioners cannot be permitted to invite application for admission in B.Ed. course for the academic session 2024-2026.

36. It is undisputed that the petitioners have been allotted number of students they can take per academic session for B.Ed. course. Now, admission for academic session 2025-2027 are to be taken. In such eventuality, if the petitioners are permitted to take admission for unfilled seats for the academic session 2024-2026, it would be along with the students that will be admitted for academic 11 session 2025-2027, and if both are added together, definitely, it will exceed to the seats allotted to the petitioners. Therefore, at this stage, this Court is of the view that the petitioners may not be permitted to take admissions in B.Ed. course for the academic session 2024-2026.

37. In the result, the Court concludes as follows:- (i) Admission in B.Ed. course may be done through “common entrance test” and “common counselling.” (ii) If seats remain unfilled even after “common entrance test” and “common counselling”, the remaining seats may be filled from the candidates that appeared in the “common entrance test” in the order of merit, based on “waiting list.” (iii) If even thereafter the seats remain vacant due to non-availability of candidates, the same shall be filled from the candidates of same category based on merit of “qualifying examination” by inviting applications again, as per proviso to Section 10 of the 2006 Act. The “qualifying examination” in proviso to Section 10 of the 2006 Act is that “eligibility examination”, which is stipulated under Clause 3.2 of the Appendix-4 of the NCTE Regulations 2014. (iv) The impugned order is set aside. (v) At this stage, the petitioners cannot be granted permission to admit students for the academic session 2024-2026, by resorting to the procedure, as given in the proviso to Section 10 of the 2006 Act.

38. The writ petitions are disposed of, accordingly. Ravi Bisht (Ravindra Maithani, J)

09.07.2025