Back
2016 Supreme(AP) 656
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
P. Naveen Rao, J.
P. Bala Raju and Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
State of Telangana and Ors. - Respondent
Writ Petition Nos. 37001 and 38553 of 2016
Decided On : 16-12-2016
For the Appellant : Kiran Kumar Vadlamudi
Headnote:
Constitution of India - Article 142 - Education Act - Section 92 - National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 - Section 2 (1) – Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983 - Sections 3 and 15 - Learned standing counsel for National Council for Teacher Education-4th respondent. Petitioners in W.P. are students who have completed their intermediate education and aspiring to prosecute the course of study leading to awarding of Diploma in Elementary Education - Petitioner in W.P. is association representing institutions which administer the course leading to awarding certificate - petitioners are keen to prosecute the course of study leading to awarding of and on account of inordinate delay in commencing the academic process grave prejudice is caused to their academic ambitions and uncertainty is created due to illegal actions of the respondent authorities - On account of the better employment prospects for certificate holders, petitioners intend to prosecute the course and the same cannot be denied by the State or its instrumentalities - Due to the lapses of State authorities in complying with statutory norms, students cannot be made to suffer - Responsibility of the State to conduct entrance examination and hold admission process as per schedule prescribed in the A.P. Elementary Teacher Training Institutions/District Institutes of Education and Trainin Students or managements are not responsible for delay in initiating process for admission of students – Held, Court noticed that there were significant special features that have occurred in the academic year one of them being formation of State of Telangana - While observing that the agonizing situation inviting national waste could have been avoided if only the AICTE and the University were more careful, cautious and circumspect having regard to the larger public interest and to do complete justice, time was extended to conduct online counseling - Decision cannot come to the rescue of petitioners - Court reiterated that the adherence to time schedule to complete the admission process is sacrosanct in the peculiar facts of those cases and to do complete justice time for counseling was extended in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. the time extended was to conduct one more round of counseling whereas by then the whole gamut of selection process was undertaken and what is required was only to hold additional counseling and to hold counseling, only a short time is required. In the instant case, entire gamut of admission process required to be undertaken that would take minimum of four months - In Maa the adherence to time schedule is emphasized - Decision also does not come to the rescue of petitioners - In the peculiar facts of these cases and having regard to statutory mandate, relief sought for by petitioners cannot be granted - Petitions are liable to be dismissed.
P. Naveen Rao, J.
1. Heard Sri S.A.K Moinuddin, learned counsel for petitioner association in W.P. No. 38553 of 2016, Sri S Sri Ram learned counsel for petitioners in W.P.37001 of 2016, learned Government Pleader for School Education (TS) and Sri K. Ramakanth Reddy, learned standing counsel for National Council for Teacher Education-4th respondent. Petitioners in W.P. No. 37001 of 2016 are students who have completed their intermediate education and aspiring to prosecute the course of study leading to awarding of Diploma in Elementary Education (D.El.Ed). Petitioner in W.P. No. 38553 of 2016 is association representing institutions which administer the course leading to awarding D.El.Ed certificate. The Rules prescribe schedule to conduct admission process and commencement of academic session. Petitioners are aggrieved by action of the respondents 1 to 3 in not conducting entrance examination to select students for admission into D.El.Ed course for the academic year 2016-17 and declaring it as 'Zero year'.
2. Sri Sriram made following submissions:
2.1 The petitioners are keen to prosecute the course of study leading to awarding of D.El.Ed and on account of inordinate delay in commencing the academic process grave prejudice is caused to their academic ambitions and uncertainty is created due to illegal actions of the respondent authorities. On account of the better employment prospects for D.El.Ed certificate holders, petitioners intend to prosecute the course and the same cannot be denied by the State or its instrumentalities. Due to the lapses of State authorities in complying with statutory norms, students cannot be made to suffer.
2.2 A student has fundamental right to prosecute education of his choice. State cannot curtail such right more so because of its lapses in adhering to schedule of conducting admission process.
2.3 It is the primary responsibility of the State to conduct entrance examination and hold admission process as per schedule prescribed in the A.P. Elementary Teacher Training Institutions/District Institutes of Education and Training (Regulation of Admission into Diploma in Elementary Education Course through Common Entrance Test) Rules, 2013 (for short the Rules, 2013). Students or managements are not responsible for delay in initiating process for admission of students. State having failed in adhering to schedule prescribed in the Rules cannot plead that as there is delay in initiating admission process, it cannot conduct admission process now. An academic session cannot be made zero. Having committed illegality in not adhering to schedule to make admissions, State cannot perpetuate illegality further by not making admissions at all.
2.4 Even if admissions are held now, it does not affect academic session and does not compromise on quality of education. It could only postpone completion of academic session. Students are eager to prosecute the course of study and mere delay in completion of academic session is not a ground to deny the opportunity to prosecute D.El.Ed course.
2.5 He would submit that Government ought to have invoked provision in Section 92 of the Education Act.
2.6 It shall be the endeavor of the State not to give break in the academic session and to preserve the academic session to the extent possible. While commencing the academic session now, the State can also simultaneously initiate measures to regulate academic session for the next academic year.
2.7. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on following decisions.
"Kusheshwar Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar and others (2007) 11 SCC 447 : 2015 (1) ALT 17.1 (DN SC), Varun Saini and others v. Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha (2014)16 SCC 330, Bharathidasan University and another v. All-India Council for Technical Education and others (2001) 8 SCC 676, Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2013) 2 SCC 617 : 2013 (3) ALT 25.1 (DN SC), Joseph Sriharsha Mary Indraja Educational Society, Hyderabad an
