JUDGMENT & ORDER :

Sandeep Mehta, J.

Through this intra-court writ appeal, the appellant/writ petitioner seeks to assail the order dated 05.04.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing Writ Petition (C) No. 3214/2019 filed by him seeking declaration to the effect (i) that the B.Ed. degrees of the respondent nos. 6, 7 and 8 be held to be invalid as they did not procure such B.Ed. degrees from an institution having approval/recognition from the National Council for Teacher’s Education (hereinafter referred to as “NCTE”), (ii) to set aside and quash the selection of the respondent no. 6 on the post of Principal of the Desha Bhakta Tarun Ram Phukan Higher Secondary School, Silchar and (iii) to direct the respondent authorities to select and appoint the petitioner as Principal of the said school.

2. Learned counsel Mr. I.H. Saikia, representing the appellant vehemently and fervently contended that the admitted position, as portrayed from the record, is that the institution named Silchar College of Education, from which the respondent no. 6 obtained B.Ed. degree was not having requisite NCTE recognition/approval for the academic session 1997-1998. However, provisional recognition was granted to the said institution for the session 1998-1999. Hence the B.Ed. degree of the respondent no. 6 is invalid. Likewise, challenge is laid to the B.Ed. degrees obtained by the respondent nos. 7 and 8 on the very same ground that the institution from which such B.Ed. degrees were granted was not having NCTE recognition and B.Ed. degrees of these respondents were invalid and would not qualify them for the post of Principal of Higher Secondary School. Mr. Saikia, learned counsel submitted that the appellant herein stood just below in merit after the respondent nos. 6, 7 and 8 in the selection process held pursuant to the advertisement dated 16.06.2016 inviting applications for filling up the post of Principal of the Desha Bhakta Tarun Ram Phukan Higher Secondary School, Silchar. Since the B.Ed. degree held by the respondent nos. 6, 7 and 8 were not valid, even though they stood higher in merit, none of them could have been selected and appointed as Principal. Mr. Saikia placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., reported in (2022) 5 SCC 179 and urged that by the said judgment, the controversy that all the educational institutions are bound by the UGC Regulations has been laid to rest. It was thus contended that as the respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8 did not acquire their B.Ed. degrees from an institution recognised by the NCTE, they were not qualified to hold the post of Principal and their selection against such post is liable to be struck down.

3. Per contra, Ms. N. Saikia, learned counsel representing respondent no. 6 vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellant’s counsel. It was contended that the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as “NCTE Act”) came into force in the year 1995. The procedure for seeking recognition under the NCTE Act is provided in Section 14, which stipulates that every institution offering or intending to offer a course or training in teacher education on or after the appointed day, shall make an application for recognition to the Regional Committee concerned in such form and in such manner as may be determined by regulations. The proviso to Section 14 stipulates that the institution offering a course or training in teacher education immediately before the appointed day, shall be entitled to continue such course or training for a period of six months, if it has made an application for recognition within the said period and until the disposal of the application by the Regional Committee. It was further submitted that the Nation Council for Teacher Education Rules, 1997 were notified on 03.12.1997. The procedure for filing application for recognition to the Regional Committee