Back
2022 Supreme(All) 1974
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J.
Anju and others – Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. and others - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12803 of 2022
Decided on : 09-12-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Gautam Baghel
For the Respondent: C.S.C., Bharat Pratap Singh and Gagan Mehta
IMPORTANT POINT
The qualifications prescribed by the N.C.T.E. under the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993, take precedence over those set by the U.G.C.
Headnote:
Regulation - Assistant Professor - National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993; U.G.C. Regulations - The court emphasized that the qualifications prescribed by the N.C.T.E. under the Special Act prevail over the U.G.C. General Regulations, leading to the quashing of the impugned advertisement for being contrary to mandatory qualifications.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged an advertisement for Assistant Professor positions, arguing that the qualifications set by the N.C.T.E. under the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993, should prevail over those set by the U.G.C.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the N.C.T.E. has exclusive jurisdiction to prescribe qualifications for teaching faculty in B.Ed. courses, and the qualifications in the advertisement were lesser than those mandated by the N.C.T.E.
Issues: Whether the qualifications prescribed by the N.C.T.E. under the Special Act prevail over the U.G.C. General Regulations in the context of the advertisement for Assistant Professor positions.
Ratio Decidendi: The N.C.T.E. has exclusive authority to set qualifications for teacher education, and its regulations take precedence over the U.G.C. regulations, which are general in nature.
Result: The impugned advertisement was quashed for being contrary to the N.C.T.E. qualifications, and a fresh advertisement must be issued.
JUDGMENT :
Saumitra Dayal Singh, J.
Heard Shri Gautam Baghel, learned counsel for the petitioner; Shri Bharat Pratap Singh, learned counsel for respondent National Council for Teacher Education and; Shri Gagan Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent Commission.
2. Present petition has been filed by the three petitioners to challenge the Advertisement No. 51 issued by U.P. Higher Education Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Service Commission) insofar as it relates to selection on the post of Assistant Professor (B.Ed.). Short submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is, by virtue of enactment of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the Special Act) and also by virtue of Regulation 5.2 (B) and (C) of the Notification dated 28.11.2014 (hereinafter referred to as the Special Regulation), National Council for Teacher Education (hereinafter referred to as the N.C.T.E.), the qualification required by teaching faculty for B.Ed. course, as prescribed by the N.C.T.E. would prevail. Regulation 5.2 of the Special Regulation (in that regard) read as below:
''5.2 Qualifications
B. Perspectives in Education or Foundation Courses
(i) Postgraduate degree in Social Sciences with minimum 55% marks; and
(ii) M.Ed. degree from a recognised university with minimum 55% marks.
OR
(i) Postgraduate (MA) degree in Education with minimum 55% marks; and
(ii) B.Ed./B.El.Ed. degree with minimum 55% marks.
C. Curriculum and Pedagogic Courses
(i) Postgraduate degree in Sciences/Mathematics/Social Sciences/Languages with minimum 55% marks, and
(ii) M.Ed. degree with minimum 55% marks.
Desirable: PhD degree in Education with subject specialisations.''
3. In face of the Special Law having been enacted and enforced, it has been submitted, the general Regulations framed by the University Grants Commission (hereinafter referred to as the U.G.C.) under Clause 1.1 of the U.G.C. Regulations On Minimum Qualifications For Appointment Of Teachers And Other Academic Staff In Universities And Colleges And Measures For The Maintenance Of Standards In Higher Education, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as the General Regulations), as notified on 18.7.2018, would remain subservient to the Special Regulation. Here, reliance has also been placed on Clause 1.1 of the General Regulations. It reads as below:
''For the purposes of direct recruitment to teaching posts in disciplines relating to university and collegiate education, inter alia in the fields of health, medicine, special education, agriculture, veterinary and allied fields, technical education, teacher education, norms or standards laid down by authorities established by the relevant Act of Parliament under article 246 of the Constitution for the purpose of co-ordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions, shall prevail.''
4. To bolster the aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2013) 2 SCC 617.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent N.C.T.E. would also assert, Special Regulations framed by it would prevail over the General Regulations that may have been framed by the U.G.C.
6. Faced with the above situation, learned counsel for the Commission would submit, it is not an expert to determine the qualification to be prescribed. Relying on the decision of a co-ordinate bench decision of this Court in Manish Kumar Sonkar v. State of U.P. and others (Writ - A No. 21220 of 2018 decided on 26.11.2018), it has been submitted, that function may be performed either by the U.G.C. or the State Government. Inasmuch as the U.G.C. has prescribed the eligibility qualification and the Commission has applied the same, there is no defect in the Advertisement.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, in the first place, learned counsel for
