The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of maintaining high standards in teacher education and the validity of amendments to regulations to ensure the quality of teachers.

Shri. R.S. Jha, J.

The petitioner has filed this petition challenging order dated 17-12-2012, issued by the respondent/Board, whereby the Board has taken a decision in its Executive Committee meeting held on 17-12-2012 to amend its previous instructions/regulation dated 26-02-2010 regarding admissions to the course of Diploma in Education.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that by the aforesaid orders dated 17-12-2012 the Board has informed that the Executive Committee in its meeting dated 17-12-2012 has amended regulation/instruction Nos. 6 and 9 contained in the previous order dated 26-02-2010 relating to the course of Diploma in Education and has provided that the students of D.Ed. first year course can avail only two continuous chances (main and supplementary examination) to clear the first year course and that in case a student fails to clear the first year or second year examination of the D.Ed. Course in spite of availing two continuous chances, he would have to take re-admission in the D.Ed. Course and pursue the same.

3. Learned counsel submits that the aforesaid amendment made in instructions No. 6 and 9 by the impugned order dated 17-12-2012 is discriminatory and unconstitutional inasmuch as it violates the fundamental rights enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India as it permits the students who have taken admission in D.Ed. Course prior to 17-12- 2012 to avail unlimited chances to clear the first and second year course whereas it restricts the number of attempts available to only two continuous chances in respect of students who have taken admission to D.Ed. Course after 17-12-2012.

4. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the stipulation in the order that in case the student fails to clear or pass the first year or second year course in spite of availing two attempts, he would have to take readmission in the D.Ed. Course and pursue the same afresh.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order results in creating two category of D.Ed. students, the first are those who have taken admission prior to 17-12-2012 and the second are those who have taken admission after 17-12-2012 and discriminates between the two set of students by giving unlimited chances to clear the course to the first category of students while restricting the second category of students to clear the course in two continuous attempts only.

6. The respondent Board has filed a return and has submitted that the issue regarding restricting the chances to clear the first and second year D.Ed course in two chances by amendment in the Rules/Regulation dated 17.12.2012 is no longer res integra as the same has already been affirmed and upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in Ram Kishore Yadav and others v. M.P. Board of Secondary Education and others, (W.P No. 5478/2016 and connected matters) decided on 28.06.2016. It is submitted that in such circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner challenging order dated 17.12.2012 which has already been upheld and affirmed by this Court, is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed.

7. It is submitted that the petitioner had taken admission in the D.Ed. course in the year 2014 and after passing the first year she had appeared in the second year examination in July-August 2015 wherein she was declared failed. It is submitted that the petitioner was thereafter granted the second chance to clear the second year examination by appearing in the Supplementary examination that was held in December 2015 but has again been declared failed. The respondents have submitted that as the petitioner has exhausted her two chances to pass the second year course, no further chance is available to her and the only course open to the petitioner is to take fresh admission in the D.El.Ed course, if she so desires.

8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. From a perusal of the record it is clear that the contention of the resp