IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
S.K. Gangele, Ashok Kumar Joshi, JJ.
Ram Kishore Yadav – Appellant
Vs.
M.P. Board of Secondary Education – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 5478 of 2016
Decided On : 28-06-2016
D.El.Ed. Examination - Entitlement to Third Chance - National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 - Regulations of 2009 and 2014 - [Regulation 3, Regulation 8(12), Regulation 11, Appendix (ii) Clause 2.1] - The court considered the applicability of NCTE regulations of 2009 and 2014 in relation to the entitlement of petitioners to clear the D.El.Ed. examination in a third chance. The court held that the affiliating body had the power to regulate the procedure of examination, including the chances to clear the examination, and that the petitioners were not eligible to get a third chance based on the regulations in force at the time of their admission.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, appointed as Gurujis, were required to pass the D.El.Ed. examination as a condition of their service. They were given admission in the D.El.Ed. course and passed the first year examination but failed to clear the second year examination in the second chance. They sought entitlement to appear in the examination for a third chance.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners were not eligible to get a third chance based on the regulations in force at the time of their admission, and that the affiliating body had the power to regulate the procedure of examination, including the chances to clear the examination.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners were entitled to clear the D.El.Ed. examination in a third chance, considering the regulations in force at the time of their admission.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the affiliating body had the power and authority to regulate the procedure of examination, including the chances to clear the examination, and that the petitioners were not eligible to get a third chance based on the regulations in force at the time of their admission.
Final Decision: The petitions were dismissed, and no order as to costs was made.
S.K. Gangele, J.
The question for consideration before this Court in this writ petition and connected writ petitions is that whether petitioners are entitled to clear D.El.Ed. course examination in third chance or not. Facts of W.P. No. 5478/2016 have been taken into consideration for decision of the cases.
2. Initially the petitioners were appointed as Gurujis. Government had taken a decision to appoint Gurujis on the post of Samvida Shala Shikshak Grade III. Petitioners appeared in eligibility test and, thereafter, they were appointed as SSS Grade III. One of the condition of service of Teacher in the State is that he has to pass D.El.Ed. examination. The petitioners were given admission in D.El.Ed. course by the State. As per the petitioners, they passed D.El.Ed. first year examination. It is a two years course. However, they could not clear the second year examination even though in second chance. The petitioners pleaded in the petition that at the relevant time, the respondent No.3/NCTE had not restricted the chances to complete the course of D.El.Ed. Hence, the petitioners are also eligible or entitled to appear in the examination of D.El.Ed. course in third chance. The NCTE/respondent No.3 in its reply pleaded that earlier, as per NCTE regulations of 2009, there was no provision for fixing maximum period for completing D.El.Ed. course. The respondent No.1/Board of Secondary Education in absence of NCTE regulations 2009 had taken independent decision to regulate the chances of examination. As per the circular dated 26.02.2010 issued by the Board, there was no period to clear the course.
3. The Executive Committee of the Board on 17.12.2012 amended its own circular by holding that two years course is required to be cleared in two consecutive chances. In accordance with the NCTE Regulations, 2013, the period of completion of D.El.Ed. course has been fixed as two years. However, the student can clear the course in an extended period of another one year i.e. three years. It is pleaded that the petitioners were not eligible to get third chance because at the time of enrolment of the petitioners, to complete the D.El.Ed. course, the circular of the Board dated 17.12.2012 was enforce.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the Board has submitted that the Board has adopted the return of NCTE/respondent No.3.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Board had no power and authority to limit chances of clearing D.El.Ed. examination. Prior to 2014, there was no limit prescribed by the NCTE to complete the course. The petitioners were admitted in D.El.Ed. course prior to 2014, hence, they are eligible to clear the course in third chance. Counsel for the NCTE has submitted that in absence of the regulations framed by the NCTE, the Board which is the affiliating authority, has power to regulate the procedure of examination and the Board had taken a decision to limit the chances of clearing D.El.Ed. examination upto two years. The petitioners are not eligible to clear the examination in third chance.
6. Same arguments have been advanced by the learned counsel for the Board.
7. The NCTE-respondent No. 3 is authorised to control norms, standards and procedure for recognition of institutions and commencing of new programmes in regard to teacher education programme. Regulations have been framed in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section 2 of Section 32 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 by the Union of India named as National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms & Procedure) Regulations, 2009. Regulation 3 prescribes applicability, which reads as under:
"3. Applicability. - These Regulations shall be applicable to all matters relating to teacher education programmes covering norms and standards and procedures for recognition to institutions, commencement of new programmes and addition to sanctioned intake in existing programmes and other matter incidental thereto."
8. Sub-regulation (12) o
State of Maharashtra Vs. Sant Dhyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.