Reserved Judgment HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 629 of 2025 (M/S)

Inspiration College of Teachers Education and Others ….....Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand and Others ….….Respondents With Writ Petition No. 704 of 2025 (M/S)

PITS B ED College Manpur Uttarkashi and Others ….....Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand and Others ….….Respondents With Writ Petition No. 705 of 2025 (M/S)

PDG College of Education and Others ….....Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand and Others ….….Respondents Present:-

Mr. D.S. Patni, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Dharmendra Barthwal, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. M.S. Bisht, Brief Holder for the State.

Mr. Yogesh Kumar Pacholia, Advocate for the respondent no.3/NCTE.

Mr. Tushar Upadhyay, Advocate for the University.

Ms. Mamta Bisht, Advocate for the respondent no.4.

Mr. C.S. Rawat, Advocate for the Soban Singh Jeena University.

JUDGMENT

Per: Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J.

Since common question of law is involved in all these petitions, they are heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

2. The challenge in these petitions is made to the order dated 17.02.2025, by which the request made by the petitioners to invite applications for admission in B.Ed. course, as per the Proviso of Section 10 of the Uttarakhand Unaided Private Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fee)

Act, 2006 (“the 2006 Act”), has been declined.

3. The petitioners are self financed B.Ed colleges. For the year 2024-25, respondent no.2/Sri Dev Suman Uttarakhand Vishwavidhyalay, Badshahithaul, Tehri Garhwal (“the Vishwavidhyalay”) had conducted Uttarakhand State Combined B.Ed entrance test for filling the seats of B.Ed course of all the State Universities of Uttarakhand; there are total 7,500 B.Ed seats in the State of Uttarakhand; about 6,500 candidates appeared in the test, and out of it, the Vishwavidhyalay declared only 5,600 candidates successful. As many as 1,900 seats of B.Ed course in the State of Uttarakhand remained vacant. The petitioners-colleges could not fill up all the seats allotted to them for B.Ed course.

4. According to the petitioners, Section 10 of the 2006 Act provides for allocation of unfilled seats and according to it, if the seat or seats of a private institution remained unfilled, even after entrance test, due to unavailable candidates, the same shall be filled from the candidates of same category based on merit of qualifying examination by inviting applications again. The petitioners made representation for filling up of the unfilled seats in their respective colleges for B.Ed course. They did not receive any response. Thereafter, writ petitions were filed in the Court seeking mandamus by directing the respondents to forthwith permit the petitioners to admit students as per the candidates’ merit in the qualifying examination after inviting applications from the desirable candidates seeking B.Ed admissions. Finally, by the impugned order, the representations of the petitioners have been rejected.

5. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent no.1/the State (“the State”) has wrongly observed that the petitioners were trying to provide eligibility for admission to ineligible candidates, i.e. candidates with lower merit than the category-wise cut-off marks in the State Joint Entrance Examination which was allegedly inappropriate and impractical in view of maintaining the quality of Higher Education in professional courses.

6. According to the petitioners, they had prayed in their representations to invite fresh applications, as per proviso to Section 10 of the 2006 Act, and not to provide eligibility for admission to ineligible candidates. There was no question of compromising with merits. Reference has been made to the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) Regulations, 2014 (“NCTE Regulations 2014”).

7. The State has filed counter affidavit in WPMS No.704 of 2025 and WPMS No.705 of 2025. The Vishwavidhyalay