‘Played With Student’s Career’: P&H High Court Demands Accountability From Haryana Over Unapproved B.Ed. Program

Chandigarh, India – The Punjab and Haryana High Court has issued a scathing indictment of the Haryana Government for its "dereliction of duty" in admitting hundreds of students to a four-year integrated B.A./B.Ed. program without the mandatory prior approval from the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE). In a significant order that underscores the principles of administrative accountability and the protection of student rights, the Court has initiated a process to pinpoint responsibility and ensure compensation for the affected students whose academic and professional futures have been cast into uncertainty.

A division bench comprising Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor, hearing a series of petitions led by KAPIL NATH AND OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS , expressed grave concern over the state's actions. The Court observed that the government had recklessly proceeded with admissions at two newly established State Institutes of Advanced Studies in Teacher Education (SIASTE) in Kurukshetra and Gurugram, despite lacking the essential statutory clearance.

“We find it to be a prima facie case of dereliction of duty on the part of the responsible Officers of the State of Haryana, who have allowed an unauthorized degree course to commence and have also played with the career of hundreds of students,” the bench stated unequivocally in its order.

The Court's strong rebuke signals a potential turning point for students caught in a bureaucratic quagmire, transforming their individual grievances into a broader legal examination of governmental responsibility in the education sector.

The Core of the Controversy: A Failure of Due Process

The legal dispute centers on the Haryana Government's decision to launch the four-year integrated teacher education program and admit students without securing formal recognition from the NCTE, the statutory body responsible for regulating teacher education in India. The court proceedings revealed that the State's initial application to the NCTE, submitted on July 11, 2020, was woefully inadequate.

Counsel for the Union Government characterized the submission as “hardly an application,” noting that it lacked crucial institutional details and was based on a mere promise to furnish the required information at a later date. This procedural shortcut proved fatal. The NCTE, adhering to its statutory mandate, could not process an incomplete application.

Despite this fundamental deficiency and the absence of any green light from the regulatory authority, the State of Haryana proceeded with the admission process, enrolling a significant number of students into the unapproved courses at both the Kurukshetra and Gurugram institutes. This decision has now left the academic qualifications and career prospects of these students in serious jeopardy.

The bench found, "It transpires that even without securing due permission from NCTE, the State of Haryana has proceeded to admit students at the two new institutions... The subsequent applications of the State have not been accorded consideration as according to NCTE there is no provision for grant of permission with retrospective effect, when such courses started." This finding by the court effectively closes the door on a simple, retroactive solution, escalating the need for a more complex and just resolution for the students.

Legal Implications and the Court's Directive

The High Court's order moves beyond mere criticism, setting in motion a formal process of accountability. The bench has directed the Chief Secretary of the Government of Haryana to conduct a thorough inquiry into the matter. This is not a routine administrative review; the Court has demanded a "personal affidavit" from the Chief Secretary, which must explicitly identify the officials responsible for "creating this unpleased situation."

This directive invokes principles of administrative and constitutional law, where the judiciary holds the executive accountable for its actions, particularly when they infringe upon the fundamental rights of citizens—in this case, the right to education and a livelihood, which are intrinsically linked to a valid degree.

Furthermore, the Court has placed the onus squarely on the state to devise a solution. The Chief Secretary’s affidavit must also detail the government's proposed course of action. "The Chief Secretary will also disclose as to how the State proposes to deal with the guilty Officers and compensate these students," the Court mandated.

This two-pronged directive—identifying the culpable and compensating the victims—highlights the Court's intent to ensure that the consequences of this administrative failure are not borne by the innocent students. The demand for a compensation plan acknowledges the tangible and intangible damages suffered by the students, including lost time, financial expenditure, and the immense mental anguish caused by the uncertainty of their future.

The Road Ahead: Compensation, Accountability, and Precedent

The case, now listed for November 20, will be closely watched by the legal community, particularly practitioners in education and administrative law. The High Court's final determination could set a powerful precedent for how such cases of institutional and governmental negligence are handled across the country.

Key legal questions remain to be addressed: 1. Nature of Compensation: What form will compensation take? Will it be purely monetary, or will it include alternative academic arrangements, such as lateral entry into other recognized programs, to salvage the students' academic years? 2. Scope of Accountability: How far up the chain of command will the inquiry go? Will it be limited to mid-level functionaries, or will senior officials who oversaw the policy decision be held responsible? 3. Systemic Reforms: Will the Court's intervention prompt the Haryana Government and other state bodies to implement more robust checks and balances to prevent the recurrence of such lapses?

The Court’s stern approach suggests a refusal to accept bureaucratic inertia or finger-pointing as an excuse. By demanding a clear roadmap for both punitive action against officials and restorative justice for students, the Punjab and Haryana High Court is reinforcing the fundamental legal principle that the state, in its role as a provider and regulator of education, holds a non-negotiable duty of care towards its students.