PUSHPA KUMARI Vs STATE OF BIHAR .
Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN,A.K. PATNAIK
Case number: C.A. No.-008521-008522 / 2011
Diary number: 17621 / 2009
Advocates: C. D. SINGH Vs
GOPAL SINGH
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 8521-8522 OF 2011 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) NOs.14744-14745 OF 2009)
Pushpa Kumari & Ors. …… Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar & Ors. …… Respondents
J U D G M E N T
A. K. PATNAIK, J.
Leave granted.
2. This is an appeal against the order dated
12.11.2008 of the Division Bench of the Patna High
Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 796 of 2007 and
order dated 06.02.2009 in Civil Review No. 289 of
2008.
3. The facts very briefly are that Millia Kaneez
Fatima Women’s Primary Teachers Training College,
Rambag, Purnea (for short ‘the College’) is a minority
institution established and maintained by the Millia
Education Trust. Though the College was established
in 1985 for imparting teachers training course, after
seven rounds of litigation it was granted recognition
by order dated 15.12.1994 by the State Government
with retrospective effect for the sessions 1985-1987 to
1993-1995 pursuant to the directions of the High
Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1304 of 1993. Appellant Nos. 1,
2, 3 and 4 pursued their training in the College during
the sessions 1988-1990, 1991-1993, 1992-1994 and
1993-1995 respectively. In response to an
advertisement dated 26.05.2007 of the Bihar School
Examination Board (for short ‘the Board’) the
appellants approached the Board through the College
for examination forms, but the Board did not issue
the examination forms.
4. The appellants then filed C.W.J.C. No. 7321 of
2007 before the Patna High Court for a direction to
the Board to release the forms and accept the fees and
forms of the appellants for the teachers training
2
examination and to allow them to appear in the
examination. Alongwith the Writ Petition, the
appellants also filed an application for interim orders
and on 13.06.2007, the learned Single Judge of the
High Court passed an interim order directing the
Board to accept the fees and forms of the appellants
and allow them to appear in the ensuing teachers
training examination. The Board, however, did not
comply with the interim order. On 24.08.2007, the
learned Single Judge heard the Writ Petition alongwith
other Writ Petitions on merits and dismissed the Writ
Petitions by common order, after holding that under
the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993
(for short ‘the NCTE Act’), it is only the National
Council for Teacher Education (for short ‘the NCTE’)
which can grant recognition for teachers training
course and the College had not applied for recognition
to the NCTE. Aggrieved by the order dated
24.08.2007 the appellants filed Letters Patent Appeal
No. 796 of 2007, but the same was also dismissed by
the Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned
3
order dated 12.11.2008. The appellants then filed
Civil Review No. 289 of 2008 before the Division
Bench, but the same was also dismissed by order
dated 06.02.2009 of the Division Bench of the High
Court.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted
that the College of the appellants was granted
recognition by the State Government by order dated
15.12.1994 for the academic sessions 1985-1987 to
1993-1995. He submitted that this recognition was
cancelled by memo no. 332 dated 18.11.1999, but the
High Court quashed the memo no. 332 dated
18.11.1999 in C.W.J.C. Nos. 4622, 11275 and 11640
of 2009 and against the orders passed in these Writ
Petitions no appeal was preferred by any party and all
this would be evident from the copy of the order dated
03.07.2009 of the High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2329 of
2009 filed as an additional document. He submitted
that the result is that the recognition of the College
granted by the State Government by order dated
4
15.12.1994 for the sessions 1985-1987 to 1993-1995
has been restored. He submitted that as the
appellants had pursued their training in the College
during the period for which the College had
recognition, they were entitled to take the teachers
training examination conducted by the Board. He
vehemently argued that the High Court was not
correct in taking the view that since the College had
not applied for recognition under the NCTE Act, the
appellants could not be allowed to take the
examinations conducted by the Board because the
NCTE Act came into force with effect from 01.07.1995
and the NCTE was established only on 17.08.1995
after the appellants had undertaken their training
courses in the College. He relied on the decisions of
this Court in Sunil Kumar Parimal and Another v. State
of Bihar and Others [(2007) 10 SCC 150] and Kumari
Ranjana Mishra and Another v. The State of Bihar and
Others[(2011) 4 SCC 192] in support of his
submissions.
5
6. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the
other hand, relied on the order dated 08.03.1999 of
the High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 6950 of 1997 in which
a similar relief claimed by the College itself for the
students for the sessions 1987-1990 to 1993-1995 for
directing the Board to allow them to take
examinations has been rejected by the High Court. He
submitted that the aforesaid decision of the High
Court was binding also on the appellants.
7. We are of the considered opinion that as the
appellants were not parties in C.W.J.C. No. 6950 of
1997, the order dated 08.03.1999 of the High Court in
the said Writ Petition will not be binding on the
appellants. The appellants had filed C.W.J.C. No.
7321 of 2007 and we have perused the orders of the
learned Single Judge passed in C.W.J.C. No. 7321 of
2007 and other connected cases and we find that the
only reason given by the learned Single Judge in
dismissing the Writ Petition of the appellants is that
the College had not applied for grant of recognition
6
under the NCTE Act. We also find that the Division
Bench of the High Court has dismissed the Letters
Patent Appeal of the appellants on the ground that the
recognition which had been granted to the College had
been withdrawn on 16.03.2007. Thus, neither the
learned Single Judge nor the Division Bench of the
High Court have held that the recognition granted to
the College by the order dated 15.12.1994 for the
academic sessions 1985-1987 to 1993- 1995 was
invalid or stood cancelled. As the NCTE Act came into
force on 01.07.1995 and the NCTE was established on
17.08.1995, this Court has held in Sunil Kumar
Parimal and Another v. State of Bihar and Others and
Kumari Ranjana Mishra and Another v. The State of
Bihar and Others (supra) that the NCTE Act will have
no application for any period prior to academic
sessions 1995-1996. Thus the appellants who have
undertaken the teachers training course in the College
which had a valid recognition of the State Government
during the academic sessions 1985-1987 to 1993-1995
7
were entitled to take the examinations conducted by
the Board.
8. We accordingly allow these appeals, set aside the
order of the learned Single Judge as well as the orders
of the Division Bench in the Letters Patent Appeal and
in the Civil Review and direct the Board to conduct
the examination for the appellants as early as
possible. There shall be no order as to costs.
.……………………….J. (R. V. Raveendran)
………………………..J. (A. K. Patnaik) New Delhi, October 11, 2011.
8