RANJANA MISHRA Vs STATE OF BIHAR .
Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN,A.K. PATNAIK, , ,
Case number: C.A. No.-002416-002416 / 2011
Diary number: 24299 / 2008
Advocates: SHEKHAR KUMAR Vs
GOPAL SINGH
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No. 2416 OF 2011 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 29392 of 2008)
Kumari Ranjana Mishra & Anr. …… 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 23.05.2008
of the Division Bench of the High Court of Patna in Letters
Patent Appeal No.972 of 2007.
3. The facts very briefly are that the Government of Bihar
in the Department of Human Resource Development
granted temporary recognition to the Champaran Physical
Training College (for short ‘the College’) for C.P.Ed.
(Certificate of Physical Education) and D.P. Ed. (Diploma in
Physical Education) courses from July, 1986 alongwith
permission to the students of the College to appear in the
examinations subject to certain conditions stipulated in the
order dated 09.08.1988. The two appellants took admission
in the C.P.Ed. course in the College in the academic session
1989-1990. Several other students also took admission in
the C.P.Ed. course in the College in different academic years
1989-1990 to 1995-1996. With effect from 01.07.1995, the
National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (for short
‘the NCTE Act’) came into force and under Section 14 of the
NCTE Act, the power to grant recognition was vested in the
Regional Committee of the National Council for Teacher
Education (NCTE) with effect from 17.08.1995. On
13.04.2004, the State revoked the recognition of the College
and all other Non-Government Physical Training Colleges in
the State. The two appellants and five other candidates,
who had undergone the C.P.Ed. course in the College during
the academic years 1989-1990 to 1995-1996, moved the
High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in
C.W.J.C. No. 11413 of 2007 for a direction to the Bihar
School Examination Board to release the form and accept
2
the fees and forms of the appellants and the five other
candidates on the basis of the training courses completed in
the academic sessions 1989-1990 to 1995-1996 from the
College and to allow them to appear in the examination to
be conducted in 2007. By order dated 07.11.2007, a
learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the Writ
Petition. The two appellants and the five other candidates
then filed Letters Patent Appeal No. 972 of 2007 before the
Division Bench of the High Court. By the impugned order
dated 23.05.2008, the Division Bench of the High Court
dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal. Aggrieved, the
appellants have filed this appeal.
4. Mr. Sunil Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for
the appellants, submitted that before the Division Bench of
the High Court, the appellants contended that the College
was recognized by the State Government during the years
1989-1990 to 1995-1996 when the appellants and five other
candidates undertook the C.P.Ed. course and that the
Regional Committee of NCTE was vested with the power to
grant recognition only after the NCTE Act came into force on
01.07.1995 and, therefore, the Bihar School Examination
3
Board should be directed to allow the appellants to take the
C.P.Ed. examination. He submitted that before the High
Court the appellants relied on the decision in Sunil Kumar
Parimal & Anr. v. State of Bihar & Ors. [(2007) 10 SCC 150]
in which this Court has held that the Tirhut Physical
Education College, Muzaffarpur, was duly recognized by the
State Government and lost its recognition only with effect
from the date the NCTE Act came into force, and hence the
candidates, who had undertaken the course in the aforesaid
College recognized by the State Government before the
NCTE Act came into force, were eligible to appear in the
examination of C.P.Ed. course. He submitted that the High
Court did not accept the contention of the appellants and
instead held that Tirhut Physical Education College,
Muzaffarpur, was a recognized institution and despite
repeated requests of the State to allow the students to
appear in the examination, the Bihar School Examination
Board did not follow the request of the State Government,
but in the facts of the present case no such request had
been made by the State Government and no direction was
issued by the State Government to the Bihar School
4
Examination Board to allow the students of the College to
take the C.P. Ed. examination. He submitted that the High
Court further held that the order passed by this Court in
Sunil Kumar Parimal’s case was in exercise of this Court’s
jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution to do
complete justice between the parties and the High Court
had no such power to do complete justice under Article 226
of the Constitution. Mr. Sunil Kumar further submitted
that the High Court also held that after the NCTE Act had
come into force the College had also not applied for
recognition and in fact the recognition of the College had
been cancelled in the year 2004 and that it was only after
the College was derecognized that the appellants sought to
appear in the examination to be conducted by the Bihar
School Examination Board in the year 2007, to which the
appellants were not entitled. He argued that the case of the
appellants is squarely covered by the decision of this Court
in Sunil Kumar Parimal’s case (supra) and this Court should
direct the Bihar School Examination Board to allow the
appellants to take the C.P.Ed. examination. Learned
counsel for the respondents nos. 8 and 9, namely, the
5
Secretary and the Principal of the College, adopted the
aforesaid arguments of Mr. Sunil Kumar.
5. In reply, Mr. Gopal Singh, learned counsel appearing
for respondent Nos. 1 to 5, namely, the State of Bihar and
the Bihar School Examination Board and their officers,
submitted that the Bihar School Examination Board has
conducted examinations on several occasions during the
years 1989-90 onwards, but the appellants did not make
any request to sit in the examination in all the years till
2007 and it is only after the State Government started
recruitment of teachers in large numbers and appointed
Panchayat Teachers that the appellants were anxious to
take a chance in the examination. He further submitted
that the recognition of the College in which the appellants
had studied was in fact withdrawn by the State Government
in 2004, and after the NCTE Act came into force, the College
had not been granted recognition by the Regional
Committee of the NCTE. He submitted that Section 16 of
the NCTE Act is very clear that no examining body shall
hold examination for a course or training conducted by a
recognized institution unless the institution concerned has
6
obtained recognition from the Regional Committee of the
NCTE under Section 14 or permission for a course or
training under Section 15 of the NCTE Act. He argued that
since the College had not obtained recognition of the
Regional Committee of the NCTE under Section 14 or
permission for the course or training under Section 15 of
the NCTE Act, the Bihar School Examination Board was
clearly prohibited under Section 16 of the NCTE Act from
holding the examination for the appellants. Mr. Gopal
Singh submitted that considering the judicial
pronouncements in L. Muthukumar & Anr. v. State of T. N. &
Ors. [(2000) 7 SCC 618], St. John’s Teachers Training
Institute (for Women), Madurai & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu
& Ors. [(1993) 3 SCC 595], State of Maharashtra v. Vikas
Sahebrao Roundale & Ors. [(1992) 4 SCC 435] and N. M.
Nageshwaramma, etc. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.,
etc. [1986 (Supp.) SCC 166] the appellants are not entitled
to take the examination after derecognition of the College.
He also cited a recent decision of this Court in Bhagwan
Budha Prathmik Technical Training College Nirmali v. The
State of Bihar & Ors. [2010 (12) SCALE 364] in which it has
7
been held that after the NCTE Act came into force in July,
1995 the State Government had no authority to issue the
order dated 16.03.2007 granting recognition to an
institution for the period 1987-1995.
6. We have considered the submissions of the learned
counsel for the parties and we find from the record of this
case that the College was established after permission was
granted by the State Government to open the College and
the College started C.P.Ed. and D.P. Ed. courses from July
1986. Thereafter, a spot inspection of the College was
carried out pursuant to the orders of the State Government
in the Department of Youth Affairs, Games and Culture, and
the Inspection Committee comprising the Director-cum-
Deputy Secretary, Student and Youth Welfare, Deputy
Director, Youth Welfare-Bihar and Principal, Government-
cum-Teaching College, Patna, submitted a report dated
04.12.1987 stating that the College had a building over 10
acres 30 decimals of land, seven Lecturers, two Instructors,
one Library and other non-teaching staff and all the
Teachers were eligible and experienced and that the College
was running properly. On the basis of the said report dated
8
04.12.1987, the Government of Bihar in the Department of
Human Resource Development by order dated 09.08.1988
granted temporary recognition to the College from July 1986
for the C.P.Ed. and D.P.Ed. courses till further orders “along
with permission to the students to appear in the
examination”.
7. Rule 7 of the Bihar School Examination Board Rules,
1963 which has been referred to in paragraph 6 of the reply
of the Bihar School Examination Board reads as follows:
“7. Departmental Examinations to be conducted by the Board: (1) The Board shall on, such terms and conditions as may be laid down by the State Government, conduct the following departmental Examinations, namely:--
(a) Certificate in Social Education;
(b) Diploma in Physical Education;
(c) Certificate in Physical Education;
(d) Short Training Course in Physical Education;
(e) Primary Training Course in Physical Education; and
(f) Training School Examinations:
Provided that the State Government may, by notification in the official gazette, authorize the Board to conduct such other departmental examinations not specified or withdraw the
9
authority given to the Board to conduct any of the examinations mentioned, in this sub-rule.
(2) The State Government may give instructions to the Board about the content as well as the academic and vocational standards of these examinations, and may modify these instructions, as and when necessary.”
The word “shall” in sub-rule (1) of the Rule 7 indicates that
a duty is cast duty on the Bihar School Examination Board
to conduct the Certificate in Physical Education (C.P.Ed.)
examinations on such terms and conditions as may be laid
down by the State Government. In the order dated
09.08.1988 of the State Government granting recognition to
the College, there were ten conditions and condition no.6
was to the following effect:-
“Students will be compulsorily required to perform successfully as per the standard of one star, in the test conducted by Government Health and Physical Training College, Rajendranagar, Patna, before appearing in the examination conducted by the Bihar School Examination Board.”
It is thus clear from the terms and conditions of the order
dated 09.08.1988 of the State Government granting
recognition that the students of the College were to appear
in the C.P.Ed. and D.P.Ed. examinations conducted by the
10
Bihar School Examination Board. Hence, the Bihar School
Examination Board was under a duty to hold the C.P.Ed.
and D.P.Ed. examinations for the students of the college
and this duty could be enforced by the Court by an
appropriate writ or direction by the High Court under Article
226 of the Constitution. The High Court was not right in
taking the view in the impugned order that without a
direction of the State Government to the Bihar School
Examination Board to allow the appellants to take the
examinations, no relief could be granted by the High Court
to the appellants.
8. The High Court was also not right in distinguishing the
present case from the case of Sunil Kumar Parimal (supra).
In the case of Sunil Kumar Parimal (supra), this Court had
found that the Tirhut Physical Education College,
Muzaffarpur, had been granted permission to enroll the
students in C.P.Ed. and D.P. Ed. courses for the Sessions
1994-1995 to 1995-1996 and was duly recognized by the
State Government and this Court held that the NCTE Act
will be applicable prospectively to those students who have
to undertake the examination after the Act came into force.
11
This Court having found that the aforesaid College was
recognized by the State Government prior to the date when
the NCTE Act came into force and the NCTE came into
existence, directed that the students of the College would be
permitted to appear in the examination for the courses of
C.P.Ed and D.P. Ed. for the Sessions 1994-1995 and 1995-
1996 to be conducted by the Bihar School Examination
Board on the next available opportunity. In our considered
view, the decision of this Court in Sunil Kumar Parimal
(supra) squarely applies to the facts of this case also as the
College was duly recognized by the State Government
during the year 1989-1990 when the appellants were
admitted to the C.P.Ed. course and when the NCTE Act had
neither been enacted nor come into force.
9. The decision of this Court in Bhagwan Budha
Prathmik Technical Training College Nirmali v. The State of
Bihar & Ors. (supra), cited by learned counsel for
respondent nos.1 to 5, is not applicable to the facts of the
present case. In that case, after the appointed date
(17.08.1995) when the NCTE had been established under
the NCTE Act, the State Government passed an order dated
12
16.03.2007 granting recognition to the Teachers’ Training
College at Nirmali, District Supaul (Bihar) for 1987-1989
onwards and this Court held that after the appointed date
the State Government cannot exercise the power of
recognition nor can the examining body hold examination of
the students of a teacher training institute unless the
institution was recognized by the Regional Committee of the
NCTE as laid down in Section 16 of the NCTE Act. In the
facts of the present case, on the other hand, we find that the
order of the State Government granting recognition to the
College in which the appellants studied in the year 1989-
1990 was issued on 09.08.1988, several years before the
NCTE Act came into force.
10. In L. Muthukumar & Anr. v. State of T. N. & Ors. (supra)
on which great reliance has been placed by learned counsel
for the respondent nos. 1 to 5, some students had filed writ
petitions contending that they had undergone secondary
grade teachers’ training in different training institutes
between the period 1989 to 1991 and that they had taken
public examination in May 1992, but their results were not
published and certificates were not awarded. The Court
13
found that the institutes, in which they had undergone
training, had recognition but the same was withdrawn
subsequently by virtue of the judgment in P.M. Joseph v.
State of T. N. (1993 Writ LR 604) holding that the orders of
recognition had been granted only on extraneous
considerations. On these facts, this Court held that as the
students had undergone the training in the institutes which
were derecognized by virtue of the judgment in P. M.
Joseph’s case, the prayers of the students for writ of
mandamus for issuing of mark-sheets and/or
diplomas/certificates contrary to the judgment in P.M.
Joseph’s case could not be granted by the High Court. In
the facts of the present case, however, the recognition to the
College that was granted by the State Government for the
years 1989-1990 during which the appellants were admitted
in the course had not been withdrawn on the ground that
the recognition was granted for extraneous considerations.
On the contrary, we find from the record of this case that
until 13.04.2004 the recognition of the College had not been
revoked by the State Government and on 13.04.2004 the
recognition of all non-Government Physical Training
14
Colleges including that of the College in the present case
were revoked presumably because the State Government no
longer had the power to grant recognition and the non-
Government Physical Training Colleges in the State were
required to obtain recognition from the Regional Committee
of the NCTE under the NCTE Act.
11. We have also perused the decisions of this Court in St.
John’s Teachers Training Institute (for Women), Madurai &
Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (supra), State of
Maharashtra v. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale & Ors. (supra) and
N. M. Nageshwaramma, etc. v. State of Andhra Pradesh &
Anr., etc. (supra) cited by learned counsel for respondent
nos.1 to 5 and we find that in these decisions this Court has
held that the students studying in the unrecognized
institutions are not entitled to any relief, interim or final,
from the Court for taking examinations. The main reason
given by this Court for refusing such relief is that standards
of education, sports, administration and maintenance of the
Teachers Training Institutes should not be compromised by
granting such reliefs. These decisions have no relevance to
the facts in the present case in which we find that after
15
inspection of the College the Inspection Committee had
submitted a report stating that the College had the required
facilities and the teaching and other staff and on the basis
of such report the State Government had, in fact, granted
temporary recognition to the College by order dated
09.08.1988 and the appellants were admitted in the College
during the year 1989-1990 when the recognition granted by
the State was in force.
12. In the result, we allow this appeal, set aside the
impugned order of the High Court and direct the Bihar
School Examination Board to conduct the C.P.Ed.
examination for the appellants as soon as possible. No
costs.
……………………..J. (R.V. Raveendran)
……………………..J. (A. K. Patnaik) New Delhi, March 10, 2011.
16