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