CWP No. 14999 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 14999 of 2010 Date of Decision: 07.11.2011 Shri Jasvir Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ..Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present : Mr. Rajat Panjeta, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. R.D.Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for respondents No.1 and 3. Mr. GPS Bal, Advocate, for respondent No.2. **** SURYA KANT, J.(Oral) The core issue involved in this writ petition pertains to the methodology prescribed for admission to the Diploma in Education Course under the State Council of Education Research and Training, Haryana (SCERT). 2. The petitioners are mostly residents of Morni Hills area of District Panchkula and they have three fold grievances. Firstly, they challenge the allocation/distribution of streamwise seats i.e. 35% for Science, 28% for Commerce, 35% for Arts and 2% for Vocational, as according to the petitioners, admissions to the D.Ed. Course should be on the basis of combined/composite merit list. Their second CWP No. 14999 of 2010 [2] grievance is that the allocation of only 2% seats only for Vocational Course is too less and meager to meet the aspirations of a majority of young students from back areas like Morni Hills as most of them want to join Vocational courses to earn their livelihood. The third grievance of the petitioners is that instead of admitting the candidates as per their stream-wise academic merit in 10+2 examination, there ought to be an Entrance Test for all the seats. 3. To substantiate the first plea, it is urged that stream-wise distribution of seats leads to hostile discrimination as the candidates with higher merit in 10+2 examination are deprived of admissions in the other streams where a candidate lower in merit gets admission for the incidental factor that he has passed his 10+2 examination in that particular stream. Challenge to the stream wise distribution of seats is sought to be supported with a decision of Madras High Court in the case Self Financing Private Teacher Training Institutes Association(Regd.) V. The State of Tamil Nadu and others, AIR 2008 (NOC) 1310. 4. The respondents in their reply/affidavit have explained that the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) is a statutory body under the National Council of Teacher Education Act, 1993 has framed the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2007 and as per clause 3.2 thereof, the candidates with at least 50% marks in the senior secondary examination i.e 10+2 or its equivalent are eligible for admission to D.Ed. Course. Reference is also made to Clause 3.3 of these Regulations which provides that admissions shall be made on CWP No. 14999 of 2010 [3] merit “on the basis of marks obtained in the qualifying examination and/or in the entrance examination or any other selection process as per the policy of the State Government............”. It is averred in the reply that 'stream-wise' distribution of seats has been made on the advice of an Expert Committee though acknowledging that the vocational stream is job oriented for getting technical jobs in the industrial sector. It is claimed that for this reason only the State Government has provided 2% seats to the vocational stream out of a total intake of 20000 seats. The respondents have further averred as follows:- “ Admission Procedure:- The merit list will purely be prepared on the basis of percentage of marks obtained in 10+2 examination stream wise (Arts, Science, Commerce & Vocational) and distribution of seats will be as under:- Stream-wise % of seats allotted Science: 35% Commerce : 28% Arts : 35% Vocational : 02% Note:- 1. If the seats in Science stream remain vacant, these will be converted into Commerce Stream and vice versa. 2. If in all the three-streams (Science, Commerce and Vocational Education) seats remain vacant, these will be converted into Arts stream seats.” It has also been averred that:- “ In order to develop multiple learning skill among the students at Primary school level, the Government has allotted 35% seats to Science stream, 28% seats Commerce Stream, 35% seats to Arts Stream, and 02% seats to vocational stream out of total intake of 20,000 seats according to its need and policy which has been laid down in the Prospectus 2010-12.” CWP No. 14999 of 2010 [4] 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the record. 6. There can indeed be no doubt that stream-wise distribution of seats is a policy matter taken in order to develop multiple learning instincts amongst the students. It is not in dispute that the candidates possessing Diploma in Education are eligible for appointment as Teachers in Primary Schools and in case they are admitted purely on the basis of their marks in 10+2 examination overlooking the stream undertaken by them in 10+2, it will create imbalance among the prospective teachers to impart primary education in a variety of subjects. Article 14 of the Constitution prohibits positive discrimination which necessarily means that unequals cannot be treated as equals. A student who has passed 10+2 grade with Science subjects like Physics, Chemistry and/or Biology cannot be expected to acquire the finesse of 'Geography', and a student of Fine Arts on completion of Diploma in Education, can not be expected to explain the 'Chemistry' of Science. For the over all growth of a child, he needs to be taught a variety of streams until he reaches a stage to select the specialized branch of his choice. Such like policy matters ordinarily fall within the domain of the subject Experts as the Courts do not possess that much expertise to advise the authorities in educational affairs unless it finds that there is a policy of pick and choose while admitting the students in different streams. It would be difficult to accept a complaint of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution when the policy decision is based upon reasonable and distinct classification of the prospective candidates who are the CWP No. 14999 of 2010 [5] ultimate takers of responsibility to impart primary education to our next generations. 7. Petitioner's plea that the seats in Vocational schemes should be suitably enhanced need not be accepted or rejected by this Court. Suffice it to observe that their grievance deserves serious consideration by the authorities and if based upon the facts and figures it is found that the seats offered in vocational streams are to less to meet the expectation of young students, there appears to be no rhyme or reason to not enhance the quota for Vocational schemes. The Education Department and/or the State Council of Education Research and Training, Haryana (SCERT) are accordingly directed to consider this aspect of the matter before the next admissions take place and take an appropriate decision. 8. Similarly, the contention that there should be an Entrance Examination for admission to Diploma in Education Course entails a policy decision. No system of shortlisting the candidates can be said to be perfect or flawless and is bound to invite some criticism on comparison with other system. One view can be that since the qualifying examination i.e. 10+2 is passed by eligible candidates from different Boards/Universities etc. having different standards or parameters, they ought to be put to a uniform testing scale of Entrance Examination, while the others may say that such like examinations are marred by malpractices and would open a Pandora box. The appropriate recourse for a Writ Court is to refrain from expressing any views and to leave it to the stakeholders to take a rational decision in this regard. CWP No. 14999 of 2010 [6] With these observations/directions, the writ petition is disposed of. 07.11.2011 (SURYA KANT) 'ravinder' JUDGE