IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.1276 of 2008 (S/S) Smt. Neelam Pandey (Neelam Bisht) ………..Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …….Respondents Shri Rajendra Dobhal, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Sunil Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri N.P. Sah, learned Standing Counsel for the State. Shri Abhishek Verma, Advocate holding brief of Shri Sudhir Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.4. Dated: 21st April, 2011 Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order-dated 17.05.2008 passed by Additional Director of Education, Kumaon Mandal, Nainital. Further prayer has been made for a direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade (Hindi). 3. Facts in brief are that petitioner passed her Bachelor of Education (Service Modular) degree from the Lucknow University in the year 1995-96. On 07.08.2006, Director School Education, Uttarakhand issued an advertisement in the daily newspaper “Amar Ujala” for the appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade (Hindi). In pursuance of the advertisement-dated 07.08.2006, petitioner submitted 2 her application. Her application was scrutinized and she was awarded 86.73 quality point marks. The result was declared on 07.08.2007 and petitioner was declared successful, as quality point marks obtained by her were more than those women candidates, who obtained 80.55 quality point marks, was last in merit and was declared successful. The petitioner was placed at serial no.17 in the select list, who were put in the list of provisional candidates. On asking, the petitioner was informed by the Additional Director Kumaon Mandal, Nainital that B.Ed. (Service Modular) degree has been placed in the provisional list. On 17.05.2008, the Additional Director Kumaon Mandal, Nainital wrote to the petitioner that B.Ed. (Service Modular) degree is not recognized by the N.C.T.E., therefore it would not be possible to give appointment to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, present writ petition has been filed. 4. Shri Rajendra Dobhal, Senior Advocate for the petitioner drew my attention to paragraph 20 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the N.C.T.E. in which it is mentioned that any degree obtained in Academic Session 1995-96 does not fall for scrutiny under the provisions of N.C.T.E. Act, 1993. He argued that in view of the fact that N.C.T.E. Act came into existence on 17th August, 1995 and also in view of the averment made in Paragraph 20 of the counter affidavit of the N.C.T.E., the action of the respondents in cancelling the appointment of the petitioner, is arbitrary and illegal. He also referred to paragraph 8 of the said counter affidavit in which it is mentioned that the regulations were framed by the Council in exercise of powers under Section 32 (2) of the National Council for Teachers Education Act on 28.12.1995, which was published in the Official Gazette on 24.02.1996. The Regional Committee started recognizing or permitting the Institution under Chapter IV of the National Council for Teachers Education Act from the academic session 1996-97 and onwards. He further referred to paragraph 20 of the counter affidavit in which it is mentioned that degree obtained in the academic session 1995-96 does not fall for scrutiny under the provisions of N.C.T.E. Act, 1993. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent no.4 has not denied this fact. He submitted that prior coming into operation of N.C.T.E. Act, 1993, the concerned University/State and U.T. were the authority for determining the norms and standards for the college/ institution imparting teacher’s training course. At this, the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner stated that Bachelor of Education (Service Modular) degree in the year 1995-96 is in accordance to the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 as same is approved by the Executive Council of Lucknow University. 6. Learned Standing Counsel for the State, on the other hand, submitted that in the advertisement dated 07.08.2006, it is clearly mentioned that the candidates applied for respective posts, their education qualification/degree or courses should be recognized 4 by the N.C.T.E. and as the said B.Ed. (Service Modular) degree of the petitioner is not recognized by the N.C.T.E., the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Assistant Teacher, L.T. Grade (Hindi), was rightly rejected. 7. It is not disputed that B.Ed. (Service Modular) degree of Lucknow University is not recognized by the N.C.T.E., but it is also not disputed that in the year 1995-96 the N.C.T.E. Act was not in existence, as same came into existence on 17th August, 1995. This fact has also been admitted by the N.C.T.E. in Paragraph 20 of the counter affidavit, in which it is mentioned that any degree obtained in the Academic Session 1995-96 does not fall for scrutiny under the provisions of N.C.T.E. Act, 1993. Therefore, the arguments of learned Standing Counsel for the State that since B.Ed. (Service Modular) degree is not recognized by the N.C.T.E., the candidature of the petitioner was rightly rejected, is misconceived. For the session 1995-96 no University was required to seek recognition from N.C.T.E. in respect of any course. The order dated 07.08.2006 has been passed without application of mind. Prior coming into operation of N.C.T.E. Act, 1993, the concerned University was the Competent Authority for determining the norms and standards for the course. In the present case, B.Ed. (Service Modular) degree was duly recognized and approved by the Executive Council of Lucknow University. Thus, B.Ed. (Service Modular) degree obtained by the petitioner from the Lucknow University in the year 1995-96 is a valid degree. 8. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is allowed. Order dated 17.05.2008 passed by Additional Director Education, Kumaoun Mandal, Nainital is set aside. Respondents are directed to give appointment to the petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade (Hindi) in pursuance of advertisement-dated 07.08.2006 forthwith. The petitioner will also be entitled for the seniority as per her ranking in the merit list. 9. No order as to costs. (V.K. Bist, J.) Arpan 21.04.2011