IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 5076 of 2003 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE P.B.MAJMUDAR ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the concerned : NO Magistrate/Magistrates,Judge/Judges,Tribunal/Tribunals? -------------------------------------------------------------- PATEL HEMANTKUMAR ISHWARBHAI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR PS PATEL for Petitioner Nos. 1-6 Mr.Kogje, AGP, NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent No. 1-3,6-7 MR HS MUNSHAW for Respondent No. 4 MR PK JANI for Respondent No. 5 MR ANANT S DAVE for Respondent No. 8 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE P.B.MAJMUDAR Date of decision: 09/05/2003 ORAL JUDGEMENT By filing this petition, it is prayed by the petitioners that the District Education Committees of Surendranagar and Anand be directed to consider the applications of the petitioners for the purpose of employment as Vidhya Sahayak (Art Teacher Diploma) and that their applications should not be rejected on the ground that the Institution, from which they have obtained such Diploma, has not been recognized by National Council for Teacher Education, Bhopal ("NCTE", for short). So far as petitioners 1 and 2 herein are concerned, it is not in dispute that they have undertaken the training course of two years' Diploma from Adarsh Art Teachers' Training College, Bayad, and so far as petitioners 3 and 4 are concerned, they have completed their training from Gayatri Art Teachers' training College, Ranasan. Mr.Jani, who is appearing for respondent No.5 has also confirmed the aforesaid aspect. However, Mr.Jani submitted that so far as petitioners 5 and 6 are concerned, the Institution, through which they have undertaken the course, never applied for such recognition to respondent No.5. Mr.P.S. Patel, learned Advocate for the petitioners, has also accepted this factual aspect. On behalf of the petitioners, reference is made to the decision of this Court in Special Civil Application No.7405 of 2002 and other group of matters, decided on 27th November, 2002. In the aforesaid group of matters, a learned single Judge of this Court (Coram : R.M. Doshit, J.) has observed as under :- " ... ... ... In the present case, it is not disputed that except the above four institutions, none of the institutions where petitioners have received education in Art Teacher's Diploma had applied for recognition by the Council within six months from the appointed day, as envisaged under proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act. It is admitted that the applications for recognition made by the above four institutions are still pending consideration by the Regional Committee of the Council and are not yet disposed of. Hence, the said four institutions are entitled to continue to offer the course in Art Teacher's Diploma though they have yet not been recognised by the Council. Such of the petitioners who have obtained qualification by pursuing the course offered by the said four institutions shall be held to be qualified for appointment under the concerned District Primary Education Committee. The rest of the petitioners who have obtained qualification by pursuing the course offered by the Institutions which did not apply for recognition by the Council within six months from the appointed day, as envisaged under section 14 (1) of the Act shall not be considered to be qualified for appointment under the concerned District Primary Education Committee. Both the learned advocates, Mrs. Mehta & Mr.Patel have submitted that admission to the Art Teacher's college in the State of Gujarat is made by the State of Gujarat through a common admission procedure. The petitioners had been granted admission to the concerned institutions through such common admission procedure on recommendation made by the State Government. After successfully pursuing the course, the Diploma is conferred by the State Examination Board. Hence, the respondent-District Education Committees should be estopped from holding that the qualification obtained by the petitioners is not a valid qualification for appointment under the District Primary Education Committees. It appears that all the institutions in which the petitioners took training in Art Teacher's Diploma are recognised by the State of Gujarat and the admission to the said institutions are made through the common admission procedure. However, it is a statutory requirement that all such institutions shall be recognised by the National Council for Teacher Education. Unless they are so recognized, the qualification obtained by pursuing the course offered by them cannot be held to be a valid qualification, as discussed hereinabove. It is well settled law that there cannot be estoppel against the Statute. Hence, the contention requires to be rejected. It is admitted that all the petitioners, except the petitioners nos. 8, 25 and 30 in Special Civil Application No.7405 of 2002, have acquired the qualification of Art Teacher's Diploma by pursuing such course offered by one of the aforesaid four institutions. It is, therefore, held that all the petitioners except petitioners nos. 8, 25 & 30 in Special Civil Application No.7405 of 2002 possess a valid qualification in Art Teacher's Diploma and are entitled to be considered for appointment under the concerned District Primary Education Committee. The qualification obtained by the petitioners nos. 8, 25 & 30 in Special Civil Application No.7405 of 2002 is not a valid qualification and the said petitioners are not entitled to be considered for appointment under the concerned District Primary Education Committee. It is also admitted that both the petitioners in Special Civil Application No.7756 of 2002 have acquired Art Teacher's Diploma by pursuing the course offered by one of the above referred four institutions. Hence, it is held that both these petitioners hold a valid qualification in Art Teacher's Diploma and are entitled to be considered for appointment under the concerned District Primary Education Committee. In Special Civil Application No.10946 of 2002, it is admitted that petitioners nos. 1 and 3 have received training in Art Teacher's Diploma in one of the above-referred four institutions. The institutions where the petitioner No.2 has received training had not applied for recognition within six months as envisaged under section 14(1) of the Act. In that view of the matter, the petitioners Nos. 1 & 3 can be said to have valid qualification for appointment under the concerned District Primary Education Committee. It is, therefore, declared that the petitioners nos. 1 and 3 are eligible for being considered for appointment under the concerned District Primary Education Committee. The petitioner no.2 does not possess a valid qualification and is not entitled for being considered for appointment under any District Education Committee. All these three petitions are disposed of in the above terms. Notice issued in each of the petitions is discharged. There shall be no order as to costs. Registry shall maintain copy of this order in each of these petitions. ... ... ...." Considering the fact that the case of the present petitioners is also identical to the one, which is dealt with by this Court, so far as petitioners 1 to 4 are concerned, the aforesaid petitioners are required to be given the same benefit. So far as petitioners 5 and 6 are concerned, since the Institution, through which they have taken the course, has not applied for recognition, the said petition qua the said petitioners is required to be rejected. Mr.Asim Pandya, learned Advocate, though he has not filed any appearance in this matter, has requested the Court that since he has submitted a Civil Application for joining as party in other group of matters and since the question is common, he should be heard in this matter. Since the clients of Mr.Pandya are not parties, nor has Mr.Pandya filed any appearance in this matter, he is not required to be heard as such. However, he submitted that he would like to address the Court on the law point. Mr.Kogje, learned AGP, who is appearing for the respondent-State Government, submitted that the case of the present petitioners 1 to 4 is squarely covered by the decision of this Court, referred to hereinabove. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is partly allowed. So far as petitioners 1 to 4 are concerned, they are held to be eligible for being considered for appointment under the concerned District Primary Education Committee. Rule is accordingly made absolute so far as petitioners 1 to 4 are concerned. So far as petitioners 5 and 6 are concerned, in view of what is stated above, they are not entitled to any relief and petition so far as those two petitioners are concerned, stands dismissed. Rule is accordingly discharged so far as petitioners 5 and 6 are concerned. ( P.B. Majmudar, J. ) *** (apj)