बेसिक शिक्षा विभाग की अपील खारिज, पंडिचेरी विवि के बीएड कोर्स पर कानूनी तौर पर हो विचार

बेसिक शिक्षा विभाग की अपील खारिज, पंडिचेरी विवि के बीएड कोर्स पर कानूनी तौर पर हो विचार

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH 

?Court No. - 1 

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 58 of 2017 

Appellant :- State Of U.P Thru Prin Secy Basic Edu Lko & Ors 4453 Ms 2010 

Respondent :- Sushila Mishra 

Counsel for Appellant :- C.S.C 

Counsel for Respondent :- Lokesh,Lakshman Singh 

Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J. 

Hon'ble Sanjay Harkauli,J. 

Heard Sri Pankaj Patel, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the appellant-State. 

This appeal questions the correctness of the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 26.8.2015 as corrected on 9.10.2015 to urge that the learned Single Judge in spite of having noticed the fact that it is not known as to whether the B.Ed. course conducted by the Pondicherry University was duly recognized by the University Grants Commission or not has proceeded to extend the benefit to the respondent-petitioner on the strength of the Division Bench judgment in Special Appeal No.346/2004 decided on 26.10.2007. 

It is further evident from the impugned order that the counselling in respect of B.T.C. candidates for the year 2007 was in progress and there were vacancies available. It is in this background that the writ petition was disposed of leaving it open to the concerned opposite party to verify whether the Pondicherry University is recognized by the University Grants Commission or not. 

A supplementary affidavit has been filed by the learned counsel for the appellants today and the order dated 14.7.2016 has been brought on record. The said order categorically records that no proof was submitted with regard to the recognition of the course of B.Ed., being offered by the Pondicherry University. Further, certain post-facto programmes recognized w.e.f. 1995 are said to have been given effect to. The aforesaid recognitions are in relation to the Distant Education Programmes of the said University. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that so far as any specific recognition by the University Grants Commission is concerned, since there was no material therefore it was not possible to have accepted the qualifications of B.Ed., possessed by the respondent-petitioner to treat it to be valid for the purpose of sending her on training in the B.T.C. course. 

A turn took place when the respondent-petitioner filed a contempt application for compliance of the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The order dated 14.7.2016 was brought to the notice of the learned contempt judge but it appears that the learned Judge hearing the contempt matter being not satisfied with the compliance of the judgment of the High Court summoned the Principal Secretary, Basic Education whereafter the Principal Secretary on 16.12.2016 granted permission to the Director, SCERT to proceed to accept the candidature of the respondent-petitioner. This order of the State Government has been placed at page - 104 of the paper book of the present appeal. It is not the case of the appellants-State that the order passed by the State Government dated 16.12.2016 is wrong. As a consequence of the aforesaid direction of the Principal Secretary, the Director, State Council of Educational Research & Training has issued the order on 17.12.2016 subject to any future appeal being instituted against the judgment of the learned Single Judge. 

We are unable to now entertain this appeal at this stage keeping in view the fact that the order of the High Court has already been complied with and the respondent-petitioner has been directed to be sent on training but at the same time the issue relating to the satisfaction about the recognition of the course by the University Grants Commission does not appear to have been clarified at all and which question still remains open. 

Consequently, without treating or holding the issue of the status of recognition by the University Grants Commission to have become final, we are not inclined to entertain this appeal but we keep this question of law open to be argued in any appropriate matter. The dismissal of this appeal shall therefore not be treated as a precedent on this issue. 

Dismissed with the said observations. 

Order Date :- 14.2.2017 

lakshman 

[Sanjay Harkauli, J.] [Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.] 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

Court No. - 1 

C. M. Application No. 17737 of 2017 

in re: 

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 58 of 2017 

Appellant :- State Of U.P Thru Prin Secy Basic Edu Lko & Ors 4453 Ms 2010 

Respondent :- Sushila Mishra 

Counsel for Appellant :- C.S.C 

Counsel for Respondent :- Lokesh,Lakshman Singh 

Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J. 

Hon'ble Sanjay Harkauli,J. 

Heard Sri Pankaj Patel, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the appellants-State. 

This delay condonation application has been filed praying that the delay be condoned and the appeal be heard on merits. 

We have considered the submissions raised and we find the cause to be sufficient. 

Accordingly, the delay condonation application is allowed and the delay is condoned. 

The appeal shall be treated to be within time. 

Order Date :- 14.2.2017 

lakshman 

[Sanjay Harkauli, J.] [Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.]