1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal relates to the appointment of primary teachers in nationalised primary schools in the State of Jharkhand. After the State of Jharkhand was created on 15-11-2000, the Jharkhand Primary School Recruitment Rules were enacted on 1-7-2002. The Rules which came into force on 29-6-2003 provided, inter alia, for the definition of the word "trained" in Rule 2-b. It reads as follows:
"2-b.-'Trained' means those persons who have obtained following training and have passed from recognised training institutes- (7) 2 years' training as teacher; or
(2) BEd/Diploma in Ed/Diploma in Tech
(3) CPEd/DPEd
3. On 29-8-2002 an advertisement was issued for appointment of trained teachers in the primary schools at district level by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission. The advertisement specified that application on forms prescribed by the Commission were invited for 9223 vacant posts of teachers in government primary schools as per the Jharkhand Primary School Appointment (Amendment) Rules. The application forms provided:
"After the selection, the Deputy Commissioner of the district concerned after the districtwise allocation, will as per law verify the genuineness of the educational qualification/training/institution concerned/and its recognition before joining."
4. On 27-5-2003 an examination was held by the Commission pursuant to the said advertisement. All the appellants before us succeeded in the examination when the results were declared on 14-11-2003.
5. According to the appellants they were selected. When they went to join they were refused to be appointed on the ground that the institutions from which they had got their teachers' training certificates were not recognised. Being aggrieved by the refusal, the appellants filed a writ petition. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. The provisions of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993, particularly Section 14 thereof which provides for recognition of institutions offering teachers' training education, were relied upon. Section 16 of the Act dealing with affiliation was also referred to. It was concluded that every institution offering or intending to offer the course or training in teacher education shall have to be recognised by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE). The Court also noted that the Government of Jharkhand at the direction of the Jharkhand Public Service Commission had issued letters dated 13-11-2003 and 4-12-2003 giving detailed guidelines in respect of appointment of selected candidates. In the guidelines issued, it was, inter alia, stated:
"(iv) So far as the private institutions like David Hare College of Correspondence, Calcutta, Sister Nivedita College, Calcutta, Mr B.C. Ray College, Calcutta, All India Education Society, Calcutta, All India Correspondence Coaching Society, Calcutta are concerned, it has been decided not to accept the certificates of those institutions because they hold private examinations and declare their results. Those institutions are neither recognised by the Council under the Act of 1993 nor by the Government of West Bengal."
6. The Court also relied upon a directory issued by the Eastern Regional Committee of National Council for Teacher Education in which the list of those teachers' training institutions, their year of establishment, number of seats approved by NCTE and the names of the examining body to which the institutions are affiliated had been mentioned. It was noted that the institutions from which the appellants had obtained teachers' training certificates were not included. Indeed the appellants did not dispute that the institutions had not been recognised nor were they affiliated to NCTE. The institutions conduct their own examinations privately and issued certificates of training. The Court relied upon various decisions of this Court including the decision in N.M. Nageshwaramma v. State of A.P. 1986 Supp SCC 166: AIR 1986 SC 1188 in which it was held: (SCCpp. 170-71, para 3)
"If by a fiat of the court we direct the Government to permit them to appear at the examination we will practically be encouraging and condoning the establishment of unauthorised institutions. It is not appropriate that the jurisdiction of the court either under Article 32 of the Constitution or Article 226 should be frittered away for such a purpose. The teachers' training institutes are meant to teach children of impressionable age and we cannot let loose on the innocent and unwary children, teachers who have not received proper and adequate training. True they will be required to pass the examination but that may not be enough. Training for a certain minimum period in a properly organised and equipped training institute is probably essential before a teacher may be duly launched."
7. It was accordingly concluded by the learned Single Judge that no writ of mandamus could be issued to the respondents directing them to appoint the appellants on the basis of the teachers' training certificates issued by the unrecognised and private institutions who conduct their own examinations and declare results. The respondents were directed to proceed with the verification of certificates and issue letters of appointment only to those candidates who had obtained teachers' training certificates from institutions recognised by NCTE or by the State Government concerned and to accept certificates which were issued by the State Examination Board or the universities of the State concerned.
8. The matter was taken up by the appellants before the Division Bench. The Division Bench also dismissed the appeal. It went into the requirement for recognition and the various rules relating to recognition. It also took into consideration the definition of "trained" in the Jharkhand Primary School Amended Recruitment Rules of 2003. The Court came to the conclusion that the expression "recognised training institute" as occurring in the 2002 Rules means a training institute, recognised or appointed by the State Government or the Union of India or statutory bodies such as NCTE, UGC, etc. organisations maintained or controlled either by the State Government or the Central Government or training institutes recognised or affiliated to university or a board for imparting teachers' training course. Additionally the Court went into the genuineness of the teachers' training certificates granted to the appellants. Although, the Court noted that no specific stand had been taken by the parties relating to genuineness of one or other institution situated in Kolkata, West Bengal, but "with a curiosity to find out the status of the institutions" it went through the certificates which were enclosed with the writ petitions, memo of appeals issued by the institutions and came to the conclusion that the institutions were fake.
9. The appellant impugned the decision before this Court. They have contended that the Judge had held the enquiry into the genuineness of the institutions without giving any opportunity to the appellants to meet the case. Since the issue had not been raised by the respondents, the appellants had never been called upon to answer the various points which the Judge had taken into consideration in coming to the conclusion that the institutions were fake and the certificates not genuine.
10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Commission has submitted that the University Grants Commission (UGC) had also submitted a report to the effect that the institutions were not genuine. It was also sought to be argued that the Court had merely considered the documents which were already on record before the Court.
11. We are of the view that the appellants' grievance in this connection was justified. Whatever the doubts may have been which the Court may have entertained with regard to the certificates, when the case had neither been made out by the respondents nor put to the appellants, the Court should not have on its own entered into exercise and determined the issue relating to the alleged doubtfulness of the institutions in question.
12. However, on the merits of the case we are of the view that the decision of the Division Bench must otherwise be sustained. It is true that the appellants may have been successful in the examination held by the Commission. However, that was not enough. The advertisement specifically referred to the Jharkhand Primary School Recruitment Rules which as we have already stated above required trained teachers to be from recognised institutions. We are not satisfied that the institutions were recognised as held by the High Court. The appellants had sought to rely upon a document stated to have been issued by the Registrar, West Bengal State Council of Technical Education on 31-1-2002 to the effect that the West Bengal State Council of Technical Education had no objection to extend provisional recognition to the institute up to 28-2-2002 with an intention to conduct final examination of the second batch of students. It is not clear whether this document was before the courts below. Assuming that it was, it merely speaks of extension of a provisional recognition. The original recognition, if any, has not been produced before us. It is also not clear whether the recognition had been granted to the institutions in question when those appellants who had taken the teachers' training certificates from those institutions had obtained their certificates.
13. The appellants have also referred to Rule 4-Ga (Rules for Appointment of Post of Teachers of Primary Schools) introduced by notification. Rule 4-Ga reads:
"4-Ga. On the basis of vacant posts as marked districtwise by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission, applications shall be invited from the following eligible candidates, after publication of advertisement in newspaper:
1. Who is a citizen of India.
2. Who has passed the matriculation examination or its equivalent.
3. Who has obtained training as per mentioned in Rule 2-b.
But in special circumstances, an examination could be organised separately for the untrained candidates and after training of such successful candidates they could be appointed on the post of 'teachers'. Only scholarship shall be given to such untrained candidates during the training, which will be equivalent to the first salary of matriculate untrained teachers. Arrangement of training shall be done by the State Government. After the training, appointment of successful candidates could be done for a period of only 3 years in the pay scale of trained matriculate teachers by the State Government."
14. According to the appellants, the requirement for trained candidates could have been relaxed under the proviso to Rule 4-Ga. The High Court rejected the submission on the ground that trained successful candidates were available. We are of the view that the requirements for training were insisted upon in the advertisement as well as in the application form. The appellants understood it as such. No special circumstances have been pleaded for the purpose of taking on untrained candidates. Besides the requirement is to hold a separate examination for untrained candidates. No such examination has been held. Had such examination been determined to be held pursuant to an advertisement duly published, there might have been further candidates who might have participated in the proceedings. This submission is therefore rejected.
15. The appellants placed reliance upon the decision of other Benches of the Patna High Court in support of their case that their institutions were recognised. The reliance is as such misconceived. The decisions in question had not decided anything of the sort. They dealt with other issues and the issue of recognition of the training institutions in question had not been raised nor determined.
16. The appellants' submission that the NCTE Act having come into force in 1995 would not have retrospective effect as far as their services are concerned as it may have had some force in the sense that NCTE not being established when the appellants got their recognition certificates by NCTE of those institutions at that point of time would be impossible. Nevertheless, recognition of some sort either by the Government or by the university or by statutory authority was necessary in terms of the advertisement issued by the respondent Commission.
17. The appellants' reliance upon the decision of this Court in Ram Vijay Kumar v. State of Bihar(1998) 9 SCC 227 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 536 is misplaced. That decision related to selections to the posts of assistant teachers in elementary/primary schools in the State of Bihar. The issue which arose for determination in that case was whether persons who had applied from a particular district could be treated as applicants for that particular district only. The High Court had said that there could be no such restriction and that eligible candidates had a right to be considered for appointment to any one of the other districts. The view was upheld by this Court and directions were given for the holding of the selections. The issue with which we are now confronted was not required to be considered.
18. The appellants have also relied upon the decision of this Court in Shri Krishnan v. Kurukshetra University(1976)1 SCC 311. The decision has been cited as an authority for the proposition that the candidates who have been allowed to sit in an examination without protest by the authorities could not subsequently be debarred on the ground that they were not qualified. The decision is distinguishable as in this case the application form itself provided for the verification of a candidate's certificates even after the selection was made. The candidates were therefore put on notice that the certificates produced by them would be the subject-matter of scrutiny and if they were found wanting their candidature might be cancelled.
19. The appellants have also raised the contention that despite their having succeeded in the examination held by the Commission, the Commission was now seeking to fill the vacancies by lowering the standard of qualifying marks. Whether the Commission should or should not lower the qualifying marks is not a question which is germane to the issue whether the appellants could have been debarred from being considered for appointment to the vacancies declared by the advertisement issued on 29-8-2002.
20. In the circumstances aforesaid except for setting aside the decision of the High Court insofar as it relates to the finding of doubtfulness of the institutions from which the appellants had obtained their teachers' training certificates, we dismiss the appeal.
Appeal dismissed
