AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Shri M. Hemchandra, the learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Th. Roson, the learned counsels, Shri N. Jotendro, the learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri L. Shyam, the learned counsels and Shri M. Devananda, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; Shri N. Ibotombi, the learned Senior Advocate assisted by Smt. N. Savitri, learned counsels appearing for the Board of Secondary Education, Manipur, Shri A. Bimol, the learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri H. Suraj, the learned counsels appearing for the UGC; Shri I. Lalitkumar, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondents in Cont. Case (C) No. 198 of 2016; Shri S. Nepolean, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents and Smt. N. Elizabeth, the learned counsel appearing for the NCTE. 2. There are altogether fourteen writ petitions which can be categorised into two groups - one, consisting of twelve writ petitions and two, consisting of two writ petitions. In view of the common issues involved in the said twelve writ petitions, all the said writ petitions are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment and order. So far as the said two writ petitions being WP(C) No.1061 of 2016 & WP(C) No.33 of 2017 are concerned, separate order will be passed forming the common judgement and order. W.P. (C) No. 967 of 2016: 3.1. In this writ petition, the notification dated 03-11-2016 issued by the Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur is being challenged by the petitioner. According to her, she being a B.Ed. degree holder is well qualified and eligible for appointment as a Graduate Teacher (RMSA). On 11-05-2016 the Directorate of Education (S), Government of Manipur issued a notification inviting applications from amongst the eligible candidates for recruitment of Graduate Teachers. The petitioner being eligible as aforesaid, applied for the posts of Arts Graduate Teacher and English Graduate Teacher and after having verified the documents and certificates submitted by her, Admit Card was issued to her by the Directorate of Education, Manipur. While she was waiting for participation in the recruitment process, the Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur issued the impugned notification dated 03-11-2016 thereby rejecting her candidature along with 314 others and the ground on the basis of which her candidature was rejected, was that the B.Ed. degree obtained by her was not recognized by the National Council for Teacher Education (hereafter referred to as "the NCTE"). Being aggrieved by the said impugned notification, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition inter-alia on the grounds that the institute, i.e., Bhartiya Shiksha Parisad (BSP) from where the petitioner obtained her B.Ed. degree certificate is an autonomous body recognized by the Uttar Pradesh Government which has been conducting various courses including Teachers Training Programmes such as D.EI.Ed./ B.Ed./ P.P.Ed./ M.Ed. etc. and in addition thereto, the Director, Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad addressed a letter dated 02-08-2016 to the Director, Education Department, Govt. of Manipur informing that the certificate issued by it is valid for purpose of employment. There is no provision in the National Council for Technical Education Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1993") requiring a University to take its approval from the NCTE to run teacher education courses and award degrees to pass out candidates and therefore, getting approval/recognition from the NCTE is not mandatory for any educational institutions to run teacher education courses. The act of cancelling the candidature of the petitioner by the respondents is arbitrary and illegal. 3.2. In order to contest the writ petition, an affidavit on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has been filed wherein the maintainability of the writ petition has been questioned on the ground that the petitioner has not challenged the NCTE Act, 1993. It has also been stated that any Institute/University from which the degree course in teacher education is obtained, should be recognised by the NCTE. The aim of the Act is to provide for the establishment of a NCTE with a view to achieve planned and coordinated development of the teacher education system throughout the country. The recruitment rules for appointment of teachers under the RMSA were framed in conformity with the norms/guidelines of the NCTE which are mandatory under the Right to Education Act. The institute i.e., the Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad, UP is found to have not been recognized by the NCTE. The issuance of Admit Card in favour of the petitioner does not mean that she has become eligible to participate in the Personal Interview and the Admit Card was issued prior to proper verification and examination of the relevant documents submitted by the candidates including the petitioner. After thorough verification, the petitioner was found to have obtained her B.Ed. degree/certificate which is not recognized by the NCTE. As per the provisions of the Right to Education Act, 2009, the Institute/University/Board offering diploma/degree course in teacher education shall be recognized by the NCTE. W.P. (C) No. 34 of 2017: 4.1. The Notification dated 07-10-2016 issued by the Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur is under challenge in this writ petition and a prayer has also been made for issuing directions to the respondents to hold/arrange Personal Interview/Viva-Voce in respect of the petitioners for appointment to the post of Upper Primary Teachers as per notification dated 11-05-2016 issued by the Directorate of Education, Manipur. 4.2. According to the petitioners, they are all well qualified and eligible for appointment to the post of Upper Primary Teachers under the Sharva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) after they having obtained B.Ed. degree from Bhartiya Shiksha Parisad, UP and qualified TET conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Manipur (hereinafter referred to as "the Board"). On 11-05-2016 the Directorate of Education (S), Govt. of Manipur issued a notification inviting applications from amongst the eligible candidates for recruitment of Upper Primary Teachers under the SSA and as per the said notification, vacancies for the post of Science, Mathematics and Social Science are 203, 204 and 48 respectively. The essential qualifications to be fulfilled by the candidates have been laid down in the notification and being eligible as per the said notification, the petitioners applied for the said posts. After the Admit Cards being issued in their favour, the petitioners were waiting for participating in the DPC proceedings but to their utter shock and surprise, the Director of Education (S), Govt. of Manipur issued a Notification dated 07-10-2016 whereby the candidatures of the petitioners have been rejected on the ground that the B.Ed. degree issued by the Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad, UP is not recognized by the NCTE. The petitioners came to know from reliable sources that some of the candidates whose candidatures have been rejected, submitted a representation dated 11-10-2016 to the Director of Education, Govt. of Manipur requesting him to re-consider their cases and instead of considering the said representation, the Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur issued another notification dated 26-10-2016 whereby 1362 candidates have been shortlisted for Personal Interview/Viva-Voce for direct recruitment to the posts of Upper Primary Teacher (SSA), Manipur. 4.3. Some candidates whose candidatures have been rejected, filed the writ petitions being W.P(C) No. 839 of 2016 and W.P(C) No. 959 of 2016 challenging the said Notification dated 26-10-2016. Although no affidavit-in-opposition was filed on behalf of the State respondents till then, the Director of Education (S), Govt. of Manipur issued another notification dated 26-12-2016 by which some of the candidates whose candidatures were earlier rejected on similar ground, were again allowed to participate in the Personal Interview/Viva-Voce to be held on 29-12-2016. On 31-12-2016 the result for appointment to the posts of Upper Primary Teacher was declared wherein 199 candidates in respect of Upper Primary Teachers (Science), 146 (Mathematics) and 44 (Social Science) were declared successful. Being aggrieved by the Notification dated 07-10-2016, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners. W.P. (C) No. 904 of 2016: 5.1. By the instant writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ to quash and set aside the impugned notification dated 23-08-2010 issued by the NCTE and the notification dated 07-10-2016 issued by the Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur. 5.2. According to the petitioners, they passed Diploma in Education from the CMJ University, Meghalaya and after having passed the said B.Ed. degree from the said University, they applied for TET Examination conducted by the Board and all of them passed the same. Since they did pass the TET Examination conducted by the Board, they applied for direct recruitment to the posts of Upper Primary Teacher (SSA) pursuant to the Notification dated 11-05-2016 and Admit Cards were issued in their favour. But to their shock and surprise, their candidatures were rejected vide Notification dated 07-10-2016 issued by the Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur and being aggrieved by it, they have filed the present writ petition on the inter-alia grounds that since the CMJ University is recognised by the UGC, the diploma/degree/certificate issued by it cannot be cancelled or rejected by the Department of Education (S), Govt. of Manipur; that some of the petitioners who applied for appointment as graduate teacher, will suffer irreparable loss and injury if not allowed to appear in the said examination; that in respect of similarly situated persons, this court vide order dated 13-10-2016 passed in W.P(C) No. 808 of 2016 directed the respondents to permit the petitioners therein to appear in the Interview and that the CMJ University, Meghalaya, being recognized by the University Grants Commission, the NCTE as well as the Department of Education, Manipur cannot derecognize the degree/diploma certificates obtained from the said University without giving an opportunity of being heard to them. W.P. (C) No. 808 of 2016: 6.1. By the instant writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ to quash and set aside the impugned notification dated 23-08-2010 issued by the NCTE and notification dated 07-10-2016 issued by the Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur. 6.2. According to the petitioners, they all passed Diploma in Education from the CMJ University, Meghalaya and after having passed the said B.Ed. degree from the said university, they applied for TET Examination conducted by the Board and all of them passed the same. In response to the Notification dated 11-05-2016, they applied for direct recruitment to the posts of Upper Primary Teacher (SSA) and Admit Cards were issued in their favour. But to their shock and surprise, their candidatures were rejected vide Notification dated 07-10-2016 issued by the Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur and being aggrieved by it, they have filed the present writ petition on the inter-alia grounds which are similar to that of the WP (C) No. 904 of 2016 and the same are not repeated here for the sake of brevity. However, it has been submitted that the Notification dated 23-08-2010 issued by the NCTE is wholly misconceived and cannot restrict the degree/certificate issued by the universities recognised by the UGC. By the said Notification, the NCTE wanted to usurp the entire power of the UGC without its consultation. Since they qualified in the TET conducted by the Board, they cannot be deprived of their right to sit for the examination without giving an opportunity of being heard. An affidavit-in-opposition on behalf of the respondent No. 5, the Board has been filed in which it has been stated that since the petitioners have not challenged the validity and correctness of the NCTE Act, 1993 and its Regulation, 2014, the petition is liable to be dismissed in limine. While verifying the genuineness of the B.Ed. certificate of some of the candidates, it was found that some candidates submitted their B.Ed. certificates issued by an authorised signatory of Imphal Centre related to the Singhania University. W.P. (C) No. 839 of 2016: 7.1. By the instant writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ to quash and set aside the impugned Notification dated 07-10-2016 issued by the Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur and to allow the petitioners to participate in the DPC proceedings for appointment to various posts of Upper Primary Teachers (SSA) as per the Notification dated 11-05-2016 issued by the Directorate of Education, Manipur. 7.2. According to the petitioners, they are all well qualified and eligible for appointment to the post of Upper Primary Teachers under the Sharva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA). On 11-05-2016 the Directorate of Education (S), Govt. of Manipur issued a notification inviting applications from amongst the eligible candidates for recruitment of Upper Primary Teachers under the SSA and as per the said notification, vacancies for the post of Science, Mathematics and Social Science are 203, 204 and 48 respectively. The essential qualifications to be fulfilled by the candidates have been laid down in the notification and being eligible as per the said notification, the petitioners applied for the said posts. After the Admit Cards being issued in their favour, the petitioners were waiting for participating in the DPC proceedings but to their utter shock and surprise, the Director of Education (S), Govt. of Manipur issued a notification dated 07-10-2016 whereby the candidatures of the petitioners have been rejected on the ground that the B.Ed. degree issued by the Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad, UP is not recognized by the NCTE. The NCTE Act was enacted to achieve planned and coordinated development of the teacher education system in the country. But there is no provision in the Act requiring a University to take its approval to run a teacher education course. The Bhartiya Shiksha Parisad, UP is recognised by the State Government. Several incumbents whose B.Ed. certificates issued by the Bhartiya Shiksha Parisad, UP, were allowed to appear TET/CTET examinations and one, Sarangthem Herachandra who is working as teacher, has been promoted to the next higher post by using such certificate. The impugned Notification dated 07-10-2016 being arbitrary, illegal, is liable to be quashed and set aside. An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 wherein it has been stated that the recruitment against the posts of Upper Primary Teacher under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan is made as per the relevant recruitment rules and as per the recruitment rules, a candidate shall be in possession of a degree or diploma in teacher education from a recognised University/Institute/Board. But the said University/Institute/Board from which the degree/diploma certificate is obtained by the petitioners should be recognised by the NCTE. The recruitment rules for appointment of teachers under the SSA were framed in conformity with the regulations/guidelines made by the NCTE. On verification, the Bhartiya Shiksha Parisad, UP is not recognised by the NCTE. The Admit Cards were issued prior to proper verification and on examination of their documents, it was found that they obtained their B.Ed. certificate from the Institute which is not recognised by the NCTE and therefore, their candidatures were rejected by the Department. In the rejoinder filed by the petitioners, it has been stated that the validity and correctness of the NCTE Act is not required to be challenged and moreover, it is nowhere mentioned in the Notification dated 11-05-2016 that the Institute be recognised by the NCTE nor is it mentioned in the recruitment rules that such Institute be recognised by the NCTE. W.P. (C) No. 259 of 2017: 8.1. By the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ to quash and set aside the impugned notification dated 03-11-2016 issued by the Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur and to direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to take part in the Interview/Viva-Voce as per notification dated 11-05-2016 and also to appoint to the post of Mathematics Graduate Teacher under Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan (RMSA) as per notification dated 19-12-2016 issued by the Directorate of Education, Manipur. 8.2. According to the petitioner, he is well qualified and eligible for appointment to the post of Mathematics Graduate Teacher (RMSA). On 11-05-2016 the Directorate of Education (S), Govt. of Manipur issued a notification inviting applications from amongst the eligible candidates for recruitment of Graduate Teacher (RMSA) and as per the said notification, vacancies for the post of Mathematics Graduate Teacher (RMSA) are 72. The essential qualifications to be fulfilled by the candidates have been laid down in the notification and being eligible as per the said notification, the petitioner applied for the said posts. After the Admit Card being issued in his favour, he was waiting for participating in the DPC proceedings but to his utter shock and surprise, the Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur issued a notification dated 03-11-2016 whereby the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the B.Ed. degree issued by the Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad, UP is not recognized by the NCTE. The NCTE Act was enacted to achieve planned and coordinated development of the teacher education system in the country. But there is no provision in the Act requiring a University to take its approval to run a teacher education. The Bhartiya Shiksha Parisad, UP is recognised by the State Government. Being aggrieved by the said notification, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. The rejection of his candidature, without any valid reason, is highly arbitrary and illegal. W.P. (C) No. 274 of 2017: 9.1. By the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ to quash and set aside the impugned notification dated 03-11-2016 issued by the Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur and to direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to take part in the Interview/Viva-Voce as per the notification dated 11-05-2016 and also to appoint to the post of Science Graduate Teacher (RMSA) as per the notification dated 19-12-2016 issued by the Director of Education, Manipur. 9.2. According to the petitioner, she is well qualified and eligible for appointment to the post of Science Graduate Teacher (RMSA). On 11-05-2016 the Directorate of Education (S), Govt. of Manipur issued a notification inviting applications from amongst the eligible candidates for recruitment of Graduate Teacher (RMSA) and as per the said notification, vacancies for the post of Science Graduate Teacher (RMSA) are 50. The essential qualifications to be fulfilled by the candidates have been laid down in the notification and being eligible as per the said notification, the petitioner applied for the said posts. After the Admit Card being issued in her favour, the petitioner was waiting for participating in the DPC proceedings and to her utter shock and surprise, the Director of Education (S), Govt. of Manipur issued a notification dated 03-11-2016 whereby the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the B.Ed. degree issued by the Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad, UP is not recognized by the NCTE. The NCTE Act was enacted to achieve planned and coordinated development of the teacher education system in the country. But there is no provision in the Act requiring a University to take its approval to run a teacher education. The Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad, UP is recognised by the State Government. Being aggrieved by the said notification, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. The rejection of the candidature of the petitioner, without any valid reason, is highly arbitrary and illegal. W.P. (C) No. 874 of 2016: 10.1. By the instant writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ to quash and set aside the impugned notification dated 23-08-2010 issued by the NCTE and the notification dated 07-10-2016 issued by the Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur. 10.2. According to the petitioners, they passed their B.Ed. Examinations from Singhania University, Pacheri Bari (Jhunjhunu) which is recognised by the UGC and after obtaining the said B.Ed. degree from the said University, the petitioners applied for TET Examination conducted by the Board and passed the same. Since they having passed the TET Examination conducted by the Board, they applied for direct recruitment to the posts of Upper Primary Teacher (SSA) and Admit Cards were issued in their favour. But to their utter shock and surprise, their candidatures were rejected vide notification dated 07-10-2016 issued by the Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur and being aggrieved by it, they filed the present writ petition on the inter-alia grounds that in respect of similarly situated persons, this court vide order dated 13-10-2016 passed in W.P(C) No. 808 of 2016 directed the respondents to permit the petitioners therein to appear in the Interview; that the Singhania University, Pacheri Bari (Jhunjhunu) being recognized by the University Grants Commission, the NCTE as well as the Department of Education, Manipur cannot derecognize the degree/diploma certificates obtained from the said University without giving an opportunity of being heard to them. An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 & 3 wherein it has been stated that the recruitment for appointment to the posts of Upper Primary Teacher under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan is made as per the relevant recruitment rules and as per the recruitment rules, a candidate shall be in possession of a degree or diploma in teacher education from a recognised University/Institute/Board. But the said University/Institute/Board from which the degree/diploma certificates are obtained by the petitioners, should be recognised by the NCTE. The recruitment rules for appointment of teachers under the SSA were framed in conformity with the regulations/guidelines made by the NCTE. On verification, the University from which the petitioners obtained their B.Ed. degree, is not recognised by the NCTE. In this regard, the Board issued a notice to the effect that the candidatures of all candidates whose certificates are issued by the Singhania University, have been cancelled on the ground that the NCTE, Jaipur has clarified that the NCTE has not given any recognition to the said University. The admit cards were issued prior to proper verification and on examination of their documents, it was found that they obtained their B.Ed. certificate from the Institute which is not recognised by the NCTE and therefore, their candidatures were rejected by the Department. W.P. (C) No. 1061 of 2016: 11.1. By the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ to quash and set aside the impugned notification dated 03-11-2016 issued by the Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur and to direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to take part in the Interview/Viva-Voce for appointment to the post of Language (Thadou-Kuki) Graduate Teacher (RMSA) as per the notification dated 11-05-2016 issued by the Directorate of Education, Manipur. 11.2. According to the petitioner, he is well qualified and eligible for appointment to the post of Language (Thadou-Kuki) Graduate Teacher (RMSA). On 11-05-2016 the Directorate of Education (S), Government of Manipur issued a notification inviting applications from amongst the eligible candidates for recruitment of Graduate Teacher under RMSA and as per the said notification, the overall vacancies for the post of Language Graduate Teacher (RMSA) are 50, out of which the vacancies in respect of Thadou-Kuki Language are 5 only. The essential qualifications to be fulfilled by the candidates have been laid down in the notification and being eligible in terms of the said notification, the petitioner applied for the said posts. After the Admit Card being issued in his favour, the petitioner was waiting for participating in the DPC proceedings but to his utter shock and surprise, the Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur issued a notification dated 03-11-2016 whereby his candidature has been rejected on the ground that the B.Ed. degree issued by the Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad, UP is not recognized by the NCTE. The NCTE Act was enacted to achieve planned and coordinated development of the teacher education system in the country. But there is no provision in the Act requiring a University to take its approval to run a teacher education. The Bhartiya Shiksha Parisad, UP is recognised by the State Government. Moreover, the B.Ed. degree has nothing to do with the appointment of language graduate teacher (RMSA) and in particular, Thadou-Kuki language teacher. Being aggrieved by the said notification, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner contending that the notification dated 03-11-2016 in respect of the petitioner deserves dismissal. W.P. (C) No. 742 of 2016: 12.1. By the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ to quash and set aside the impugned notification dated 20-08-2016 issued by the Board. 12.2. According to the petitioner, he passed his B.Ed. Examination from Singhania University, Pacheri Bari, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan and after obtaining the said B.Ed. degree from the said University, the petitioner applied for TET Examination conducted by the Board held on 19-06-2016. Instead of declaring the result of the said examination, the Board issued a Notification dated 20-08-2016 cancelling the candidatures of all the candidates including the petitioner whose certificates are obtained from the Singhania University. The Board vide its letter dated 22-08-2016 informed the Secretary, All Manipur Students Guardians'' Organisation about the cancellation of the candidatures of the said candidates. Being aggrieved by the said notification dated 20-08-2016, the instant writ petition has been filed on the inter-alia grounds that the Singhania University being recognised by the UGC, issued the B.Ed. certificate and that the impugned notification was issued without giving an opportunity of being heard. An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of the Board stating that the NCTE Act, 1993 was enacted by the Parliament with a view to provide for the establishment of the NCTE and the recognition of any University/Institute which wish to offer a course or training in teacher education for the NCTE is a must. After having fulfilled the requirements under the provisions of the NCTE Act, the Manipur University has been granted recognition. On getting suspicion as regards the genuineness of the B.Ed. certificates issued by the respondent No.2, it was verified from the Regional Director, Eastern Regional Committee, NCTE, Bhubaneshwar and on receipt of the information, show cause notices were served upon the petitioner and other candidates to give their reply within 10 days. After the expiry of 10 days, the Board issued the order dated 20-08-2016 cancelling their candidatures. W.P. (C) No. 959 of 2016: 13.1. By the instant writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ to quash and set aside the impugned notification dated 26-10-2016 issued by the Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur and to direct the respondents not to declare the result of the process of selection initiated pursuant to the notification dated 11-05-2016. 13.2. According to the petitioners, they are all well qualified and eligible for appointment to the post of Upper Primary Teachers under the Sharva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA). On 11-05-2016 the Directorate of Education (S), Govt. of Manipur issued a notification inviting applications from amongst the eligible candidates for recruitment of Upper Primary Teachers under the SSA and as per the said notification, vacancies for the posts of Science, Mathematics and Social Science are 203, 204 and 48 respectively. The essential qualifications to be fulfilled by the candidates have been laid down in the notification and being eligible as per the said notification, the petitioners applied for the said posts. After the Admit Cards being issued in their favour, the petitioners were waiting for participating in the DPC proceedings but to their utter shock and surprise, the Director of Education (S), Govt. of Manipur issued a notification dated 07-10-2016 whereby the candidatures of the petitioners have been rejected on the ground that the B.Ed. degree issued by the Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad, UP is not recognized by the NCTE. The NCTE Act was enacted to achieve planned and coordinated development of the teacher education system in the country. But there is no provision in the Act requiring a University to take its approval to run a teacher education. The Bhartiya Shiksha Parisad, UP is recognised by the State Government. The petitioners on behalf of the rejected candidates submitted a representation dated 11-10-2016 requesting the Director of Education to re-consider their cases and allow them to participate in the DPC proceedings. However, no concrete decision/positive action was taken which prompted the petitioners to approach the Hon''ble High Court by way of a writ petition being WP(C) No.839 of 2016 challenging the notification wherein this court passed an interim order dated 24-10-2016 suspending the notification in respect of the petitioners. Despite the existence of the said order being known to it, the Director of Education issued the Notification dated 26-10-2016 short-listing candidates for Personal Interview/Viva-Voce. The names of the petitioners did not figure in the said list and therefore, the said notification is being challenged on the ground that it is highly illegal, improper, arbitrary being violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. W.P. (C) No. 33 of 2017: 14.1. By the instant writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ to quash and set aside the notification dated 19-12-2016 issued by the Director of Education (S), Govt. of Manipur and to direct the respondents to hold/ arrange viva-voce for appointment to the post of Language (Tangkhul) Graduate Teacher (RMSA) as per the notification dated 11-05-2016 issued by the Directorate of Education, Manipur. 14.2. According to the petitioners, they are well qualified and eligible for appointment to the posts of Language (Tangkhul) Graduate Teacher (RMSA). On 11-05-2016 the Directorate of Education (S), Government of Manipur issued a notification inviting applications from amongst the eligible candidates for recruitment of Graduate Teacher under RMSA and as per the said notification, vacancies for the post of Language Graduate Teacher (RMSA) in total are 50 and in respect of Tangkhul Language, the vacant posts are 3 only. The essential qualifications to be fulfilled by the candidates have been laid down in the notification and being eligible as per the notification, the petitioners applied for the said posts. After the Admit Cards being issued in their favour, the petitioners were waiting for participating in the DPC proceedings but to their utter shock and surprise, the Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur issued a notification dated 19-12-2016 whereby the candidatures of the petitioners have been rejected on the ground that the B.Ed. degree issued by the Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad, UP is not recognized by the NCTE. The NCTE Act was enacted to achieve planned and coordinated development of the teachers education system in the country. But there is no provision in the Act requiring a University to take its approval to run a teacher education. The Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad, UP is recognised by the State Government. Moreover, the B.Ed. degree has nothing to do with the appointment of a language graduate teacher and therefore, the rejection of their candidatures, without any valid reasons, is arbitrary and unreasonable being violative of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution. W.P. (C) No. 1043 of 2016: 15.1. By the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ to quash and set aside the Notification dated 03-11-2016 issued by the Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur and to direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to take part in the Interview/ Viva-Voce for appointment to the post of Mathematics Graduate Teacher (RMSA) vide notification dated 11-05-2016. 15.2. According to the petitioner, he is well qualified and eligible for appointment to the post of Mathematics Graduate Teacher (RMSA). On 11-05-2016 the Directorate of Education (S), Govt. of Manipur issued a notification inviting applications from amongst the eligible candidates for recruitment of Graduate Teacher (RMSA) and as per the said notification, vacancies for the post of Mathematics Graduate Teacher (RMSA) are 72. The essential qualifications to be fulfilled by the candidates have been laid down in the notification and being eligible as per the said notification, the petitioners applied for the said posts. After the Admit Card being issued in his favour, the petitioner was waiting for participating in the DPC proceedings but to his utter shock and surprise, the Director of Education (S), Govt. of Manipur issued a notification dated 03-11-2016 whereby the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the B.Ed. degree issued by the Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad, UP is not recognized by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE). The NCTE Act was enacted to achieve planned and coordinated development of the teacher education system in the country. But there is no provision in the Act requiring a University to take its approval to run a teacher education. The Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad, UP is recognised by the State Government. The rejection of his candidature, without any valid reason, is highly arbitrary & illegal. An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 wherein the stand taken by them is similar to that of the one taken in the other writ petitions and therefore, the same are not repeated here for the sake of brevity. W.P. (C) No. 275 of 2017: 16.1. By the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ to quash and set aside the impugned notification dated 07-10-2016 issued by the Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur and to direct the respondents to hold Personal Interview/Viva-Voce in respect of the petitioner for appointment to various posts of Upper Primary Teachers (SSA) in terms of the notification dated 11-05-2016. 16.2. According to the petitioner, she is well qualified and eligible for appointment to the post of Upper Primary Teacher under the Sharva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA). On 11-05-2016 the Directorate of Education (S), Government of Manipur issued a notification inviting applications from amongst the eligible candidates for recruitment of Upper Primary Teachers under the SSA and as per the said notification, vacancies for the post of Science, Mathematics and Social Science are 203, 204 and 48 respectively. The essential qualifications to be fulfilled by the candidates have been laid down in the notification and being eligible as per the said notification, the petitioner applied for the said post. After the Admit Card being issued in her favour, the petitioner was waiting for participating in the DPC proceedings but to her utter shock and surprise, the Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur issued a notification dated 07-10-2016 whereby the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the B.Ed. degree issued by the Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad, UP is not recognized by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE). The NCTE Act was enacted to achieve planned and coordinated development of the teacher education system in the country. But there is no provision in the Act requiring a University to take its approval to run a teacher education. The Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad, UP is recognised by the State Government. Some of the candidates whose candidatures had been rejected submitted a representation dated 11-10-2016 and instead of considering the said representation, the Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur issued another notification dated 26-10-2016 wherein 1362 candidates have been shortlisted for Personal Interview/ Viva-Voce for direct recruitment to the posts of Upper Primary Teacher (SSA), Manipur. Some candidates whose candidatures have been rejected, filed the writ petitions being W.P(C) No. 839 of 2016 and W.P(C) No. 959 of 2016 challenging the said notification dated 26-10-2016. Although no affidavit-in-opposition was filed on behalf of the State respondents, the Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur issued another notification dated 26-12-2016 by which some of the candidates whose candidatures were earlier rejected on similar ground, were again allowed to sit for the Personal Interview/ Viva-Voce on 29-12-2016. On 31-12-2016 the result of the said selection for appointment to the posts of Upper Primary Teacher was declared whereby 199 candidates in respect of Upper Primary Teachers (Science), 146 (Mathematics) and 44 (Social Science) were declared successful. Being aggrieved by the notification dated 07-10-2016, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner contending that her case is analogous with the said cases. 17. The learned counsels appearing for the petitioners namely Shri M. Devananda, Advocate; Shri M. Hemchandra, Senior Advocate & Shri N. Jotendra, Senior Advocate, in respect of the said twelve writ petitions, submit that all the petitioners are qualified and eligible for appointment as Graduate Teachers (RMSA)/Upper Primary Teachers (SSA) on the basis of the B.Ed. certificates issued by the recognized institutes as is evident from the essential qualifications prescribed in the notification dated 11-05-2016 and the petitioners were issued Admit Cards pursuant to the applications being submitted by them in response to the said notification. The impugned notifications dated 07-10-2016 and 03-11-2016 by which the candidatures of the petitioners have been rejected, are arbitrary and illegal. It has also been submitted by them that as per the relevant recruitment rules for appointment to the post of Graduate Teachers (RMSA)/Upper Primary Teachers (SSA), all the petitioners are eligible having fulfilled the essential qualifications prescribed therein. As per Section 12(b) of the said NCTE Act, 1993, the functions of the NCTE are inter-alia to make recommendations to the Central and the State Governments, Universities, University Grants Commission and recognized institutions in the matter of preparation of suitable plans and programmes in the field of teacher education. There is no provision in the said NCTE Act, 1993 requiring the University to take its approval from the NCTE to run teacher education courses and award degrees to pass out candidates under Section 14 of the said Act and therefore, getting approval/recognition from the NCTE is not mandatory for any educational institution to run teacher education courses. In support of their contentions, the learned counsels appearing for the petitioners have cited many rulings of the Hon''ble Supreme Court. Shri M. Devananda, the learned counsel has relied upon decision in Surinder Singh v. Union of India & ors., (2007) 11 SCC 599 wherein the question was whether it was permissible to the Department to select the appellant on the basis of percentage of marks obtained by him in preferential qualification? The Hon''ble Supreme Court held that in service jurisprudence, the prescription of preferential qualification not only refers to numeric superiority but is certainly related to better mental capacity, ability and maturity to shoulder the responsibilities which are entrusted to the candidates after their selection to a particular post. All the more, it is important for efficient and effective administration. The object of prescribing preferential qualification is to select the best amongst the better candidates who possess more competence than others. The preferential qualification was considered to be more effective and efficient. In Rakhi Ray & ors. v. High Court of Delhi, (2010) 2 SCC 637 wherein the question was whether the vacancies which arose during the selection process, could be filled up from the select list? The Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that it is a settled legal proposition that vacancies cannot be filled up over and above the number of vacancies advertised as the recruitment of the candidates in excess of the notified vacancies is a denial and deprivation of the constitutional right under Article 14 read with Article 16(1) of the Constitution, of those persons who acquired eligibility for the post in question in accordance with statutory rules subsequent to the notification of vacancies. Filling up the vacancies over the notified vacancies is neither permissible nor desirable for the reason that it amounts to improper exercise of power and only in a rare and exceptional circumstance and in emergent situation, such rule can be deviated from and such a deviation is permissible only after adopting a policy decision based on some rationale, otherwise the exercise would be arbitrary. Any appointment made beyond the number of vacancies advertised is without jurisdiction, being violative of Article 14 and 16 (1) of the Contitution of India, thus a nullity, in-executable and unenforceable in law. Shri M. Hemchandra, the learned Senior Advocate has relied upon the decision rendered in Naseem Bano (Smt.) v. State of UP & ors., 1993 Supp (4) SCC 36 wherein the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that the averment made in the writ petition, not controverted by the respondent, shall be presumed to have been admitted. Similarly, in State of Assam v. Union of India & ors., (2010) 10 SCC 408, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has observed that the allegation of fact, if not denied/controverted in the counter affidavit, normally it shall be taken to be admitted by the respondents. In Basic Education Board, UP v. Upendra Rai & ors., (2008) 3 SCC 432 which relates to the question about the qualification of the respondent for being appointed as Assistant Master in Junior Basic Schools in UP. One of the essential requirements was the training qualification consisting of Basic Teacher''s Certificate and the contention of the respondent therein was that since he held a diploma in education, he had the educational qualification in the view of the NCTE Act, 1993 which overrides the UP Basic Education (Teachers) Rules, 1981. The Hon''ble Supreme Court, rejecting the said contention, held that the NCTE Act does not deal with ordinary educational institutions and that it cannot be said that the NCTE Act overrides the UP Basic Education Act because both the Acts operate in altogether two different fields. In Bihar State Text Book Workers Union v. State of Bihar & ors., (2013) 7 SCC 238 wherein the appellant approached the Hon''ble High Court with a prayer that the respondent be directed to nominate a member of the DPC to consider the case of the members of the appellant union for the posts of operatives which was resisted by the respondents on the ground that they are not entitled to be considered for promotion because they were non-matriculates. The Single Judge granted the relief but the same was reversed by the Division Bench. When the matter came up before it, the Hon''ble Supreme Court held that the learned counsel for the respondents was unable to support the requirement of matriculation on the basis of any rule, statutory regulation or resolution of the corporation and that the respondents are not entitled to introduce a qualification not prescribed anywhere into the advertisement or any statutory rules etc. On the other hand, Shri N. Ibotombi, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Board has placed reliance on the decision rendered in Chairman, Bhartia Education Society & anr. v. State of Himachal Pradesh & ors., (2011) 4 SCC 527 wherein the question was as to whether the admissions made in 1999, before recognition by NCTE, are valid. The Hon''ble Supreme Court examined the various provisions of the NCTE Act, 1993 and held: "12. The Society established and started the Institute after the appointed day. The Society applied to NCTE for recognition on 11-4-1997. NCTE required the Society to obtain and furnish an NOC from the Government of Himachal Pradesh. The said NOC was granted on 20-9-1999. In pursuance of it, NCTE granted recognition to the Institute on 17-7-2000. The order of NCTE made it clear that the recognition was for conducting the two years'' JBT course commencing from the academic year 2000-2001 with an annual intake of 50 students. Having regard to the clear provisions of the NCTE Act, before NCTE granted recognition on 17-7-2000, the Institute could not offer the JBT course nor admit any students to such course. Therefore, the admissions made by the Institute in the year 1999 for the academic session 1999-2001 are illegal and irregular and could not be approved, recognised or regularised. 13. The students pointed out that the State Government and the Board have accepted and regularised the admissions of 68 students of 1999-2001 batch and therefore they should not be denied similar benefit. The fact that the State Government and the Board chose to ignore the absence of NCTE recognition and permitted the students admitted in 1999 to take the examination or announced the results of 68 students who were eligible as per the criteria prescribed by the State/Board, cannot be a ground for us to ignore the mandatory statutory requirements of the NCTE Act and perpetuate an illegality by requiring the Board to conduct the examinations for the remaining 92 students admitted in the year 1999 or declare their results." In Adarsh Shiksha Mahavidyalaya & ors. v. Subhash Rahangdale & ors., (2012) 2 SCC 425 the Hon''ble Supreme Court again examined the scheme of the NCTE Act, 1993 and the regulations farmed thereunder. The Hon''ble Supreme had considered many issues involved therein, out of which only two issues are relevant for the present case. One of the issues was as to whether the impugned order therein was contrary to the rules of natural justice in which the Hon''ble Supreme Court was of the view that the conclusions recorded by the High Court and the directions contained therein were of general application and did not target any particular college or institution. Therefore, the appellants cannot be heard to give a grievance that the impugned order is violative of the rules of natural justice. The other question was as to whether the students who had taken admission in unrecognised institutions or the institutions which had not been granted affiliation by the examining body have the right to appear in the examination and whether the court can issue a mandamus for declaration of the result of such students simply because they were allowed to provisionally appear in the examination in compliance with the interim orders passed by the High Court and/or by this court. The Hon''ble Supreme Court, as sequel to the discussion made in respect of its earlier decisions on similar issues, reiterated the following: "(i) The Regional Committees established under Section 20 of the 1993 Act are duty-bound to ensure that no private institution offering or intending to offer a course or training in teacher education is granted recognition unless it satisfies the conditions specified in Section 14(3)(a) of the 1993 Act and Regulations 7 and 8 of the Regulations. Likewise, no recognised institution intending to start any new course or training in teacher education shall be granted permission unless it satisfies the conditions specified in Section 15(3)(a) of the 1993 Act and the relevant Regulations. (ii) The State Government/UT Administration, to whom a copy of the application made by an institution for grant of recognition is sent in terms of Regulation 7(2) of the Regulations, is under an obligation to make its recommendations within the time specified in Regulation 7(3) of the Regulations. (iii) While granting recognition, the Regional Committees are required to give due weightage to the recommendations made by the State Government/UT Administration and keep in view the observations made by this Court in St. Johns Teachers Training Institute v. National Council for Teacher Education and National Council for Teacher Education v. Shri Shyam Shiksha Prashikshan Sansthan, which have been extracted in the earlier part of this judgment. (iv) The recognition granted by the Regional Committees under Section 14(3)(a) of the 1993 Act read with Regulations 7 and 8 of the Regulations and permission granted under Section 15(3)(a) read with the relevant Regulations shall operate prospectively i.e. from the date of communication of the order of recognition or permission, as the case may be. (v) The recognition can be refused by the Regional Committee under Section 14(3)(b), in the first instance, when an application for recognition is made by an institution. Likewise, permission can be refused under Section 15(3)(b). (vi) If the recognition is refused under Section 14(3)(b) after affording reasonable opportunity to the applicant to make a written representation, the institution concerned is required to discontinue the course or training from the end of the academic session next following the date of receipt of the order. (vii) Once the recognition is granted, the same can be withdrawn only under Section 17(1) if there is a contravention of the provisions of the Act or the Rules, or the Regulations, or orders made therein, or any condition subject to which recognition was granted under Section 14(3)(a) or permission was granted under Section 15(3)(a). (viii) The withdrawal of recognition becomes effective from the end of the academic session next following the date of communication of the order of withdrawal. (ix) Once the recognition is withdrawn under Section 17(1), the institution concerned is required to discontinue the course or training in teacher education and the examining body is obliged to cancel the affiliation. The effect of withdrawal of the recognition is that the qualification in teacher education obtained pursuant to the course or training undertaken at such institution is not to be treated as valid qualification for the purpose of employment under the Central Government, any State Government or university or in any educational body aided by the Central or the State Government. (x) In view of the mandate of Section 16, no examining body, as defined in Section 2(d) of the 1993 Act, shall grant affiliation unless the applicant has obtained recognition from the Regional Committee under Section 14 or permission for starting a new course or training under Section 15. (xi) While granting affiliation, the examining body shall be free to demand rigorous compliance with the conditions contained in the statute like the University Act or the State Education Board Act under which it was established or the guidelines/norms which may have been laid down by the examining body concerned. (xii) No institution shall admit any student to a teacher training course or programme unless it has obtained recognition under Section 14 or permission under Section 15, as the case may be. (xiii) While making admissions, every recognised institution is duty-bound to strictly adhere to Paras 3.1 to 3.3 of the Norms and Standards for Secondary/Pre-School Teacher Education Programme contained in Appendix 1 to the Regulations. (xiv) If any institution admits any student in violation of the Norms and Standards laid down by NCTE, then the Regional Committee shall initiate action for withdrawal of the recognition of such institution and pass appropriate order after complying with the rules of natural justice. (xv) The students admitted by unrecognised institution and institutions which are not affiliated to any examining body are not entitled to appear in the examination conducted by the examining body or any other authorised agency. (xvi) The students admitted by the recognised institutions otherwise than through the entrance/eligibility test conducted in accordance with the admission procedure contained in Para 3.3 of Appendix 1 to the Regulations are also not entitled to appear in the examination conducted by the examining body or any other authorised agency. (xvii) NCTE shall issue direction for mandatory inspection of recognised institutions on periodical basis and all the Regional Committees are duty-bound to take action in accordance with those directions. (xviii) In future, the High Courts shall not entertain prayer for interim relief by unrecognised institutions and the institutions which have not been granted affiliation by the examining body and/or the students admitted by such institutions for permission to appear in the examination or for declaration of the result of examination. This would also apply to the recognised institutions if they admit students otherwise than in accordance with the procedure contained in Appendix 1 of the Regulations." In Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya v. State of Uttar Pradesh & ors., (2013) 2 SCC 617 the Hon''ble Supreme Court had the occasion once again to examine the various provisions of the NCTE Act, 1993 and observed that the NCTE Act is a special Act enacted to cover a particular filed i.e., teacher training education and thus, has to receive precedence over other laws in relation to that field. No institution or body is empowered to grant recognition to any institution under the NCTE Act or any other law for the time being in force, except NCTE itself. Grant of recognition by the council is a condition precedent to grant affiliation by the examining body to an institute. The Hon''ble Supreme Court further observed that grant of recognition or affiliation to an institute is a condition precedent to running of their courses by the institute. If either of them is not granted to the institute, it would not be in a position to commence the relevant academic courses. In case of a conflict between a University Act with the provisions of the Central Act, the operation of the University Act would be deemed to have become unenforceable in case of technical colleges, after coming into force of the Central Act. Shri S. Nepoleon, the learned Government Advocate adopted the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the Board and in addition thereto, he has placed reliance in Dr. Umakant Saran v. State of Bihar & ors., (1973) 1 SCC 485 wherein the Hon''ble Supreme Court relying upon its earlier decisions held that in order that mandamus may issue to compel the authorities to do something, it must be shown that the statute imposes a legal duty and the aggrieved party may have a legal right under the statute to enforce its performance. 18. It is not in dispute that the Directorate of Education (S), Government of Manipur issued the Notification dated 11-05-2016 inviting applications from the willing and eligible candidates for recruitment of graduate teachers under the Rashtrya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan (RMSA) in respect of some subjects mentioned therein. On the same day, another notification was issued for appointment to the posts of Upper Primary Teachers (SSA) in the same line as that of the Graduate Teachers (RMSA). As per the said notifications dated 11-05-2016 in respect of the Graduate Teachers (RMSA) and Upper Primary Teachers (SSA), the negligibilities notified therein are given as under:-
Sl. No.
Name of post
Essential qualification
Desirable
1
Arts Graduate Teachers
(a) Graduate in Arts from recognized University/Institute. (b) B.Ed. OR its equivalent from recognized University/Institute
Master Degree 2. Knowledge of Manipur.
2
Science Graduate Teachers
(a) Graduate in Science from recognized University/Institute. (b) B.Ed. OR its equivalent from recognized University/Institute.
Master Degree 2. Knowledge of Manipur.
3
Mathematics Graduate Teachers
(a) Graduate in Mathematics from recognized University/Institute. (b) B.Ed. OR its equivalent from recognized University/Institute.
Master Degree 2. Knowledge of Manipur.
4
English Graduate Teachers
(a) Graduate in English from recognized University/Institute. (b) B.Ed. OR its equivalent from recognized University/Institute.
Master Degree 2. Knowledge of Manipur.
5
Language Graduate Teachers
(a) For Manipuri/Hindi/Addl. English/ Nepali i) Graduate in concerned subject AND
ii) B.Ed. or its equivalent from recognized university/Institute.
(b) ForTangkhul/Ruangmei/Thadou Kuki/Mizo/Zou/Vaiphei/Kom/Mao/Paite/Hmar/Liangmei -
i) Graduate from recognized University/Institute AND
ii) Mother Tongue in concerned Tribal Language recognized by BOSEM.
Master Degree 2. Knowledge of Manipur.
Certificate of Training from recognized Institute
AND "3. Eligibility (Upper Primary Teacher): "Essential qualifications (a) Graduation in concerned subject and 2 year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known) from recognized University/Institute/Board. OR Graduation in concerned subject with at least 50% marks and 1 year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.) from recognized University/Institute/Board. OR Graduation in concerned subject with at least 45% marks and 1 year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.) from recognized University/Institute/Board, in accordance with the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations issued from time to time in this regard. OR 10+2 (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4 year Bachelor in Elementary Education (B.El.Ed.) in concerned subject from recognized University/Institute/Board. OR 10+2 (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks and 4 year BA/B.Sc.Ed. or B.A.Ed./B.Sc.Ed. in concerned subject from recognized University/Institute/Board. OR Graduation in concerned subject with at least 50% marks and 1 year B.Ed.(Special Education) from recognized University/Institue/Board. AND (b) Pass in the Teacher Eligibility Test-II(TET-II) conducted by State Government or any other agency approved by NCTE. It is also not in dispute that the essential qualifications as shown here-in-above, are in line with and are based on the recruitment rules. The whole controversy centres round the expression "B.Ed. or equivalent from a recognised University/institute". The contention of the learned counsels appearing for the petitioners is that since all of them have obtained B.Ed. from a recognised University/Institute, they applied for appointment to the post of Graduate Teachers (RMSA)/Upper Primary Teachers (SSA) and that the said expression is not qualified by the expression "recognised by the NCTE". On the other hand, it is the submission of Shri N. Ibotombi, the learned Senior Advocate as well as Shri S. Nepolean, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the Board as well as the State Government that the institutes from which the petitioners obtained their B.Ed. certificate are not recognized by the NCTE and therefore, the petitioners are not eligible to apply for the said posts of Graduate Teachers (RMSA)/Upper Primary Teachers (SSA). The submission of Ms. Elizabeth, the learned counsel appearing for the NCTE is similar to that of the counsels for the Board and the State Government. In view of the rival contentions, the short question that arises for consideration by this court is as to whether a person who obtained his B.Ed. certificate from a recognized institution but not recognized by NCTE, is eligible to apply for appointment to the post of Graduate Teachers (RMSA)/Upper Primary Teachers (SSA). The NCTE Act, 1993 is enacted by the Parliament with a view to achieving planned and coordinated development of the teacher education system throughout the country, regulation and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the teacher education system including qualifications of school teachers and for the matters connected therewith. The expression "institution" is defined as an institution which offers courses or training in teacher education while the expression "recognized institution" means an institution recognized by the Council under Section 14. Section 14(1) provides that every institution offering or intending to offer a course or training in teacher education on or after the appointed day, may, for grant of recognition under this Act, make an application to the Regional Committee concerned in such form and in such manner as may be determined by regulations. Section 15(1) provides that where any recognized institution intends to start any new course or training in teacher education, it may make an application to seek permission therefore from the Regional Committee concerned in such form and in such manner as may be determined by regulations. Section 17(1) provides that where the Regional Committee is, on its own motion or on any representation received from any person, satisfied that a recognized institution has contravened any of the provisions of this Act, or the rules, regulations, orders made or issued thereunder, or any condition subject to which recognition under sub-section (3) of Section 14 or permission under sub-section (3) of Section 15 was granted, it may withdraw recognition of such recognized institution, for reasons to be recorded in writing. Sub-section (3) provides that once the recognition of a recognised institution is withdrawn under sub-section (1), such institution shall discontinue the course or training in teacher education, and the concerned University or the examining body shall cancel affiliation of the institution in accordance with the order passed under sub-section (1), with effect from the end of the academic session next following the date of communication of the said order. Sub-section (4) provides that if an institution offers any course of training in teacher education after the coming into force of the order withdrawing recognition under sub-section (1), or where an institution offering a course or training in teacher education immediately before the appointed day fails or neglects to obtain recognition or permission under this Act, the qualification in teacher education obtained pursuant to such course or training or after undertaking a course or training in such institution, shall not be treated as a valid qualification for purposes of employment under the Central Government, any State Government or University, or in any school, college or other educational body aided by the Central Government or any State Government. Over and above, Section 17(a) provides that no institution shall admit any student to a course or training in teacher education, unless the institution concerned has obtained recognition under Section 14 or permission under Section 15. On perusal of these provisions of the NCTE Act, it is evident that the purpose of enacting this Act is to provide a mechanism to regulate and maintain certain norms and standards in the teacher education system. Any institution offering or intending to offer a course or training in teacher education on or after the appointed day is required to make an application for recognition in the prescribed form. Even the recognized institution, if it intends to start any new course or training in teacher education, may make an application for seeking permission from the NCTE. If an institution offers any course or training in teacher education after the coming into force or the withdrawal of the recognition, the qualification in teacher education obtained pursuant to such course or training shall not be treated as a valid qualification for purposes of employment under the Central Government, any State Government or University, or in any school, college or other educational body aided by the Central Government or any State Government. Over and above, no institution shall admit any student to a course or training in teacher education, unless the institution concerned has obtained recognition from the NCTE. What will be the consequence in the event of the provisions of the NCTE Act, 1993 not being followed by the University/ Institutes, is provided in the Act itself. The NCTE Act, 1993 being an Act enacted by the Centre, all concerned are bound by it and any existing law contrary to the provisions of the said Act, will stand rendered invalid. In some of the writ petitions, the Notification dated 23-08-2010 issued by the NCTE laying down regulations has been questioned, but the same do not have any substance for the reason that the said notification has been issued in exercise of power conferred under Section 32 of the NCTE Act, 1993, the constitutional validity of which remains unchallenged by the petitioners. As seen here-in-above, the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the cases cited by the learned counsels appearing for the Board and the State Government, in particular Adarsh Shiksha Mahavidyala case and Maa Vaishno Devi Mahavidyala case, has vividly observed and explained the details about the NCTE Act. But the decisions relied upon by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioners are not relevant and inapplicable, as the facts of the said cases are not similar to that of the present twelve cases. Over and above, the contentions of the learned counsels appearing for the petitioners are accepted, the provisions of the NCTE Act will be rendered redundant and the purpose for which the NCTE Act has been enacted by the parliament will be defeated without the same, it may be noted, being challenged by any of the petitioners in the aforesaid twelve petitions. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsels appearing for the petitioners appears to have no substance and is accordingly liable to be rejected. 19. So far as these two cases namely WP(C) No. 1061 of 2016 & WP(C) No. 33 of 2017 are concerned, it may be noted that the qualifications prescribed in the Notification dated 11-05-2016 in respect of the language graduate teacher for the languages of Tangkhul/ Ruangmei/ Thadou Kuki/ Mizo/ Zou/ Vaiphei/ Kom/ Mao/ Paite/ Hmar/ Liangmei are: (i) graduate from a recognized University/Institute and (ii) mother tongue in the concerned tribal language recognized by the Board. It is nowhere mentioned in the said notification that to be eligible for appointment as a language graduate teacher, one must possess the qualification of B.Ed. from a recognised University/Institute. The requirement of a certificate of training from a recognized Institute is only desirable and not an essential qualification and therefore, the question of applying the provisions of the NCTE Act to the appointment of a language graduate teacher does not arise at all. The rejection of the candidatures of the petitioners herein is unreasonable, arbitrary, illegal and the notification dated 19-12-2016 issued by the Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur in respect of the petitioners herein is liable to be quashed and set aside. 20. One aspect which needs to be considered in the present facts and circumstances of the said twelve cases by this court is as regards the outcome of the dismissal of the said twelve writ petitions. As has been stated in the preceding paras, it is not in dispute that in the notification dated 11-05-2016 as well as the recruitment rules, it is nowhere mentioned specifically that B.Ed. degree which is one of the essential qualifications to apply for appointment to the post of Graduate Teachers (RMSA)/Upper Primary Teachers (SSA), ought to be from a University/Institute recognised by the NCTE. It may be noted that prior to the said notification being issued by the Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur, he was aware of it but has failed to incorporate the same in the notifications and moreover, the recruitment rules also appear to have not yet been amended to bring them in line with the provisions of the NCTE Act, as a result of which the whole and present controversy has arisen. In respect of the essential qualifications prescribed in the Notification dated 11-05-2016 for appointment to the post of Upper Primary Teachers (SSA), the expression "approved by the NCTE" is used only as regards the last qualification namely requirement of passing the Teachers Eligibility Test and nothing prevented the Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur from incorporating the said expression in respect of other qualifications. It is nothing but creating confusion and harassment to the general public for which the State Government is solely responsible and liable and it cannot take advantage of its own mistake. It is evident from the callous attitude of the State Government that it feels that it can do whatever it feels like completely forgetting the fact that the State Government being an institution, ought to act fairly, reasonably and in public interest. On top of that, the impugned notifications were issued by the State Government without prior notice being given to them. But at this stage, there is no point of considering that issue for the reason that the result will remain the same in view of the mandatory provisions of the NCTE Act. The ancillary question that arises for consideration by this court is as to what direction be given in the present cases as regards the liability of the State Government. Had the requirement that the B.Ed. degree be recognised by the NCTE, been incorporated in the notification in respect of all the essential qualifications or for that matter in the recruitment rules, the present controversy could have been avoided but for the lapse and the negligence on the part of the State Government, the petitioners have suffered injuries for which the State Government is liable to compensate them. In other words, the State Government is liable to be penalised exemplarily by way of issuing a direction for payment of compensation. 21. For the reasons stated here-in-above, the writ petitions being WP(C) No. 967 of 2016; WP(C) No. 34 of 2017; WP(C) No. 904 of 2016; WP(C) No. 808 of 2016; WP(C) No. 839 of 2016; WP(C) No. 259 of 2017; WP(C) No. 274 of 2017; WP(C) No. 874 of 2016; WP(C) No. 742 of 2016: WP(C) No. 959 of 2016; WP(C) No. 1043 of 2016 & WP(C) No. 275 of 2017 are dismissed while the writ petitions being WP(C) No. 1061 of 2016 and WP(C) No. 33 of 2017 are allowed with the following directions: (a) The State respondents and in particular, the Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur shall conduct a special Personality Test/Viva-Voce only for the petitioners in the said two writ petitions within thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and order; (b) In the event of the said petitioners being found to be selected for appointment as the language Graduate Teachers on the basis of the Personality Test/Viva-Voce as per direction (a) above, they shall be appointed; (c) The State respondents and in particular, the Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur shall return the application fee, collected from the petitioners whose writ petitions have been dismissed, to them within thirty days from the receipt of a copy of this judgment and order with Rs. 5000/- (rupees five thousand) each to the petitioners as compensation. In view of this judgment and order being pronounced today, all the interim orders passed by this court in the above twelve writ petitions shall stand vacated. There shall be no order as to costs.