Vani P.R. vs State of Karnataka and Others

B.V. Nagarathna, J.—In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the letter dated 16.8.2005 (Annexure-K) issued by the 4th respondent cancelling the admission of the petitioner for B.Ed. Course and has also sought a declaration that Rule 3(2)(a) of the Karnataka Selection of Candidates for admission to Teacher Certificate Higher Course (TCH) and Bachelor of Education Course (B.Ed.) Rules, 1999 (for short ''1999 Rules'') as being violative of the Constitution and a direction to the respondents to admit the petitioner for B.Ed. course and a further direction to the respondents to include Linguistics, Journalism and other subjects as eligible Elective Subjects for admission to B.Ed. course by effecting necessary amendments to the 1999 Rules.

According to the petitioner, she is a B.A. degree holder from Kuvempu University with elective subjects of Journalism, Linguistics and English. She completed her B.A. degree examination from the 4th respondent-University in the year 1996 and with an intention to become a teacher, joined the B.Ed. course in the 6th respondent''s college of education in the academic year 2004-05. The petitioner''s name was sent for approval by 6th respondent to the 4th respondent for the purpose of taking examination as per Annexure-B along with a list of students for approval to B.Ed. degree course for the academic year 2004-05 as per Annexure-C wherein the petitioner''s name is found at Sl. No. 44. According to the petitioner, she was admitted in the 6th respondent -college being duly qualified and the letter dated 16.8.2005 impugned in this writ petition is illegal and ought to be quashed.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Advocate for respondents 1 to 3, the learned Counsel for respondents 4 and 5 and the learned Counsel for respondent No. 7.

According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, respondents 4 and 5 erred in rejecting the admission of the petitioner in B.Ed. course as per Annexure-K although she was admitted after fulfilling all the eligibility criteria and that, when once the petitioner has been admitted and has remitted the fees to the University, the candidature of the petitioner ought to have been approved. According to him, the University did not apply its mind to the fact that the students who studied linguistics and language can teach English and History methods and that the petitioner who had studied Linguistics, Journalism and English in her degree course has been given teaching method of English and History and therefore, she is eligible for B.Ed. course and the rejection of the eligibility of the petitioner to join the B.Ed. course is erroneous, irrational and illogical. It is submitted that Clause (a) to Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the 1999 Rules-prescribes various subjects, but Linguistics language and Journalism which are independent subjects have not been incorporated and therefore, the same is bad in law. It is further submitted that the omission of these subjects in the said rule which disentitles students such as the petitioner from being admitted to the B.Ed. course is arbitrary as it deprives the petitioner an opportunity of studying B.Ed. course.

Per contra, the learned Government Advocate has submitted that the State Government, in exercise of the powers under Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Karnataka Educational Institution (Prohibition of Capitation Fees) Act, 1984, has framed the 1999 Rules which are applicable to selection of the candidates for admission to B.Ed. course and that Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 contemplates eligibility for admission to B.Ed. course and that a reading of the said Rule makes it clear that a candidate must study at least two subjects out of three electives prescribed in the Rules and that these subjects are the ones which are taught in the High School or primary school on which, teaching methodology is based. After completion of B.Ed. course, the petitioner is eligible to be appointed as teacher in the Higher Primary School to teach the subjects in the said course and that the petitioner has studied Journalism, Linguistics and English which are elective subjects in the degree and those are not mentioned in the said rule and that respondents 4 and 5, after verifying that the petitioner has not studied the elective subjects mentioned in the sub rule, rightly refused the approval of the admission of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the State Government had constituted a Committee to prescribe the syllabus for B.Ed. course and the Expert Committee has prescribed the syllabus based on which, the State Government has framed the Admission Rules and that the petitioner is not equipped to teach necessary subjects in the Higher Primary School and that the prescription of eligibility criteria by an expert body cannot be interfered with by this Court and hence, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

It is further submitted that the subject matter of eligibility of admission of candidates to B.Ed. course who have studied Linguistics, Journalism and English subjects as electives in degree level was placed before the Academic Council of the University in its meeting held on 5.7.2005 and the Academic Council took an unanimous decision not to approve the admissions of the candidates who have studied Linguistics, Journalism and English as electives at the basic degree course and in that view of the matter, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief in this writ petition.

The counsel for the other respondents have adopted the submissions of the learned Government Advocate.

Before considering the rival contentions of the parties, it is necessary to extract Rule 3 of the 1999 Rules which is as follows:

Eligibility: No person shall be eligible for admission under these rules, unless he/she is a citizen of India, and

(1) in respect of Teachers Certificate Higher (TCH) Course unless he/she has passed the Second year Pre-University Course or its equivalent examination and shall have studied any two of the languages among English, Kannada, Hindi, Telugu, Arabic, Tamil, Malayalam, Urdu, Marathi and Sanskrit either in SSLC or in PUC or 12th Standard.

Provided that a Commerce candidate shall have studied in PUC any two of the elective subjects he/she has studied at High School level.

Provided further that the minimum marks for the purpose of qualification shall be:

(1) Forty five percent in the case of Candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe, Category-I of other Backward Classes as specified in the relevant orders issued by the State Government from time to time and physically handicapped candidates.

(ii) Fifty percent in case of other candidates.

Provided also that no person who has passed secondary/Pre-University Vocational Education Course/Diploma or any other Job Oriented Course shall be eligible for admission to TCH Course.

Provided also that a candidate shall be eligible for admission, to a course in particular language medium only if he/she has studied in that medium in SSLC or its equivalent examination or has studied that language as first language in SSLC or its equivalent examination.

(2) In respect of admission to Bachelor of Education Course unless

(a) the Candidate has obtained a degree in Bachelor of Arts or Bachelor of Science with at least one language among English, Kannada, Hindi, Urdu, Sanskrit, Marathi and at least two subjects out of three electives among History, Political Science, Sociology, Geography, Economics, Physics, Chemistry, Botany, Zoology, Mathematics, Biology, English, Kannada, Hindi, Urdu, Marathi and Sanskrit (the subjects taught in the High School and on which, the Methodology of teaching is based) as electives studied during all the three years of the course of study.

(a) Provided that the candidates who have obtained a Bachelor of Arts or Bachelor of Science degree from the Universities situated outside the Karnataka State should have studied at least two electives specified in Clause (a) of Sub-rule (2) in their three year course of study by appearing in one subject in the University Examinations for at least two years and in the principal subject for at least three years only and if there is any change of subject during the course of study of three years, such candidates shall not be eligible for admission to Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) Course.

Provided further that the minimum marks for the purpose of qualification specified above shall be:

(i) Forty five percent of marks in the aggregate of three years of study in the case of candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, Category-I of other Backward Classes as specified in the relevant orders issued by the State Government from time to time and physically-handicapped candidates.

(ii) Fifty percent in respect of other candidates.

(b) has appeared for the Common Entrance Examination specified in Sub-rule(3)

(3) ...

A perusal of Rule 3 makes it apparent that the eligibility criteria in respect of Teachers Certificate Course (TCH) and in respect of Bachelor of Education Course (B.Ed.) are prescribed. In the instant case, the petitioner had sought admission for Bachelor of Education Course and therefore Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 has to be considered. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 states that a candidate, who obtained a Degree in Bachelor of Arts or Bachelor of Science with:

(1) atleast one language among English, Kannada, Hindi, Urdu, Sanskrit, Marathi; and

(2) atleast two subjects out of three electives among History, Political Science, Sociology, Geography, Economics, Physics, Chemistry, Botany, Zoology, Mathematics, Biology, English, Kannada, Hindi, Urdu, Marathi and Sanskrit as electives must have studied during ail the three years of the course of study. Therefore, in the language subjects, the candidate must have studied one language and in electives, must have studied two subjects out of 18 subjects mentioned above. In other words, the candidate must have studied along with one language, two out of the electives prescribed therein. The object and purpose of prescribing the aforementioned subjects are because those subjects are taught in the High School on which the methodology of teaching is based. The proviso to the said Sub-rule is not relevant to the purpose of this case.

In the instant case, however, the petitioner has studied Journalism, Linguistics and English in her B.A., Degree Course. Therefore, though she has the requisite eligibility in respect of language, she does not possess the requisite eligibility in respect of two elective subjects in as much as Journalism and Linguistics are not mentioned in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the 1999 Rules. The reason being that the Journalism and Linguistics are not taught at the school level and the elective subjects being the basis for the methodology of teaching, the petitioner cannot be said to have the eligibility in the absence of two subjects out of three subjects in the electives stated in the Sub-rule. Under the circumstances, the contention of the petitioner that the Rule is violative of the Constitution cannot be accepted as the object and purpose behind the Rule is to ensure that the subjects studied by the candidate at the degree level would be the basis of teaching methodology for the school students and hence, challenge to the Rule is futile. Further, the direction sought for inclusion of Journalism, Linguistics and other subjects as elective subjects in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of 1999 Rules cannot also be considered by this Court in as much as the elective subjects have been selected by a Expert Committee keeping in mind the subsequent fact that the candidates who obtain a degree in Bachelor of Education Course would ultimately be teaching at the school level and therefore, the subjects that are to be taught at the school level are the ones on which the methodology of teaching is based and in that view of the matter the Expert Committee has not taken into consideration the elective subjects such as Journalism and Linguistics. Apart from that the eligibility criteria fixed by the Expert Committee cannot also be interfered with by Courts.

At this stage, it is necessary to reiterate that the issue of equivalence of degrees or certificates secured by the candidates from Secondary Education Course or Universities within India or overseas is a matter to be left to expertise of the Universities and All India bodies which lay down and maintain academic standards in education and it is not for the Court to engage itself in such a matter. In this context, it is relevant to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rajendra Prasad Mathur Ors. Vs. Karnataka University and Another, , where in the context of eligibility for admission to B.E. Degree course, students seeking admissions had to pass two year Pre-University Examination of the Pre-University Board, Bangalore or an examination held by any other Board or University recognised as equivalent to it, the Hon''ble Supreme Court held that students passing Higher Secondary Examination held by Secondary Education Board, Rajasthan, would be clearly ineligible for admission to the degree course when that examination was not recognised as equivalent by the Karnatak University to the Pre-University Examination held by the Pre-University Board, Bangalore.

According to the Apex Court, it is for each University to decide the question of equivalence of an examination of any other Board with the examination which primarily constitutes the basis of eligibility and further it would not be just and proper for the Courts to sit in judgment over the decision of the University, because it is not a matter on which the Court possesses any expertise. The University or its Council is best fitted to decide whether any examination held within the State is equivalent to any other examination having regard to the courses, syllabus, the quality of teaching or instruction and the standard of examination. It is an academic question in which the Court should not interfere with the decision taken by the University.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of this case and the ratio of the decision cited above, I have no hesitation in holding that the petitioner cannot be granted any relief. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed, but without any order as to costs.