Bharat College of Education Vs. A.P. State Council of Higher Education and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. teacher employed in the school run by cantonment board being covered under rule 2 (f) of the cantonment fund servants rules, 1937 can file appeal under rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah. lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. -- maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, 1978 [act no. 3/1978]. sections 9 & 2(21): jurisdiction of school tribunal whether a school run by cantonment board is not a recognised school within the meaning of section 2(21)? - held, the act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the act shall apply to all private schools in the state whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the state government or not. private school is defined in section 2(2) of the act as a recognised school established or administered by a management other than the government or a local authority. recognised means recognised by director, the divisional board or state board. thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four directors, the divisional boards and four state boards. the second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by director or by any of such boards. the question to be examined is whether school run by the cantonment board could be said to be one run by any such boards. a private school has to be recognised by the state or the divisional board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. when this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the director or by any such boards, is included in the latter part of section 2(21), such boards will be of the level of the state board or the divisional board. the boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which primary schools are operating. thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. section 2(21) of the act defines the term recognised. the last clause therein is by any of such boards. the term such is defined in oxford dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. therefore, the term such board will have to mean a divisional board of or the level of divisional board or the state board. the divisional board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. the state board advises the state government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. the cantonment board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other board or body under the cantonments act discharging any such duties. the duties of the cantonment board are laid down in section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. the cantonment board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. therefore, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. that being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the act. for the reasons state above, the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah.lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. - he contends that such a condition had virtually, defeated the very purpose of conducting spot admissions.orderl. narasimha reddy, j. 1. the petitioner is a college of education and it is conferred with minority status. the government issued g.o. ms. no. 26, education department, dated 3-2-2005, prescribing the procedure for admitting the candidates into the government minority and non-minority colleges of education in the state. the admission into various categories of seats in different types of colleges, concludes with the third phase of counselling under the supervision of the convenor, ed.cet-2004, hyderabad, the second respondent. however, if any seats remain even after the third phase, they are to be filled up through a process known as 'spot admissions'. the regional joint director of school education of the area concerned is conferred with the power to stipulate a schedule for this purpose.2. the second respondent issued a notification dated 22-8-2005 prescribing the schedule and mode of spot admissions. in that notification, he has indicated the ranks below which, the colleges can select the candidates. the grievance of the petitioner is that though it had issued an advertisement inviting candidates in terms of the notification issued by the second respondent, as many as eight seats are still vacant. it seeks appropriate directions to enable it to fill the seats with the candidates, who are qualified in ed.cet-2004.3. the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the balance seats are permitted to be filled in through procedure of spot admissions, there was no basis for the respondents in stipulating the limits as to ranks. he contends that such a condition had virtually, defeated the very purpose of conducting spot admissions.4. the learned standing counsel for the andhra pradesh state council of higher education, hyderabad, the first respondent, submits that the stipulation of outer limits in terms of the ranks, was done with a view to facilitate proper and healthy way of selection of candidates and that it is not permissible for the petitioner to fill the seats at this stage, since the course has already commenced.5. it is not necessary to refer to various methods of admission into different categories of seats in minority institutions. the controversy is only in relation to the left over seats. they can be filled up, through the process, known as spot admission, in accordance with g.o. ms. no. 26, dated 3-2-2005. a perusal of the g.o. discloses that the spot admissions are not restricted to any ranks nor they are regulated by the second respondent. the procedure is that the institutions themselves can issue advertisement, inviting applications, duly indicating the number of available seats and fill them with such of the candidates, who respond to it, duly following the merit among them. insistence that the invitation for this category of seats shall be upto a particular rank, would defeat the purpose of conducting spot admissions. there is no rational basis for restricting such admissions upto a particular rank. on account of stipulation of such limits, there was no response for the notification issued by the petitioner. conversely, candidates with ranks outside such limit were denied of opportunity.6. so far as the plea as to the closure of admissions and stage of course is concerned, it is evident that the admissions were permitted to take place upto 29-8-2005. on the next day itself, the petitioner made a representation to the respondents seeking permission to go for admissions beyond the ranks stipulated in the notification. hardly, few working days have passed since then.7. in that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of leaving it open to the petitioner to invite applications and conclude spot admissions, within three days from today, restricting the admissions to only such of the candidates, who are qualified in that ed.cet, and by complying with the other conditions stipulated in the notification dated 22-8-2005.

Judgment:
ORDER

L. Narasimha Reddy, J.

1. The petitioner is a college of education and it is conferred with minority status. The Government issued G.O. Ms. No. 26, Education Department, dated 3-2-2005, prescribing the procedure for admitting the candidates into the Government Minority and Non-Minority colleges of education in the State. The admission into various categories of seats in different types of colleges, concludes with the third phase of Counselling under the supervision of the Convenor, Ed.CET-2004, Hyderabad, the second respondent. However, if any seats remain even after the third phase, they are to be filled up through a process known as 'spot admissions'. The Regional Joint Director of School Education of the area concerned is conferred with the power to stipulate a schedule for this purpose.

2. The second respondent issued a notification dated 22-8-2005 prescribing the schedule and mode of spot admissions. In that notification, he has indicated the ranks below which, the colleges can select the candidates. The grievance of the petitioner is that though it had issued an advertisement inviting candidates in terms of the notification issued by the second respondent, as many as eight seats are still vacant. It seeks appropriate directions to enable it to fill the seats with the candidates, who are qualified in Ed.CET-2004.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that once the balance seats are permitted to be filled in through procedure of spot admissions, there was no basis for the respondents in stipulating the limits as to ranks. He contends that such a condition had virtually, defeated the very purpose of conducting spot admissions.

4. The learned Standing Counsel for the Andhra Pradesh State Council of Higher Education, Hyderabad, the first respondent, submits that the stipulation of outer limits in terms of the ranks, was done with a view to facilitate proper and healthy way of selection of candidates and that it is not permissible for the petitioner to fill the seats at this stage, since the course has already commenced.

5. It is not necessary to refer to various methods of admission into different categories of seats in minority institutions. The controversy is only in relation to the left over seats. They can be filled up, through the process, known as spot admission, in accordance with G.O. Ms. No. 26, dated 3-2-2005. A perusal of the G.O. discloses that the spot admissions are not restricted to any ranks nor they are regulated by the second respondent. The procedure is that the institutions themselves can issue advertisement, inviting applications, duly indicating the number of available seats and fill them with such of the candidates, who respond to it, duly following the merit among them. Insistence that the invitation for this category of seats shall be upto a particular rank, would defeat the purpose of conducting spot admissions. There is no rational basis for restricting such admissions upto a particular rank. On account of stipulation of such limits, there was no response for the notification issued by the petitioner. Conversely, candidates with ranks outside such limit were denied of opportunity.

6. So far as the plea as to the closure of admissions and stage of course is concerned, it is evident that the admissions were permitted to take place upto 29-8-2005. On the next day itself, the petitioner made a representation to the respondents seeking permission to go for admissions beyond the ranks stipulated in the notification. Hardly, few working days have passed since then.

7. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of leaving it open to the petitioner to invite applications and conclude spot admissions, within three days from today, restricting the admissions to only such of the candidates, who are qualified in that Ed.CET, and by complying with the other conditions stipulated in the notification dated 22-8-2005.