PUSHPA KUMARI & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

                                        '\ ' .,

             [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 2()3'

               PUSHPA KUMAR! & ORS.                         A
                            v.
             THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
         (Civil Appeal Nos. 8521-8522 of 2011)
                  OCTOBER 11, 2011
                                                            B
     [R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.]

      National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 -
Appellants pursued primary teachers training from a Women's
Primary Teachers Training College during the sessions 1988- C
1990, 1991-1993, 1992-1994 and 1993-1995 respectively -
Though the College was established in 1985, it was granted
recognition by order dated 15. 12. 1994 by the State
Government with retrospective effect for the sessions 1985-
1987 to 1993-1995 -Appellants wished to take the teachers D
training examination conducted by the Bihar School
Examination Board - Board did not issue them the
examination forms - Appellants filed writ petition which was
dismissed by the High Court - High Court held that since the
 College of the appellants had not applied for recognition E
under the NCTE Act, the appellants could not be allowed to
 take the examinations conducted by the Board - Held: As the
 NCTE Act came into force on 01.07.1995 and the NCTE was
 established on 17.08.1995, the NCTE Act had no application
 for any period prior to academic sessions 1995-1996 - The F
 appellants who undertook teachers training course in the
 College which had a valid recognition of the State
 Government during the academic sessions 1985-1987 to
  1993-1995 were entitled to take the examinations conducted
 by the Board - Board directed to conduct the examination for G
  the appellants as early as possible.

     Appellant Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 pursued primary teachers
 training from a Women's Primary Teachers Training .

                            203                                 H
     204    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A College during the sessions 1988-1990, 1991-1993, 1992-
  1994 and 1993-1995 respectively. Though the College was
  established in 1985, after seven rounds of litigation it was
  granted recognition by order dated 15.12.1994 by the
  State Government with retrospective effect for the
B sessions 1985-1987 to 1993-1995 pursuant to the
  directions of the Court.

         In response to an advertisement dated 26.05.2007 of
    the Bihar School Examination Board, the appellants
    approached the Board through the College for
 C examination forms, but the Board did not issue the
    examination forms. The appellants then filed C.W.J.C. No.
    7321 of 2007 before the Patna High Court for a direction
    to the Board to release the forms and accept the fees and
   forms of the appellants for the teachers training
D exarr.ination and to allow them to appear in the
   examination. A Single Judge of the High Court heard the
   Writ Petition alongwith other Writ Petitions on merits and
   dismissed the Writ Petitions by common order, after
   holding that under the National Council for Teacher
E Education Act, 1993 (the NCTE Act), it is only the National
   Council for Teacher Education (the NCTE) which can
   grant recognition for teachers training course and the
   College had not applied for recognition to the NCTE.
   Aggrieved by the order, the appellants filed Letters Patent
F Appeal, but the same was also dismissed by the Division
   Bench of the High Court. The appellants then filed Civil
   Review before the Division Bench, but the same was also
   dismissed.

G        In the instant appeals, the appellants contended that
    as the appellants had pursued their training in the
    College during the period for which the College had
    recognition, they were entitled to take the teachers
    training examination conducted by the Board and that the
    High Court was not correct in taking the view that since
H
   PUSHPA KUMAR! & ORS. v. STATE OF BIHAR &           205
                    ORS.
 the College had not applied for recognition under the       A
 NCTE Act, the appellants could not be allowed to take the
 examinations conducted by the Board because the
 NCTE Act came into force with effect from 01.07 .1995 and
 the NCTE was established only on 17.08.1995 after the
 appellants had undertaken their training courses In the     B
'College.

     The respondents, on the other hand, relied on the
 order dated 08.03.1999 of the High Court in C.W.J.C. No.
 6950 of 1997 in which a similar relief claimed by the
 College itself for the students for the sessions 1987-1990 C
 to 1993-1995 for directing the Board to allow them to take
 examinations was rejected by the High Court and
 contended that the aforesaid decision of the High Court
 was binding also on the appellants.
                                                            D
      Allowing the appeals, the Court

      HELD:1. As the appellants were not parties in
 C.W.J.C. No. 6950 of 1997, the order dated 08.03.1999 of
 the High Court in the said Writ Petition will not be binding E
 on the appellants. The appellants had filed C.W.J.C. No.
 7321 of 2007 and on perusal of the orders of the Single
 Judge passed in C.W.J.C. No. 7321 of 2007 and other
 connected cases, it is found that the only reason given
 by the Single Judge in dismissing the Writ Petition of the F
 appellants is that the College had not applied for grant
 of recognition under the NCTE Act. Also the Division
 Bench of the High Court dismissed the Letters Patent
 Appeal of the appellants on the ground that the
  recognition which had been granted to the College had
  been withdrawn on 16.03.2007. Thus, neither the Single G
  Judge nor the Division Bench of the High Court held that
  the recognition granted to the College by the order dated
  15.12.1994 for the academic sessions 1985-1987 to 1993-
  1995 was invalid or stood cancelled. As the NCTE Act
  came into force on 01.07 .1995 and the NCTE was H
      206   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


 A established on 17.08.1995, the NCTE Act will have no
   application for any period prior to academic sessions
   1995-1996. Thus the appellants who undertook teachers
   training course in the College which had a valid
   recognition of the State Government during the academic
 B sessions 1985-1987 to 1993-1995 were entitled to take the
   examinations conducted by the Board. [Para 7) (209-C-
   H; 210-A]
      Sunil Kumar Parimal and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Ors.
  (2007) 10 SCC 150: 2007 (9) SCR 890 and Kumari Ranjana
C Mishra and Anr. v. The State of Bihar and Ors. (2011) 4 SCC
     192 - relied on.

       2. The order of the Single Judge as well as the orders
  of the Division Bench in the Letters Patent Appeal and
D in the Civil Review are set aside and the Board is directed
  to conduct the examination for the appellants as early as
  possible. [Para 8) [210-B-C]

                         Case Law Reference:

E        2007 (9) SCR 890        Relied on            Para 5, 7

         (2011) 4 sec 192        Relied on            Para 5, 7

         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.
     8521-8522 of 2011.
F
         From the Judgment & Order dated 12.11.2008 of the High
     Court of Patna in CR No. 289 of 2008 and LPA No. 796 of
     2007.

     Ravi C. Prakash, Trishna Mohan, C.D. Singh, Gopal Singh,
G Manish Kumar, Chandan Kumar, Purushottam S.T., Filza
  Moonis and Amit Pawan for the appearing parties.

         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

         A. K. PATNAIK, J. 1. Leave granted.
H
  PUSHPA KUMAR! & ORS. v. STATE OF BIHAR &                207
           ORS. [,A..K. PATNAIK, J.]
     2. This is an appeal against the order dated 12.11.2008      A
of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court in Letters Patent
Appeal No. 796 of 2007 and order dated 06.02.2009 in Civil
Review No. 289 of 2008.

      3. The facts very briefly are that Millia Kaneez Fatima B
Women's Primary Teachers Training College, Rambag, Purnea
(for short 'the College') is a minority institution established and
maintained by the Millia Education Trust. Though the College
was established in 1985 for imparting teachers training course,
after seven rounds of litigation it was granted recognition by C
 order dated 15.12.1994 by the State Government with
 retrospective effect for the sessions 1985-1987 to 1993-1995
 pursuant to the directions of the High Court in C.W.J.C. No.
 1304 of 1993. Appellant Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 pursued their
 training in the College during the sessions 1988-1990, 1991-
 1993, 1992-1994 and 1993-1995 respectively. In response to D
 an advertisement dated 26.05.2007 of the Bihar School
  Examination Board (for short 'the Board') the appellants
  approached the Board through the College for examination
  forms, but. the Board did not issue the examination forms.
                                                                    E
       4. The appellants then filed C.W.J.C. No. 7321 of 2007
  before the Patna High Court for a direction to the Board to
  release the forms and accept the fees and forms of the
  appellants for the teachers training examination and to allow
  them to appear in the examination. Alongwith the Writ Petition, F
  the appellants also filed an application for interim orders and
  on 13.06.2007, the learned Single Judge of the High Court
  passed an interim order directing the Board to accept the fees
   and forms of the appellants and allow them to appear in the
   ensuing teachers training examination. The Board, however, did G
   not comply with the interim order. On 24.08.2007, the learned
   Single Judge heard the Writ Petition alongwith other Writ
   Petitions on merits and dismissed the Writ Petitions by
   common order, after holding that under the National Council for
   Teacher Education Act, 1993 (for short 'the NCTE Act'), it is H
     208    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


 A only the National Council for Teacher Education (for short 'the
    NCTE') which can grant recognition for teachers training course
    and the College had not applied for recognition to the NCTE.
   Aggrieved by the order dated 24.08.2007 the appellants filed
    Letters Patent Appeal No. 796 of 2007, but the same was also
 B dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court by the
   impugned order dated 12.11.200cl The appellants then filed
   Civil Review No. 289 of 2008 before the Division Bench, but
   the same was also dismissed by order dated 06.02.2009 of
   the Division Bench of the High Court.
 c        5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the
     College of the appellants was granted recognition by the State
     Government by order dated 15.12.1994 for the academic
     sessions 1985-1987 to 1993-1995. He submitted that this
     recognition was cancelled by memo no. 332 dated 18.11.1999,
 D but the High Court quashed the memo no. 332 dated
    18.11.1999 in C.W.J.C. Nos. 4622, 11275 and 11640 of 2009
    and against the orders passed in these Writ Petitions no appeal
    was preferred by any party and all this would be evident from
    the copy of the order dated 03.07.2009 of the High Court in
E C.W.J.C. No. 2329 of 2009 filed as an additional document.
    He submitted that the result is that the recognition of the
    College granted by the State Government by order dated
    15. 12.1994 for the sessions 1985-1987 to 1993-1995 has
    been restored. He submitted that as the appellants had
F pursued their training in the College during the period for which
   the College had recognition, they were entitled to take the
   teachers training examinatio11 conducted by the Board. He
   vehemently argued that the High Court was not correct in taking
   the view that since the College had not applied for recognition
G. under the NCTE Act, the appellants could not be allowed to take
   the examinations conducted by the Board because the NCTE
   Act came into force with effect from 01.07 .1995 and the NCTE
   was established only on 17.08.1995 after the appellants had
   undertaken their training courses in the College. He relied on
H the decisions of this Court in Suni/ Kumar Parimal and Another
  PUSHPA KUMAR! & ORS. v. STATE OF BIHAR &                  209
           ORS. [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
v. State of Bihar and Others [(2007) 10 SCC 150) and Kumari         A
Ranjana Mishra and Another v. The State of Bihar and Others
[(2011) 4 sec 192) in support of his submissions.

     6. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand,
relied on the order dated -08.03.1999 of the High Court in
C.W.J.C. No. 6950 of 1997 in which a similar relief claimed         B
by the College itself for the students for the sessions 1987-1990
to 1993-1995 for directing the Board to allow them to take
examinations has been rejected by the High Court. He
submitted that the aforesaid decision of the High Court was
 binding also on the appellants.                                    C

        7. We are of the considered opinion that as the appellants
  were not parties in C.W.J.C. No. 6950of1997, the order dated
. 08.03.1999 of the High Court in the said Writ Petition will not
  be binding on the appellants. The appellants had filed C.W.J.C. D
  No. 7321 of 2007 and we have perused the orders of the
  learned Single Judge passed in C.W.J.C. No. 7321 of 2007
  and other connected cases and we find that the only reason
  given by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the Writ
  Petition of the appellants is that the College had not applied E
  for grant of recognition under the NCTE Act. We also find that
  the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the Letters
  Patent Appeal of the appellants on the ground that the
  recognition which had been granted to the College had been
   withdrawn on 16.03.2007. Thus, neither the learned Single F
   Judge nor the Division Bench of the High Court have held that
   the recognition granted to the College by the order dated
   15.12.1994 for the academic sessions 1985-1987 to 1993-
   1995 was invalid or stood cancelled. As the NCTE Act came
   into force on 01.07 .1995 and the NCTE was established on
   17.08.1995, this Court has held in Sunil Kumar Parimal and G
   Another v. State of Bihar and Others and Kumari Ranjana
    Mishra and Another v. The State of Bihar and Others (supra)
    that the NCTE Act will have no application for any period prior
    to academic sessions 1995-1996. Thus the appellants who
                                                                        H
    21 Q SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R:


f\ have undertaken the teachers training course in the College
    which had a valid recognition of the State Government during
    the academic sessions 1985-1987 to 1993-1995 were entitled
    to take the examinations conducted by the Board.
       8. We accordingly allow these appeals, set aside the order
8 of the learned Single Judge as well as the orders of the
  Division Bench in the Letters Patent Appeal and in the Civil
  Review and direct the Board to conduct the examination for the
  appellants as early as possible. There shall be no order as to
  costs.
c
    B.B.B.                                     Appeals allowed.