# C/M Sri Gauri Shanker Sanskrit Maya Vidyalaya & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 1 ILRA 551
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-11-21
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 1430 of 2011
- **Bench:** Bala Krishna Narayana, Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/c-m-sri-gauri-shanker-sanskrit-maya-vidyalaya-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45223
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

C.S.C., Sri R.A. Akhtar, Sri V.B. Mishra

A.
National
Council
for
Teacher's
Education Act, 1993 - Regulations of
2005 - special appeal-against judgment
and order dated 20.05.2011-grant of
recognition denied-on the ground of
violation of Regulation 7 (12) - no
illegality or legal infirmity committed by
respondent-while
granting
conditional
recognition-unconditional
recognitionpre-requisite-for
admitting
students-
552 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Regulation 8 (10)-order for conditional
recognition-legal.

B. Held, admittedly, the validity of of the
aforesaid
Regulation
was
neither
challenged before the Learned single
Judge nor before the Special Appellate
Court and hence we hold that the
respondent did not commit any illegality
or legal infirmity in granting conditional
recognition
to
the
appellants
under
Regulation 7 (12) of the Regulations of
2005 and the recognition granted by the
NCTE by letter dated 26th May 2007 was a
conditional recognition.

Special Appeal dismissed. (E-8)

## Text

1 All. Satya Dev Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
551
in column 1 of the Schedule appended to
these rules, imposing upon any officer,
teacher or other employee of the Board
any of the penalties mentioned below, to
the appellate authority mentioned in
column 3 of the said Schedule :-

(a) reduction to a lower post on
time-scale or to a lower stage in a timescale;

(b) removal from service of the
Board which does not disqualify for future
employment;

(c) dismissal from the service of
the Board, which ordinarily disqualifies
from future employment.

(2) In case of other penalties
against which no appeal is provided in this
rule, the punished officer, teacher or other
employee of the Board may make a
representation against the imposition of
any of these penalties to such officer as the
Director of Education (Basic) may by
general orders from time to time specify in
this behalf.

(3) The procedure laid down in
Civil Services (Classification, Control and
Appeal) Rules, as applicable to servants of
the Uttar Pradesh Government shall, as
far as possible, be followed in disciplinary
proceedings, appeals and representations
under these rules."

4. A plain reading of the aforesaid
Rule, particularly, sub-rule (2) clearly
indicates that in case of other penalties
against which no appeal is provided in
Rule 5, the punished officer, teacher or
other employee of the Board may make a
representation against the imposition of
any of such penalties to such officers as
the Director of Education (Basic) may, by
general orders, from time to time, specify
in this behalf.

5. In such circumstances, we are of
the view that appellant is at liberty to make
a representation before the appropriate
authority instead of preferring a statutory
appeal, as held by the learned Single
Judge. The impugned judgment and order
stands modified accordingly.

6. The instant Special Appeal stands
disposed of in the manner as indicated
above.
----------
(2020)1ILR 551

APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.11.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE BALA KRISHNA NARAYANA, J.
THE HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

Special Appeal No. 1430 of 2011

C/M Sri Gauri Shanker Sanskrit Maya
Vidyalaya & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Ashok Khare, Sri Siddharth Khare, Sri
Anshul Bhatnagar

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri R.A. Akhtar, Sri V.B. Mishra

A.
National
Council
for
Teacher's
Education Act, 1993 - Regulations of
2005 - special appeal-against judgment
and order dated 20.05.2011-grant of
recognition denied-on the ground of
violation of Regulation 7 (12) - no
illegality or legal infirmity committed by
respondent-while
granting
conditional
recognition-unconditional
recognitionpre-requisite-for
admitting
students-
552 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Regulation 8 (10)-order for conditional
recognition-legal.

B. Held, admittedly, the validity of of the
aforesaid
Regulation
was
neither
challenged before the Learned single
Judge nor before the Special Appellate
Court and hence we hold that the
respondent did not commit any illegality
or legal infirmity in granting conditional
recognition
to
the
appellants
under
Regulation 7 (12) of the Regulations of
2005 and the recognition granted by the
NCTE by letter dated 26th May 2007 was a
conditional recognition.

Special Appeal dismissed. (E-8)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Bala Krishna
Narayana, J. & Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan
Agarwal, J.)

1. Heard Sri Anshul Bhatnagar,
learned counsel for the appellant, learned
Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1, 2
and 3, Sri V.B. Mishra, learned counsel for
respondent no. 4 and Sri R.A. Akhtar,
learned counsel for respondent nos. 5 and
6.

2. This special appeal has been
preferred
by
the
appellants
against
judgment and order dated 20.05.2011
passed by learned Single Judge of this
Court dismissing Writ-C No. 64960 of
2009 (C/M Shri Gauri Shanker Sanskrit
Maha Vidyalaya and others vs. State of
U.P. and others) with cost of Rs.50,000/-.

3. Facts of the case may be stated
briefly hereinbelow:-

4. The petitioner had filed the
aforesaid writ petition challenging the
order
dated
12.11.2009
passed
by
respondent no. 6, Northern Regional
Committee, National Council for Teacher
Education, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to
as
"NCTE")
according
recognition/
permission to the petitioner's institution for
running B.Ed Course (Secondary Level) of
one year for academic session 2009-10,
subject to certain conditions, failing which
the recognition would stand effected from
academic session 2010-11.

5. According to petitioner Shri Gauri
Shanker
Sanskrit
Mahavidyalaya,
Sujanganj, Jaunpur (hereinafter referred to
as "the College") is managed by a society
registred under the Societies Registration
Act, 1860. It was duly affiliated to
Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya
and is imparting instructions of studies of
Shastri and Acharya. The College intended
to commence Bachelor of Education
Shiksha Shastri course, hence applied to
NCTE
for
grant
of
approval
vide
application dated 24th July, 2006. A
conditional letter of recognition was
granted on 26th May, 2007 subject to
following conditions:

"(1) Appointment of qualified staff
through duly constituted selection committee
as per the norms of NCTE/ State Govt.
Affiliating University given effect before the
commencement of the course.

(2) Send a blue print of the
building plan showing clearly demarcated
area for B.Ed. (add.) M.Ed. Programme.

(3) Advertisement notice.

(4) Consolidate staff list on the
prescribed format duly approved by the
affiliation body.

(5) Proceedings of the Selection
committee along with a copy of the letter
1 All. C/M Gauri Shanker Sanskrit Maya Vidyalaya & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
553
from the affiliating body nomination a
member for the selection."

6. Para 3 of the aforesaid letter
contained
a
recital
that
conditional
recognition was granted with the advise to
remove deficiencies shown in 5th column,
reproduced above, and furnish compliance
within 30 days from the date of issue of
the aforesaid letter. The aforesaid letter
contained some more directions in paras 4,
5 and 6 of the aforesaid letter, which read
as under:

"4.
The
institution
shall
undertake appointment of the staff by a
duly constituted selected committee and
ensure selection of candidates possessing
qualifications as prescribed under rules.
(Appointment shall be made on the basis
of recommendations of the Selection
Committee constituted as per the policy of
the UGC/ Affiliating University).

5. Attention of the institution
concerned is also drawn to section 7(12)
of NCTE Regulations dt. 13.01.2006,
which
reads
as
"The
institutions
concerned, after appointing the requisite
faculty/staff, shall put the information on
its official website and also formally
inform the Regional Committee concerned.
The Regional Committee concerned shall
then
issue
a
formal
unconditional
recognition order". Compliance with the
requirements shall be submitted on a
Sworn affidavit and annexures thereto for
issue of unconditional recognition order.
Until then the institution shall not admit
students to the course.

6. Therefore, the institution are
hereby issued a letter of conditional
recognition for further necessary action to
submit requisite compliance and take steps
as per the NCTE Rules and Regulations
before the commencement of the session."

7. The letter categorically directed
the College not to admit any student to the
aforesaid course till an unconditional
recognition was issued by the Regional
Committee, NCTE.

8. The College claims to have
complied
with
the
aforesaid
five
deficiencies and informed NCTE vide
letter dated 25th June, 2007. In the
meantime State Government also issued a
no objection letter on 21st June, 2007,
permitting the petitioner-college to run
Shiksha
Shastri
(B.Ed.)
Course.
Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya,
Varanasi (hereinafter referred to as "the
University")
also
granted
affiliation/recognition as a examining body
of the aforesaid course in the College vide
university's letter dated 18.12.2007.

9. It is said that for academic session
2007-08, pursuant to a Joint Entrance
Examination conducted by Chhatrapati Sahu
Ji Maharaj University, Kanpur, 83 students
were forwarded to the College for admission
to the aforesaid course. The petitionercollege admitted 80 candidates out of said
list in academic session 2007-08 and 20
seats remained unfilled. The aforesaid
students
completed
their
course
and
appeared in final examination conducted by
the University. 79 students passed the
examination and one failed. The students,
who passed the examination, were issued
marks sheet and degree by University.

10. Again for academic session 200809, 111 students were forwarded by the
examining body i.e. Agra University out of
which 94 candidates took admission in the
petitioner's college.

11. It is also said that for academic
session 2007-08 joint entrance examining
554 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
body namely Chhatrapati Sahu Ji Maharaj
University, Kanpur forwarded 8 more
candidates, who were granted admission in
February, 2009.

12. The matter of unconditional
recognition was considered by NCTE and
vide order dated 12th August, 2009, it
declined to grant recognition to petitioner's
college. The petitioner filed an appeal
under Section 18 of National Council for
Teachers Education Act, 1993, which was
allowed vide order dated 8th October,
2009 (Annexure 10 to the writ petition)
pursuant whereto the impugned order of
recognition has been issued by NCTE.

13. The respondent no. 4 in its
counter affidavit filed before the Writ
Court took the stand that affiliation was
granted, only on the basis of certificate and
documents sent by college regarding land
and building. For the rest of the matter, it
was the decision of the NCTE which was
to be final. It was also stated in the counter
affidavit that the subject-matter of the writ
petition was primarily a dispute between
the petitioner and the NCTE.

14. On behalf of NCTE, a separate
counter affidavit sworn by Dr. K.S. Yadav,
Regional Director, Northern Regional
Committee, (NCTE) was filed. It is stated
therein that conditional recognition letter
specifically mentioned that until issuance
of unconditional letter of recognition, the
college shall not admit students to the
aforesaid course. In the circumstances it
was not open or permissible to the College
to admit any student in the course in
question. If college has done something
illegal and in breach of aforesaid specific
condition contained in the letter dated 26th
May, 2007, it cannot take and cannot be
made to take advantage of its own breach.
NCTE took further stand that even if final
recognition granted by NCTE is deemed to
relate back to the date of grant of
conditional recognition that would not
allow the College to flout one of the clear
mandate contained in the letter dated 26th
May, 2007, which became final having
never been challenged by the College
before any appropriate forum.

15. In the rejoinder affidavit filed by
the petitioner, the aforesaid breach was
admitted but what was stated in defence
was
that
it
appeared
to
be
a
misconstruction and confusion which
prevailed with the respondents. There was
no deliberate omission or error on the part
of the petitioner. It was also however,
pointed out that when students, who were
admitted in academic session 2007-08
were not being permitted to appear in
examination by University the College
filed writ petition no.60218 of 2008
wherein an interim order was passed on
9th February, 2009. Pursuant to the interim
order, the students appeared in the
examination of University. The aforesaid
writ petition was disposed of finally on 4th
January, 2010 with the following order:

"Today supplementary affidavit
has been filed in writ petition no.60218 of
2008 annexing therewith copy of order
dated 11.11.2009. This order has been
passed by Northern Regional Committee,
National Council for Teacher Education,
Jaipur. Learned counsel for the petitioner
as well as Shri Neeraj Tewari, learned
counsel for Bundelkhand University and
Shri Rajeev Joshi, learned for N.C.T.E
state
that
the
above
order
dated
11.11.2009 has been passed in pursuance
of earlier order of appellate authority
dated 13.7.2009. It has further been stated
that in view of order dated 11.11.2009
1 All. C/M Gauri Shanker Sanskrit Maya Vidyalaya & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
555
result of the examination which has
already been held under interim order
passed in these two writ petitions is to be
declared. In view of the above joint
statement both these writ petitions are
disposed of with the direction that the
result of the examination which had been
held under the interim order passed in
these writ petitions shall be declared."

16. Learned Single Judge after
considering the submissions advanced
before him by learned counsel for the
parties, by impugned judgment and order
dismissed the writ petition holding that
petitioners were not only guilty of
violating statutory provisions but also
letter dated 26th May, 2007 and also guilty
of defrauding several students while
admitting them to a course for which no
permission was granted.

17. Hence this appeal.

18. It is contended by Sri Ansul
Bhatnagar, learned counsel appearing for
the appellants that firstly the words
"unconditional recognition" mentioned in
the letter dated 26th May, 2007 are a result
of typographical mistake and there was no
prohibition restraining the petitioner from
admitting students to the B.Ed Course
2007-08 and 2008-09.

19. He next contended that once
conditional recognition was granted which
culminated in grant of final unconditional
recognition, the students who had already
been admitted by the petitioners in their
institution would not have been deprived
of the benefit of recognition of the Course
and, therefore, the learned Single Judge
committed an error apparent on the face of
the record by dismissing the writ petition
and denying the benefit of the recognition
of the Course to the students admitted
during the Sessions 2007-08 and 2008-09,
as necessarily the recognition related back
to
the
date
on
which
conditional
recognition was granted.

20. Learned counsel for the appellant
in support of his aforesaid contention has
placed
reliance
upon
an
unreported
judgment of this Court passed by a single
Bench of this Court in Writ-C No. 21716
of 2010 (Indira Gandhi Girls Degree
College vs. National Council for Teacher
Education and others), which has been
brought on record as Annexure-8 to the
affidavit accompanying the special appeal,
but the same is of no help to him.

21. He has further contended that the
Act does not contemplate any conditional
or unconditional recognition and once
recognition is granted, it is valid for all
purposes and cannot be deferred so as to
deprive the college from admitting the
students in the course concerned.

22. Per contra, Sri V. B. Mishra,
learned counsel appearing for respondent
no. 4 has made submissions in support of
the impugned judgment and order and he
has further contended that the judgment
passed by learned Single Judge is based
upon
relevant
considerations
and
supported by cogent reasons and needs no
interference by this Court. This appeal
lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.

23. We have heard learned counsel
for the parties and perused the material
brought on record.

24. As far as parties are concerned,
there is no dispute about the fact that
unconditional recognition was granted to
the petitioner for running one year B.Ed
556 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
course by order dated 12.11.2009, issued
by respondent no. 6 for the Session 200910. Thus, it is apparent that petitioner
institution
in
the
absence
of
any
recognition could not have admitted
students for the academic Sessions 200708 and 2008-09, especially in view of the
specific stipulation contained in the
conditional recognition to the effect that
till the unconditional recognition was
granted to the petitioner's college, they
shall not admit any student.

25. Coming to the first contention of
learned counsel for the appellant, we find
the same to be without any merit. We have
very carefully gone through the letter
dated
26th
May,
2007
issued
by
respondent no. 1 and the same is very
specific and does not admit of any other
interpretation
except
that
until
unconditional recognition was granted, the
petitioners could not admit students in the
one year B.Ed Course for the Sessions
2007-08 and 2008-09 and there does not
appear to us to be any typographical
mistake in the impugned order.

26. Coming to the issue upon which
the second ground of challenge is based,
we find that the said issue has been
addressed by the learned Single Judge in
great detail and after a comprehensive
analysis of the numerous authorities on the
issue, the learned Single Judge repelled the
same and recorded that in the absence of
any authority on the part of the petitioners
to admit students in the academic Sessions
2007-08 and 2008-09, merely for the
reason that it has proceeded ahead in
flagrant defiance of negative mandate
contained in letter dated 26th May, 2007
read with Regulation 8(10) of Regulations
2005, it cannot be said that act of the
petitioner could be justified by relating
back the impugned order to the aforesaid
two academic sessions.

27. Learned Single Judge further
recorded that it is true that equity,
sympathy etc. some time constitute a
relevant factor to decide a matter but
where a flagrant violation of statutory
provision has been shown such attributes
on the part of the Court would not justify
grant relief to a person who is guilty of
proceeding
in
breach
of
requisite
directions and statutory provisions.

28. The learned Single Judge referred
to and relied up the following authorities:

29. In State of West Bengal & others
Vs. Banibrata Ghosh & others (2009) 3
SCC 250, such a request was declined to
be accepted by the Apex Court observing
that it would be a misplaced sympathy.

30. In D.M. Premkumari Vs. The
Divisional
Commissioner,
Mysore
Division and others 2009 (2) SCALE 731,
the Court observed:

"The law is merciless", is a most
frequently quoted saying. It has led people to
mistakenly think that it is separated from feelings
of righteousness. We have become used to the
understanding that such emotions as indignation,
sorrow and compassion should not exist in legal
cases, especially not in judiciary. This, in our
view, is a misunderstanding. Judiciary has a very
strong sense of justice and it works to maintain
social justice and fairness. We hasten to add,
judiciary does not believe in misplaced
sympathy."

31. Giving reasons for not extending
the indulgence in favour of the persons,
who have worked for sometimes though
1 All. C/M Gauri Shanker Sanskrit Maya Vidyalaya & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
557
not validly appointed, in State of Bihar Vs.
Upendra Narayan Singh & others JT 2009
(4) SC 577, the Court observed :

"...the Courts gradually realized
that unwarranted sympathy shown to the
progenies of spoil system has eaten into
the vitals of service structure of the State
and public bodies and this is the reason
why
relief
of
reinstatement
and/or
regularization of service has been denied
to illegal appointees/backdoor entrants in
large number of cases..."

32. In Om Prakash & others Vs.
Radhacharan & others 2009 (6) SC 329,
the Court observed :

"It is now a well settled principle
of law that sentiment or sympathy alone
would not be a guiding factor in
determining the rights of the parties which
are otherwise clear and unambiguous."

33. In Subha B. Nair & others Vs.
State of Kerala & others 2008 (7) SCC
210, the Court said:

"This Court furthermore cannot
issue
a
direction
only
on
sentiment/sympathy."

34. In Jagdish Singh Vs. Punjab
Engineering College & others JT 2009
(8) SC 501, the Court referred to the
observations made earlier in Kerala
Solvent
Extractions
Ltd.
Vs.
A.
Unnikrishnan and another 1994 (1)
SCALE 63 with approval as under :

"The reliefs granted by the
courts must be seen to be logical and
tenable within the framework of the law
and should not incur and justify the
criticism that the jurisdiction of the courts
tends
to
degenerate
into
misplaced
sympathy,
generosity
and
private
benevolence. It is essential to maintain the
integrity of legal reasoning and the
legitimacy of the conclusions. They must
emanate logically from the legal findings
and the judicial results must be seen to be
principled and supportable on those
findings. Expansive judicial mood of
mistaken and misplaced compassion at the
expense of the legitimacy of the process
will
eventually
lead
to
mutually
irreconcilable situations and denude the
judicial process of its dignity, authority,
predictability and respectability."

35. As far as the last ground on
which the impugned order has been
challenged by the counsel for the appellant
that there is no provision under the Act
envisaging unconditional recognition or
conditional recognition and the only word
used being recognition, the conditional
recognition granted to the petitioners vide
letter dated 26th May, 2007 of the
respondent
no.
3
was
in
fact
an
unconditional recognition, the same is also
without any merit and deserves to be
rejected.

36. In this regard, it would be useful
to reproduce Regulation 7(12) and 8(10) of
Regulations
of
2005
which
are
hereinbelow:

37. Regulation 7(12) of Regulations
of 2005 reads as under:

"The institution concerned, after
appointing the requisite faculty/staff, shall
put the information on its official website
and also formally inform the Regional
Committee
concerned.
The
Regional
558 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Committee concerned shall then issue a
formal unconditional recognition order."

38. Regulation 8(10) of Regulations
of 2005 contemplates that till such
unconditional recognition is not granted,
no admission shall be given. Regulation
8(10) reads as under:

"An
institution
shall
make
admission
only
after
it
obtains
unconditional letter of recognition from
the Regional Committee concerned, and
affiliation from the examining body."

39. Admittedly the validity of the
aforesaid
Regulation
was
neither
challenged before the learned Single Judge
nor before the Special Appellate Court and
hence we hold that the respondent did not
commit any illegality or legal infirmity in
granting conditional recognition to the
appellants under Regulation 7(12) of the
Regulations of 2005 and the recognition
granted by the NCTE by letter dated 26th
May, 2007 was a conditional recognition.

40. In view of the above, we do not
find that the order passed by learned
Single Judge suffers from any illegality or
legal infirmity requiring any interference
by this Court.

41. However, we quash the cost of
Rs.50,000/- awarded by the impugned
order.
The
appeal
is
disposed
of
accordingly.
----------
(2020)1ILR 558

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 06.01.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.
Service Single No. 7347 of 2004 alongwith
Service Single No. 1213 of 2005

H.A.L. Division Korwa ...Petitioner
Versus
DY. Chief Labour Commissioner (C) & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
P.K. Sinha

Counsel for the Respondents:
Dipak Seth, C.S. Pandey, Maneesh Kumar
Singh, Navita Sharma, S.P. Tripathi

A. Service/Labour Law - Wages and
conditions of service - The Contract
Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Central
Rules,
1971:
Rules
25(2)(v)(a),
25(2)(v)(b) - Contract labourers have
right to approach Dy. Chief Labour
Commissioner (Central) u/r 25(2)(v)(b)
and to retrospective adjudication.

The cause of action regarding wages and
conditions of service arises to the Contract
labourers when their wages and other fringe
benefits are determined in license agreement
and not before. Therefore, the right u/r
25(2)(v)(b) cannot be denied to them because
license agreement was in operation. (Para 20)

It is a settled law that all adjudication by a
quasi-judicial or by a Judicial Tribunal is
retrospective in nature, and the rights and
liabilities of the parties are crystallized at the
time of filing of application before the Authority
concerned.
A
determination
made
with
prospective effect would be meaningless for
those contract labourers who had approached
the Authority concerned for a just and fair
adoption of their assignments and conditions of
service. (Para 7, 19)

B. Parity can be given by comparing the
industries engaged in same areas of work
-
There
cannot
be
any
other
suitable
comparison other than with the sister concern
of the petitioner, located within the distance of
125 kms. in the same geographical region in
the same State, rather than comparison with
industries engaged in completely different