Single judge dismissed writ petition challenging Clause 6 of a 2004 State Government Resolution requiring a two-year wait after Higher Secondary for Primary Teacher diploma admission. Court relied on a 2021 judgment permitting age criteria under Entry 25 List III.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 151 of 2020
Versus
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
For the Petitioners : None For the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, AC to GP-I For the Respondent Nos.3 & 4 : Mr. Radha Krishan Gupta, Advocate For the Respondent No. 5 : Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate
-----
Order No. 05 Dated: 13.03.2023
The present writ petition has been filed for quashing Clause 6 of Resolution as contained in memo no. 1382 dated 20.05.2004 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) issued by the State Government as according to the petitioners, the same is arbitrary to the extent that it compels a candidate to sit idle for two years after completion of their Higher Secondary Education and is also violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondent nos. 3 and 4 to provide and accept the registration forms/examination forms of the petitioners pursuant to Advertisement No. 28/2016 issued by Jharkhand Academic Council on 14.06.2016, issue admit card and allow them to appear in the final examination of Primary Teachers Training Course to be held in the year 2016.
2
2. Reference may be made to order dated 24.02.2020 wherein the submission of learned counsel for the parties has been recorded that a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 4192 of 2017 (Sunita Kumari Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.) involving similar issue as raised in the present writ petition was in the midst of hearing before a Bench of this Court.
3. It is jointly submitted by learned counsel for the respective respondents that W.P.(C) No. 4192 of 2017 and other analogous cases have been dismissed by a Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 13.05.2021. It is also submitted that LPA No. 166 of 2021 and other analogous cases filed against the judgment dated 13.05.2021 passed in W.P.(C) No. 4192 of 2017 and other analogous cases have also been dismissed by learned Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 15.06.2022.
4. Heard learned counsel for the respondents and perused the judgment dated 13.05.2021 passed in W.P.(C) No. 4192 of 2017 and other analogous cases, the relevant part of which reads as under:
“55. This Court is of the considered view that in the matter of fixation of any cut-off date regarding the age the legislature has very wide latitude unless it is found to be suffering from total lack of application of mind. This is over and above the fact that in the matter of dealing with the gamut of admission to educational institution, the role of the State is not excluded totally rather a great latitude has been conferred to the State by the Constitution itself to take decision depending upon the local conditions and the requirement of local people while enacting the law.
56. In view of the aforesaid findings the impugned Clause 6 of Resolution No.1382 dated 20.05.2004 issued by the State Government fixing minimum age as 18 years on 1st of July for admission in Diploma in Primary Teachers Training Course is not contrary to National Council for Teacher Education Act,1993(NCTE Act). Otherwise also the State has the competence to provide for the minimum age under the NCTE Regulation dated 18.06.2002 and also independent of it under entry 25 List III of VIIth schedule to the Constitution of India. The NCTE Act and the Regulations framed thereunder do not occupy the field of prescribing minimum age for admission in Diploma in Primary Teachers Training Course and therefore there is no question of any repugnancy between the
3
impugned Clause 6 of Resolution No.1382 dated 20.05.2004 issued by the State Government, so far it relates to admission to the Diploma in Elementary education, and NCTE Act, 1993 and the regulations framed thereunder. This court also holds that the prescription of minimum age of 18 years as on 1st of July for admission to the Diploma in Elementary education is additional eligibility criteria provided by the State as a matter of policy which is neither arbitrary nor illegal nor violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
57. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed.
58. This court is conscious of the fact that the petitioner students have been permitted to appear in the examination pursuant to interim orders passed by this court, but no relief can be ultimately granted to them as the writ petitions have been dismissed.”
5. Accordingly, the present writ petition is also dismissed in
terms with judgment dated 13.05.2021 passed in W.P.(C) No. 4192 of 2017 and other analogous cases.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
Manish
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a two-year gap between Higher Secondary completion and Teacher Education exam violates Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
Whether the State's imposition of a minimum age of 18 years for diploma admission is arbitrary or ultra vires.
Whether the State can prescribe minimum age criteria for teacher education independent of the NCTE Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sunita Kumari Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.Followed¶5
W.P.(C) No. 4192 of 2017
against judgment dated 13.05.2021 passed in W.P.(C) No. 4192 of 2017Referred¶3
LPA No. 166 of 2021
Neha Kumari and Others
The State of Jharkhand
The Principal Secretary, Department of School Education and Literacy, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi
The Secretary, Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi
Examination Controller, Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi
National Council for Teachers Education
Rajesh Shankar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court