- (1.)V. K. Shukla, J. Petitioner claims that she has passed her B. Ed in Academic Session 1994 from Chaudhari Charan Singh University, Meerut. Petitioner submits that degree is prior to enforcement of N. C. T. E. Act, as such it is totally unreasonable to oust the petitioner from the zone of consideration. In identical set of circumstances, Division Bench of this court in Special Appeal No. 858 of 2008 (Bhupendra Nath Tripathi and others V. State of U. P. and others) has passed following judgment, which is being extracted below:- 1. Whether after the enforcement of 1993 Act the candidates who obtained B. Ed degree from an institution or a University during the period when the application of the institution or University for grant of recognition was pending are eligible for Special B. T. C. Course-2007 as held by Division Bench Judgement in Ekta Shukla's case? Or Whether the candidates who have obtained degree from an institution or University recognised by National Council for Teacher Education are only eligible for Special B. T. C. Course 2007 as held by Division Bench judgment in Sanjai Kumar and Sunita Upadhyay's case?
(2.)WHETHER recognition, as referred to in the proviso to Section 14 (3) of the N. C. T. E. Act 1993 Act can be treated to be deemed recognition under the 1993 Act of an institution or a University for the period application were pending?
Whether the exclusion of those candidates from field of eligibility for Special B. T. C. Course, 2007 who have obtained B. Ed. degree peior to enforcement of 1993 Act or after the enforcement of 1993 Act during the period when the application of the institution or the University was pending consideration, is arbitrary and unreasonable violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Let this matter be placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for constituting a larger Bench for consideration of above questions. We further provide that those candidates, who have been selected by the respective DIET for imparting training, will be permitted to complete the training which however shall be subject to the result of these appeals and their candidature will not be rejected only on the ground that they have passed B. Ed prior to grant of recognition to the institution under the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993. It goes without saying that training shall be imparted by the State authorities as per the capacity of the seats in the respective DIETs and as per their normal turn to receive training. Petitioner has requested that in term of aforementioned order, similar order be also passed in her favour. At this juncture it would be relevant to mention here that qua interim direction, which was passed by Division Bench, State of U. P. had preferred Civil Appeal No. 6738-6840 of 2008 before Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble Apex Court on 21. 11. 2008 passed following order, which is being extracted below. "leave granted. The question which arises in these cases is whether the High Court was right in issuing directions which it has done in the Referral order dated August 13, 2008. The directions given by the High Court are quoted herein below:- " We further provide that those candidates, who have been selected by the respective DIET for imparting training, will be permitted to complete the training which however shall be subject to the result of these appeals and their candidature will not be rejected only on the ground that they have passed B. Ed prior to grant of recognition to the institution under NCTE Act, 1993. It does without saying that training shall be imparted by the State Authorities as per the capacity of the seats in the respective DIET and as per their normal turn to receive training. " On the facts and circumstances of these cases, we are of the view that the operative part of the order needs to be stayed, particularly when the appeals are fixed for final hearing on Ist December, 2008. The Larger Bench of the High Court is also requested to decide the interim application if so preferred by the respondents on the very first date of hearing by passing appropriate orders which could operate dur8ng the pendency of the appeals before the Larger Bench, keeping in mind the fact that the next training programme is going to commence shortly. Subject to above the appeals stand disposed of. " Hon'ble Apex Court has stayed the operating part of the order passed by the Division Bench, at the point of time, when referred order was passed. However, it has been clearly mentioned therein that larger bench of High Court is also requested to decide the interim application, if so preferred by the petitioner on the very first date of hearing by passing appropriate orders, which could operate during pendency of the appeals before the Larger Bench, keeping in the mind the fact that the next training programme is going to commence shortly. Consequently, it would be appropriate that this matter be also connected alongwith Special Appeal No. 858 of 2008 (Bhupendra Nath Tripathi and others V. State of U. P. and others on the date fixed in the aforementioned Special Appeal,and as observed by Hon'ble Apex Court, interim application on behalf of petitioner, can be considered. .