Holding

The revocation of equivalence is a discretionary administrative decision not subject to judicial review, the NCTE Act does not override the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education rules, and the circular does not violate Article 14.

Summary

The Uttar Pradesh Government issued a circular on 11 August 1997, under the Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981, stipulating that only candidates trained in state government institutes and holding a Basic Teacher Certificate (BTC) or its equivalents could be appointed as Assistant Teachers in primary schools, thereby cancelling the earlier recognition of the Diploma in Education (D.Ed.) from DIET Jabalpur as equivalent to BTC. Upendra Rai, who possessed such a D.Ed., challenged the circular and the related advertisement, arguing that the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) Act granted him the requisite qualification and that the circular violated Articles 14 and 254 of the Constitution. The High Court Division Bench set aside the circular, but the Supreme Court held that the grant or revocation of equivalence is an administrative decision within the exclusive discretion of the government and not subject to judicial interference unless it contravenes a statutory or constitutional provision. The Court found that the NCTE Act regulates only teacher‑training institutions and does not override the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Act or its service rules, and that the circular does not infringe Article 14. Consequently, the D.Ed. was not deemed equivalent to BTC after the circular, and the respondent was not entitled to appointment. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Division Bench judgment, and dismissed the writ petition.

Issues considered

The validity of the Uttar Pradesh Government circular of 11 August 1997 cancelling the equivalence of the D.Ed. certificate to BTC.
Whether the NCTE Act, 1993 overrides the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 for determining teacher qualifications.
Whether the circular violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
Whether Article 254 of the Constitution is applicable to the conflict between the NCTE Act and the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Act.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 254
National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993s. 12(d), s. 14(1), s. 14(5), s. 17(1), s. 17(4), s. 2(e), s. 2(m), s. 3(1)
Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Act, 1972
Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981s. Rule 8

Subjects

Administrative lawPolicy decisionEquivalence of qualificationsTeacher appointmentNCTE ActArticle 14Article 254Judicial reviewUttar Pradesh Basic Education

Judgment

(2008] 2 S.C.R. 707
-;
~
BASIC EDUCATION BOARD, U.P. A
v.
UPENDRA RAI AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 8034 of 2001)
FEBRUARY 12, 2008
B

~·
.. (H.K. SEMA AND MARKANDEY KAT JU, JJ.)

U.P Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981:
r. 8 - Assistant Teacher of Basic School - Training
qualification for - U.P Government Circular dated 11.8.1997 c
- Prescribing training qualification from U.P. Government
Training Institutes and specifically canceling equivalence to
BTC granted earlier to other certificates - Challenged by
candidate holding a certificate of Diploma in Education from
an institute in M. P recognized under NCTE Act- HELD: Grant D
~
or revocation of equivalence is an administrative decision
... taken by experts appointed by Government and is in sole
discretion of authority concerned - Court would not interfere
with such a policy decision unless it is in violation of some
statutory or constitutional provision - Circular dated 11. 8. 1997 E
is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution - On facts, D. Ed.
Certificate is no longer regarded as equivalent to BTC after
the circular dated 11.8.1997 - Therefore, candidate holding
D. Ed. Certificate was not entitled to be appointed as Assistant
Teacher of a Basic School in U.P - The word 'institution' as F
~--- defined in s.2(e) of NCTE Act, only means teachers' training
institute and not ordinary educational institutions - NCTE Act
and U. P Basic Education Act/Rules operate in two different
fields, as explained in judgment- Therefore, NCTE Act cannot
be said to override U.P Act/Rules -Article 254 of Constitution
G
~ has no application to facts of the case - National Council for
Teachers Education Act, 1993 - ss. 2(e), 2(m), 3(1), 12(d),
14(1), 14(5), 17(1) and 17(4) - Constitution of India -Articles
14 and 254 - Seventh Schedule - List Ill - Entry 25 -
707 H
708 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.

A Administrative Law - Policy decision of State Government -
Interference by Court.
Words and Phrases:
Word "institution" as defined in s.2(e) of National Council
s for Teachers Education Act,· 1993 - Meaning of
The Government of Uttar Pradesh issued a circular •·v
dated 11.8.1997 in terms of Rule 8 of the U.P. Basic
Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1997prescribing that
the posts of Assistant Teachers in Primary Schools of the
C Basic Education Board would be filled up only with the
candidates trained in the U.P. Government Training
Institutes and possessing B.T.C. (Basic Teacher
Certificate) or Hindustani Teaching Certificate or teaching
certificate of Junior Teacher. It was specifically mentioned
D in the circular that equivalence to BTC granted earlier to
other certificates was cancelled. The respondent in Civil
Appeal No. 8034 of 2001, who held a Diploma in Education
awarded by DIET Jabalpur, M.P., challenged the said
circular dated 11.8.1997 and the advertisement pursuant
E thereto issued on 28.4.1999 on the ground that the D.Ed.
Certificate awarded by DIET, Jabalpur was earlier
recognized as equivalent to BTC of U.P. Certain other writ
petitions were filed before the High Court. The single
Judge of the High Court rejected the claim and upheld
F the circular. However, the Division Bench, in special
appeals, quashed the circular as also the advertisement.
This gave rise to the instant appeals.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
G HELD: 1.1 Grant of equivalence and for revocation
of equivalence is an administrative decision which is in ~
the sole discretion of the authority concerned, and the
Court has nothing to do with such matters. The matter of
equivalence is decided by experts appointed by the
government, and the Court does not have expertise in
H
BASIC EDUCATION BOARD, U.P. v. UPENDRA RAI 709
AND ORS.

such matters. Court should exercise judicial restraint and A
not interfere in it. [para 15] [715-F, G]
1.2 The respondent in C.A. No. 8034 of 2001 does
not possess the qualification mentioned in Circular dated
11.8.1997. The D.Ed. Certificate is no longer regarded as
equivalent to BTC after the circular dated 11.8.1997. This B
was a policy decision of the U.P. Government, and the
Court cannot interfere with it unless it is in violation of
some statutory or constitutional provision. The
respondent was not entitled to be appointed as Assistant
... Teacher of a Junior Basic School in U.P. [para 14] [715-C, C
D, E]
2.1 The two Acts, namely, the NCTE Act and the U.P.
Basic Education Act operate in two different fields. The
NCTE Act was made to regulate the teachers training
0
system and the teachers training institutes in the country.
It has nothing to do with the ordinary educational
institutions like primary schools, high schools,
intermediate colleges or Universities. Primary Schools in
U.P. are governed by U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972.
Qualification for appointment as teacher in the ordinary E
educational institutions cannot be prescribed under the
NCTE Act. Essential qualifications for such institutions
are prescribed by the local Acts and Rules in each State.
In the State of U.P. the essential qualification for
appointment as a primary school teacher in a Junior Basic F
School is prescribed by Rule 8 of the U.P. Basic Education
1 (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 which have been framed
I
under the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972. A person who
does not have the qualification mentioned in Rule 8 of
the said Rules cannot validly be appointed as an Assistant G
Teacher in a Junior Basic School in the State of U.P.
[para 19 and 22] [716-F, G, H; 717-A]
2.2 The word "institution" as defined in Section 2(e)
of the NCTE Act only means an institution which offers H
710 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.
'

A courses or training in teacher education and not the ~ Ir-'
ordinary educational institutions. The NCTE Act does, not
deal with the ordinary educational institutions like Primary
Schools, High Schools, Intermediate College or University.
It is only the teachers' training institutions which have to
B seek grant of recognition or continuation of recognition
from the Regional Committee. The ordinary educational
institutions do not have to seek any such recognition or •
continuation under the NCTE Act. Therefore, it cannot be - '#
said .that the NCTE Act overrides the UP Basic Education
c Act and Rules made thereunder. The Division Bench of
the High Court wrongly relied upon ArtiGle 254 of the
Constitution, which has no application in the instant case
at all. The Division Bench, therefore, wrongly held that
the respondent had the requisite qualification for being
D appointed as an Assistant Teacher in a Junior Basic
School. [para 22-23] [718-D, E, F, G; 719-A, B]
3. The Division Bench erred in holding that there was
...
violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. There is no (

violation of Article 14 by the impugned circular dated
E 11.8.1997 or the advertisement dated 28.4.1999, as has
been rightly held by Single Judge of the High Court in
Writ Petition no.33856 of 1997. [para 24] [719-B, C, D]
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8034
of 2001.
F
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.02.2000 of the
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Special Appeal No. 25
·of 2000.
WITH
G
Civil Appeal Nos, 3998/2002, 153/2003, 1207/2006,
2796/2006, 4784/2006, 1234, 1235 & 1236 of 2008.
L.P. Naithani, A.G. for Uttarakhand, Shobha Dixit, Subodh
Markandeya, Dr. J.N. Dubey, GaNesh Kabra, Shrish Kr. Mishra,
H Kamlendra Mishra, Niranjana Singh, Bhanu Pratap Singh, G.
BASIC EDUCATION BOARD, U.P. v. UPENDRA RAI 711
-.... AND ORS. [MARKANDEY KATJU, J.]
~
Sheshagiri Rao, Pitam Agarwal, Chitra Markandaya, Anurag A
Dubey,Anu Sawhney, Meenesh Dubey, D.P. Pandey, S.R. Setia,
Aditya K. Dubey, Sangeeta Datta, Devaratt,Anish Kumar Gupta,
Kamakshi S. Mehlwal, Manoj K. Mishra, Rati Gupta, Shailendra
Singh, D.N. Dubey, Vijay K. Jain and P.N. Gupta for the
appearing parties. B
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
" """' .
MARKANDEY KATJU, J. 1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
c
3. Since a common question of law is involved in the
appeals filed by the State of U.P., Civil Appeal No.8034/2001
Basic Education Board, U.P. vs. Upendra Rai and others is
taken as the leading case for consideration in dealing with these
appeals. Civil Appeal No. 8034/2001 has been filed against D
~ the impugned judgment and order dated 18.2.2000 passed by
a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
in Special Appeal No. 25 of 2000 by which the Learned Division
Bench set aside the judgment of Learned Single Judge dated
7.12.1999.
E
4. Before the Learned Single Judge the challenge was to
the advertisement dated 28.4.1999 and the Government Circular
dated 11.8.1997. The Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ
petition, but in appeal the Division Bench set aside that judgment
·r~
and also the impugned Government Circular and the F
advertisement and allowed the appeal. Against the judgment of
the Division Bench, this appeal has been filed by special leave.
5. The question in this case and the connected appeals is
about the qualification of the respondent for being appointed
as Assistant Master in Junior Basic Schools in U.P. The G
.... essential academic qualification prescribed for the post of
• Assistant Master or Assistant Mistress of Junior Basic Schools
in U.P. is mentioned in Rule 8 of the U.P. Basic Education
(Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the
Rules) which have been framed under the U.P. Basic Education H
712 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.

A Act, 1972.
6. At the relevant time the said qualification mentioned in
Rule 8 was Intermediate Examination of the Board of High
School and Intermediate Education, Uttar Pradesh or any other
qualification recognized by the Government as equivalent
B thereto together with training qualification consisting of a Basic
Teacher Certificate, Hindustani Teacher Certificate, Junior
Teacher Certificate, Certificate of teaching or any other training
course recognized by the Government as equivalent thereto.
c 7. A perusal of Rule 8 shows that there are two essential
requirements for being appointed as Assistant Master or
Assistant Mistress of Junior Basic Schools, these are -
{a) Intermediate Certificate of the Board of High School
and Intermediate Education, UP (which was later
D substituted by an amendment of Rule 8 by
prescribing bachelor's degree instead of
Intermediate Certificate);
i
(b) Training. qualification consisting of Basic Teachers I

I'I
Certificate (BTC), Hindustani Teachers Certificate,
E Junior Teachers Certificate or Certificate of Teaching
or any other training course recognized by the
Government equivalent thereto.
8. In the present case, we are concerned with the second
F essential requirement viz., training qualification.
9. Admittedly, the respondent in Civil Appeal No. 8034/
2001 (Upendra Rai) only holds a Diploma in Education (in short
D.Ed.) which was awarded to him after he completed two years'
course from DIET Jabalpur in M.P. He does not hold any of the
G certificates of training qualification referred to in Rule 8 of the
Rules.
10. It was submitted by learned counsel for the writ
petitioner (respondent in this appeal) before the High Court that
H the aforesaid D.Ed. certificate awarded by the DIET, Jabalpur
BASIC EDUCATION BOARD, U.P. v. UPENDRA RAI 713
AND ORS. [MARKANDEY KATJU, J.]
was earlier recognized as equivalent to BTC of U.P. However, A
even if that is so, we find that its equivalence (if it existed at all)
to BTC has been, admittedly, rescinded by the U.P. Government
Circular dated 11.8.1997.
11. The aforesaid U .P. Government Circular dated
11.8.1997 has been annexed as Annexure P-5 to this appeal. 8 ·
This Circular dated 11.8.1997 was written by the Secretary, Basic
Education, U.P. Government to the Director of Education (Basic)
& Chairman, Basic Shiksha Parishad, U.P. In this Circular it is
mentioned in paragraph 2 that it has been decided by the
Government after sufficient consideration that in accordance C'
with the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education
(Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 the posts of Assistant Teachers
in the primary schools of the Board be filled up only with those
candidates who are trained in UP Government Training
Institutes and possess BTC or Hindustani Teaching Certificate D
or teaching certificate of Junior Teachers or Teacher. It was also
specifically mentioned in the aforesaid circular dated 11.8.1997
that equivalence to BTC granted earlier to other certificates was
cancelled with immediate effect.
12. The aforesaid circular in Hindi is reproduced below :
"~~-2657/15.5.97-127/97 -ero ~o

F

G
fua=rr Pl ~ w:ri (~o). 1:1 '<Sl '1 \fl 1
~
31tiia:r. fua=rr ~, \3'0 >ro C1'©'1\3? I
fua=rr (s)-~ C1'©'1\3?: ~ 11.08.1997 H
714 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.

A . ~ : \3"0 >l'O ~ fum ~ IDXT 'tii11R;ia fc1e:i1C'1~1' it
~ ctr ~gfcra cf> ~ it I
~.
~cm fc1~1lfc:p ~ 31Cff~11fi'61lf -q?f 'ffo ~o fuo -qo
8
537 /97-98 fG-:rfcp 14.4.97 ctr 3!N ~ t1lR 311¢~(1 ~ s-4 ~
~ m Cf)T ~ §3IT ~ fcp #To ~o xfro cf> W1cf>&T ~ s-4
Cf)~ q lf ~11 '!"111 ~ ~n ct> IDXT fcrflin:r >rfua:ror >fl1TUT.-q?f / ~ ~
~ cm- \3"o >ro ~ fum ~ IDXT 'tii11R;ia fc1e:i1C'1~l ~
c fi 61 lf Cf) 31~ cf> "YG ~ ~ gfcra ~ 31t l1RT 7flfT ~ I q R61 Gl lf
fc1e:i1C'1~l it~~ it Rfcra~1 c=r~ ~it~ #To ~o xfro
>rfua:ror ~ cm- t-zTR it ~ s-4 ~o >ro ~ fum ~
~ ~ ~ lf 111 Cl C1l it ~ ~ IDXT ~gfcra ctr >ITTn<rr cf>
. D c:p~qlf ~ fcn<) -.m ~I C1lf 1995 ~ ~ ~ fum ~
IDXT fcrflin:r >rfua:ror ~311 cnl" 11RffiT >!'GR ~ cf> ~~ it ~
~ ~ ~ fcp<) ~ ~ ~ ~ it 3l6f fcrflin:r fu!RCP
>rfua:ror ~311 cf> ~ it ~ ·:;4Fcli!I'< ctr 3ilCl~lfCf5cil "ITT Tf<fr ~I
E 2. \3"CRl cf> ~ it m IDXT ~' fc1il I'<~. q'< I'ii ~ f.i"uP:i
~ 7flfT ~ fcp 3l6f ~ cf> q R 61 Gl ll >rT~ RI El I C'1 ~'j it fi 61 lf Cf)
~ cf> qqT· ~ ~gfcra ~ \3"0 >l'O ~ fulffT (~) ~
~ lfl"ll Cl C1l 1981 cf> ~ cf> ~ ~ ~ fi'<Cf51 '< IDXT
F 'tii11R;ia ~3IT ~ ~ #To~oxfro ~ ~'1tt11;:fi ~
>fl1TUT--q?f, ~ ll '< ~ >fl1TUT--q?f 1fCf ~ >fl1TUT-'!1?r ~
~ ~ tr '+IXT \JlT!T 1 c=r~ #To~oxfro cf> "W1R ~ >rfulffUT
q Id lf w'il 1fCf ~ cm- >!'GR
'
ctr Tf<fr W1cf>a-Tffi'ti a IfCf) IR;i Cf) ~
~ ~ ~ cft" \JlT!T I
G
a.~~ fcn ~ m cf>~~ cpr ~ ~
3lj41c>i'i '<j~flt1a CITTFl' ~ qR1:1q"1ll Fcle:i1c>i~l it *161ll¢ ~ cB-
~ qqT cm- \3"0 >l'O ~ ftl'lffT (~) ~ ~ lf Ii ICl C1\ 1981 cB"
H ~ cB- ~ #To~oxfro c=r~ ~'"9;tt11""1l ~ >fl1TUT--q?f,
BASIC EDUCATION BOARD, U.P. v. UPENDRA RAI 715
AND ORS. [MARKANDEY KAT JU, J.]

qfill'< 3lUJT'CfCP ~-tBT ~ 31~ ~-tBT IDt(f ~ ~ A
m
~. ~ \JfR "$T Cf> 14q 1i: ;"1 CfiT ~ ~ I \1fITT 'Cf>tt 11 I'1.fl ll
;;xi1£11C11<i'i ITT'<T ma ~ cfi ~ ct>14q16) ~ 'ITT ~ -qx
C1Gjfll'< ct>14q1ifl "$T \i'IT4 'd'm \IB m cfi ~ <f afct>1C11 'C'1l<TI
'\ifn)1 B
~'
~*1R'
~I"

13. We are concerned here with the second paragraph of C
the aforesaid circular.
14. The respondent admittedly got appointment after the
Circular dated 11.8.1997 and hence this Circular applies to him.
Admittedly, the respondent does not possess the qualification D
mentioned in the said Circular. He does not either possess BTC,
Hindustani Teaching Certificate, JCT or Certificate of Teaching.
The D.Ed. Certificate is no longer regarded as equivalent to
BTC after the circular dated 11.8.1997. This was a policy
decision of the U.P. Government, and it is well settled that the
Court cannot interfere with policy decisions of the Government E
unless it is in violation of some statutory or constitutional
provision. Hence, we are of the opinion that the respondent was
not entitled to be appointed as Assistant Master of a Junior Basic
School in U. P.
F
15. Grant of equivalence and /or revocation of equivalence
is an administrative decision which is in the sole discretion of
the concerned authority, and the Court has nothing to do with
such matters. The matter of equivalence is decided by experts
appointed by the government, and the Court does not have G
expertise in such matters. Hence it should exercise judicial
restraint and not interfere in it.
16. Learned counsel for the respondent, however,
submitted that the respondent has the requisite qualification in
view of the National Council For Teacher Education Act, 1993 H
716 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C. R.

A (hereinafter referred to as the NCTE Act). He has invited our
attention to various provisions of the said Act. In particular he
has referred to Section 2(m) of the NCTE Act which states as
under:
" (m) "teacher education qualification" means a degree,
B diploma or certificate in teacher education awarded by a
University or examining body in accordance with the
provisions of this Act;"
17. Learned counsel also submitted that the NCTE Act
c overrides the UP Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules
1981 in view of Article 254 of the Constitution read with Entry
25 of List 111 of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution.
18. Learned counsel submitted that if a person has the
qualification mentioned in section 2(m) of the NCTE Act he has
D the necessary qualification for being appointed as an Assistant
Master or a Teacher in any educational.institution in India. We
regret, we cannot agree.
19. A perusal of the NCTE Act shows that this Act was
made to regulate the teachers training system and the teachers
E training institutes in the country. It may be mentioned that there
are two types of educational institutions - (1) ordinary
educational institutions like primary schools, high schools,
intermediate colleges and universities and (2) teachers' training
institutes. The NCTEAct only deals with the second category of
F institutions viz. teachers' training institutes. It has nothing to do
with the ordinary educational institutions referred to above.
Hence, the qualification for appointment as teacher in the
ordinary educational institutions like the primary school, cannot
be prescribed under the NCTE Act, and the essential
G qualifications are prescribed by the local Acts and Rules in each
State. In U.P. the essential qualification for appointment as a
primary school teacher in a Junior Basic School is prescribed
by Rule 8 of the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules,
1981 which have been framed under the U.P. Basic Education
H Act, 1972. A person who does not have the qualification
/
t-
BASIC EDUCATION BOARD, U.P. v. UPENDRA RAI 717,
AND ORS. [MARKANDEY KAT JU, J.]

~ mentioned in Rule 8 of the aforesaid Rules cannot validly be A
~
appointed as an Assistant Master or Assistant Mistress in a
Junior Basic School.
20. Learned counsel for the respondent then referred to
section 12(d) of the NCTE Act which states that the National
Council for Teacher Education established under sub-section B
(1) of section 3 can lay down guidelines in respect of minimum
qualifications for a person to be employed as a teacher in
--+
~ schools or in recognized institutions. He also invited our attention
to section 14(1) of the NCET Act which states as under:
c
"(1) Every institution offering or intending to offer a course '
or training in teacher education on or after the appointed
day, may, for grant of recognition under this Act, make an
application to the Regional Committee concerned in such
form and in such manner as may be determined by ,
D
regulations:
Provided that an institution offering a course or training in
teacher education immediately before the appointed day,
shall be entitled to continue such course or training for a
period of six months, if it has made an application for E
recognition within the s'=lid period and until the disposal of
the application by the Regional Committee."

. Sub-section (5) of section 14 states as under:

. ~
"(5) Every institution, in respect of which recognition has
been refused shall discontinue the course or training in
teacher education from the end of the academic session
F

next following the date of receipt of the order refusing !

recognition passed under clause (b) of sub-section (3)".
21. Learned counsel has also referred to section 17(1) G
and (4) of the NCTE Act. Under section 17(1) the Regional
... Committee if satisfied that a recognized institution has 1

contravened any provision of the Act or the rules and regulations,
it can withdraw recognition of such recognized institution after
giving opportunity of hearing. The consequences of withdrawal H
718 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 2 S.C.R.

A of such recognition are given in section 17(4) which states as
under: ~ 1-·

"(4) If an institution offers any course or training in teacher
education after the coming into force of the order
withdrawing recognition under sub-section (1) or where
B an institution offering a course or training in teacher
education immedia.tely before the appointed day fails or
neglects to obtain recognition or permission under this
Act, the qualification in teacher education obtained
pursuant to such course or training or after undertaking a
c course or training in such institution, shall not be treated
as a valid qualification for purposes of employment under
the Central Government, any State Government or
University, or in any school, college or other educational
body aided by the Central Government or any State
D Government".
22. It may be mentioned that the word "institution" is defined
in Section 2(e) of the NCTE Act to mean an institution which
offers courses or training in teachereducation. Thus, the NCTE
Act does not deal with the ordinary educational institutions like
E primary schools, high schools, intermediate college or university.
The word "institution" as defined in Section 2(2) only means
teachers' training institute and not the ordinary educational

F
institutions. Hence, it is only the teachers' training institutions
which have to seek grant of recognition or continuation of
recognition from the Regional Committee. The ordinary
--
..

'\
educational institutions do not have to seek any such recognition
or continuation under the NCTE Act. In fact, the NCTE Act does
not relate to the ordinary educational institution at all. We,
therefore, fail to understand how it can be said that the NCTE
G Act overrides -the UP Basic Education Act and Rules made
thereunder. In fact, the two Acts operate in altogether two different
fields. The NCTE Act deals with the teachers' training institutions
while the UP Basic Education Act deals with the ordinary primary
schools in U.P. and not any teachers' training institute. The
H argument of learned counsel for the respondent is thus wholly

\
BASIC EDUCATION BOARD, U.P. v. UPENDRA RAI 719
.....,..
AND ORS. [MARKANDEY KATJU, J.]

misconceived. A
23. The impugned judgment also proceeds with the same
fallacy. The Division Bench, in our opinion, wrongly relied upon
Article 254 of the Constitution. Article 254, as stated above,
has no application in this case at all because the two Acts
operate in two different fields. In our opinion, the Division Bench, 8
therefore, wrongly held that the respondent (the appellant before
the Division Bench) had the requisite qualification for being
"~ appointed as an Assistant Master in a Junior Basic School.

24. In our opinion the Division Bench also erred in holding c
that there was violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. We see
no violation of Article 14 by the impugned circular or the
advertisement dated 28.4.1999. This aspect of the matter has
been discussed in detail in the judgment of the learned Single
Judge of the High Court dated 19.12.1997 in writ petition
no.33856 of 1997, Hira Mani vs~ District Basic Shiksha Adhikari D
connected with writ petition no.32184 of 1997 Smt. Kiran
Kumari vs. State of U.P, and we see no reason to take a
contrary view. Hence, the view taken by the Division Bench, in
our opinion, is not correct.
E
25. In view of the above, the impugned judgment of the
Division Bench is set aside and the writ petition filed before the
High Court is dismissed. The appeal is allowed. There shall be
no order as to costs.

Civil Appeal Nos. 3998/2002, 153/2003 & Civil Appeal F
Nos ...... ./2008(@ SLP(Civil) Nos. 4819/2002, 9289/2002 &
20337/2002)

26. In view of the decision given above in Civil Appeal No.
8034/2001, these appeals are allowed. There shall be no order G
as to costs.

Civil Appeal No. 1207/2006

27. Civil Appeal No. 1207 of 2006 was filed against the
)udgmen\ of the Division Bench of the High Court in Special H
~
720 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R. ._"'~

A Appeal No. 328 of 2001 which was dismissed both on merits
and on the point of limitation. In the special circumstances, we
condone the delay in filing the Special Appeal. The appeal is
allowed in view of the decision given above in Civil Appeal No. ·,
8034 of 2001. There shall be no order as to costs.
B Civil Appeal Nos. 2796/2006, 4784/2006
28. In view of the decision given in C.A. No. 8034/2001,
these appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to .:.,.. 1
costs.
C R.P. Appeals disposed of.