Full Judgment Text
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5564 OF 2019
(Arising from SLP (C) NO.16698/2018)
OMKAR SINGH & ORS. Appellants
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5569 OF 2019
(Arising from SLP (C) NO.21286/2018)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5566 OF 2019
(Arising from SLP (C) NO.18904/2018)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5570 OF 2019
(Arising from SLP (C) NO.21287/2018)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5568 OF 2019
(Arising from SLP (C) NO.20530/2018)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5565 OF 2019
(Arising from SLP (C) NO.18903/2018)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5571 OF 2019
(Arising from SLP (C) NO.21288/2018)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5572 OF 2019
(Arising from SLP (C) NO.21289/2018)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5567 OF 2019
(Arising from SLP (C) NO.18905/2018)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5573 OF 2019
(Arising from SLP (C) NO.21291/2018)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5574 OF 2019
(Arising from SLP (C) NO.21292/2018)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5575 OF 2019
(Arising from SLP (C) NO.21295/2018)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ASHA SUNDRIYAL
Date: 2019.07.29
17:45:20 IST
Reason:
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5576 OF 2019
(Arising from SLP (C) NO.21297/2018)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5577 OF 2019
(Arising from SLP (C) NO.21298/2018)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5583 OF 2019
2
(Arising from SLP (C) NO.23805/2018)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5582 OF 2019
(Arising from SLP (C) NO.23804/2018)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5586 OF 2019
(Arising from SLP (C) NO.24184/2018)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5579 OF 2019
(Arising from SLP (C) NO.23168/2018)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5578 OF 2019
(Arising from SLP (C) NO.22532/2018)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5584 OF 2019
(Arising from SLP (C) NO.23968/2018)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5585 OF 2019
(Arising from SLP (C) NO.24176/2018)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5580 OF 2019
(Arising from SLP (C) NO.23545/2018)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5588 OF 2019
(Arising from SLP (C) NO.25476/2018)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5587 OF 2019
(Arising from SLP (C) NO.24500/2018)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5581 OF 2019
(Arising from SLP (C) NO.23724/2018)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5590 OF 2019
(Arising from SLP (C) NO.16580/2019 @ Diary No. 35576/2018)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5589 OF 2019
(Arising from SLP (C) NO.30148/2018)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5591 OF 2019
(Arising from SLP (C) NO.16581/2019 @ Diary No. 35666/2018)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5592 OF 2019
(Arising from SLP (C) NO.16582/2019 @ Diary No. 42111/2018)
O R D E R
Leave granted. Applications for impleadment are allowed to the
extent of intervention.
2. All these appeals have been preferred against the impugned
common judgment and final order of the Division Bench of the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad on 30.05.2018 in Special Appeal
NO.506/2018 deciding the bunch of the matters.
3
3. The singular question involved is whether the incumbents who
were pursuing any of the Teachers Training Course (for short ‘TTC’)
(recognized by the National Council for Teachers Education (for short
‘NCTE’) or the Rehabilitation Council of India (for short ‘RCI’) as the
case may be) could have appeared in the Teachers Eligibility Test (for
short ‘TET’) prescribed by the NCTE?
4. The basic education is defined under Section 2(1)(b) of the Uttar
Pradesh Basic Education Act, 1972 (for short "Act of 1972") to mean
education up to class VIII imparted in schools other than high schools
or intermediate colleges. Section 19 of the Act of 1972 provides for
rulemaking power of the State Government and envisages that the
State Government by notification may make rules for carrying out
purposes of the Act. The Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers)
Service Rules, 1981 have been framed in exercise of the powers under
Section 19 of the Act of 1972. Rule 8 of the 1981 Rules provides for
essential qualification of the candidates for appointment to the post of
Assistant Master of Senior Basic School and Assistant Mistress of
Senior Basic School for teaching Science and Mathematics and require
a candidate to have Bachelor Degree with Science and Mathematics
and training qualification of B.T.C., C.T., B.Ed. and B.Ed. Special
Education or a course recognized by RCI and passed Teacher
Eligibility Test conducted by the Uttar Pradesh Government or the
4
Government of India.
4.1. The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act,
2009 (in short ‘Act of 2009') was enacted w.e.f. 16.02.2010. The
Central Government in exercise of power under subSection (1) of
Section 23 of the Act of 2009 vide notification dated 31.3.2010
authorized the NCTE as an academic authority to lay down the
minimum qualification for a person to be eligible for appointment as a
teacher. The Constitution (EightySixth Amendment) Act, 2002
inserting Article 21A relating to the Right to Education was given effect
from 01.04.2010. Article 21A postulates that the State shall provide
free and compulsory education to all the children of age from 6 to 14
years in such manner as the State may determine. The NCTE, the
academic authority, laid down minimum qualification for a person to
be eligible for appointment as a teacher in class I to class VIII. The
dispute in this matter is confined to the appointment of Assistant
Teacher in Class VI to VIII.
4.2 The NCTE vide notification dated 23.08.2010 laid down the
qualifications for minimum qualifications for a person to be eligible for
appointment as a teacher in class I to VII as under:
“1. Minimum Qualifications:
(I) Classes IV
(a) Senior Secondary (or it's equivalent) with at least 50 %
marks and a 2year diploma in Elementary Education (by
whatever name known)
5
or
Senior Secondary (or it's equivalent) with at least 45% marks
and 2year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever
name known), in accordance with the NCTE (Recognition
Norms and Procedure), Regulations 2002.
or
Senior Secondary (or it's equivalent) with at least 50% marks
and 4 year Bachelor of Elementary Education (B.El.Ed.)
or
Senior Secondary (or it's equivalent) with at least 50% marks
and 2year Diploma in Education (Special Education)
AND
(b) Pass in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), to be conducted
by the appropriate Government in accordance with the
guideline framed by the NCTE for the purpose.
(ii) Classes VIVIII
(a) B.A./B.Sc and 2year Diploma in Elementary Education
(by whatever name known)
or
B.A./B.Sc. With at least 50% marks and 1 year Bachelor in
Education (B.Ed.)
or
B.A/B.Sc. With at least 45% marks and 1 year Bachelor in
Education (B.Ed.), in accordance with the NCTE (Recognition
Norms and Procedure) Regulations issued from time to time in
this regard.
Or
Senior Secondary (or it's equivalent) with at least 50% marks
and 4 year Bachelor in Elementary Education (B.El.Ed.)
or
Senior Secondary (or its equivalent) with at least 50% marks
and 4 year BA/B.Sc./B.Sc.Ed. Or B.A.Ed./B.Sc.Ed.
Or
B.A./B.Sc. With at least 50% marks and 1year B.Ed.(Special
Education)
AND
(b) Pass in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) to be conducted
by the appropriate Government in accordance with the
guidelines framed by the NCTE for the purpose.”
5. The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act,
2009 has been further amended by inserting a second proviso under
6
Section 23 on 01.04.2015 as under:
“Provided further that every teacher appointed or in position
st
as on the 31 March 2015, who does not possess minimum
qualifications as laid down under subsection (1), shall
acquire such minimum qualifications within a period of four
years from the date of commencement of the Right of Children
to Free and Compulsory Education (Amendment) Act, 2017.”
5.1 As one of the eligibility criteria for appointment as a teacher as
per the notification issued by the NCTE dated 23.8.2010 is passed in
the TET to be conducted by the appropriate government in accordance
with the guidelines framed by the NCTE for conducting the TET, it has
been mentioned that it is necessary to ensure that persons recruited
as teachers possess the essential aptitude and ability to meet the
challenges of teaching at the primary and upper primary level.
5.2 As per the guidelines framed by NCTE for conducting the TET,
the rationale for including the TET as a minimum qualification for a
person to be eligible for appointment as a teacher is given in the
Guidelines for conducting Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) are extracted
hereunder:
“3 The rationale for including the TET as a minimum
qualification for a person to be eligible for appointment as a
teacher is as under:
“i. It would bring national standards and benchmark of
teacher quality in the recruitment process;
ii. It would induce teacher education institutions and students
from these institutions to further improve their performance
standards;
iii. It would send a positive signal to all stakeholders that the
Government lays special emphasis on teacher quality."
7
5.3 The eligibility for the TET examination has been provided in para
5 of the Guideline as under:
“Eligibility
5 The following persons shall be eligible for appearing in the
TET:
i) A person who has acquired the academic and
professional qualifications specified in the NCTE Notification
rd
dated 23 August 2010;
ii A person who is pursuing any of the teacher education
courses (recognized by the NCTE or the RCI, as the case may
rd
be) specified in the NCTE Notification dated 23 August 2010;
iii. The eligibility condition for appearing in TET may be
relaxed in respect of a State/UT which has been granted
relaxation under subsection (2) of section 23 of the RTE Act.
The relaxation will be specified in the notification issued by
the Central Government under that subsection."
(emphasis supplied)
5.4 It is apparent that the condition No.(i) of para 5 is that a person
who has acquired academic and professional qualifications as per
notification dated 23.8.2010 can appear in the TET examination. As
per para 5 (ii), a person who is “ pursuing ” any of the teacher education
courses recognized by NCTE or the RCI, as specified in Notification
dated 23.08.2010 shall be eligible for appearing in the TET. As per
para 5(iii), the eligibility condition for appearing in TET may be relaxed
in respect of State/UT which has been granted relaxation under
Section 23 (2) of the RTE Act of 2009. The relaxation will be specified
in the notification issued by the Central Government.
8
6. In the State of U.P., a Government Order dated 7.9.2011 had
been issued for conducting TET which provided that a candidate
having B.A, B.Sc, B.Com. and TTC passed are eligible to appear in the
TET and subsequently, the State of U.P. issued another Government
Order dated 17.9.2011 in the modification of the earlier Government
Order dated 7.9.2011, whereby the eligibility guidelines came to be
amended in pursuance of the NCTE notification dated 29.7.2011 and
in place of B.A., B.Sc., B.Com. the words "Graduate" came to be
substituted. Thereafter, the aforesaid Government Orders dated
7.9.2011 and 17.9.2011 came to be amended vide G.O. dated
4.10.2011 and for that examination, such candidates were authorized
to appear who have passed TTC recognized by the NCTE or who were
appearing in the last year examination of TTC. The last date of
submission of the applications for UPTET was 18.10.2011. The
UPTET examination was held on 13.11.2011. On 25.11.2011 UPTET
examination result was declared. At this stage, it is required to be
noted that similarly CTET examination was conducted by the Central
Government authorizing such candidates to appear who were
pursuing the TTC but have not passed the TTC examination.
Thereafter on 17.4.2013, the government order was issued for
conducting UPTET examination 2013 and the consequential office
orders were issued.
9
7. The learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 3100 of 2013
(Vinod Kumar Singh and others vs. State of UP and others) passed an
order dated 13.3.2013 allowing, as an interim measure, the
candidates pursuing the TTC to appear in the TET examination
making the result subject to further orders of the Court. Thereafter,
the Government Order dated 17.4.2013 came to be issued for
conducting UPTET examination 2013 and consequential office orders
were issued. Then a bunch of writ petitions came to be filed before the
High Court by such candidates who were pursuing TTC or appearing
in the last year examination of TTC with a prayer that they are being
deprived to appear in the TET on the ground that they have not
passed TTC.
7.1 The High Court disposed of the aforesaid bunch of writ petitions
directing the State Government to take notice of the guidelines of
NCTE for eligibility and issue appropriate instructions or government
order in the event it is found that the writ petitioners are also entitled
to appear in the examination. In compliance of the aforesaid order
passed by the High Court dated 13.5.2013, a Government Order dated
15.05.2013 came to be issued by the State Government modifying the
Government Order dated 17.4.2013 and the office orders providing
therein that such candidates may also be entitled to appear in the TET
10
examination who are appearing in TTC examination. It also provided
that such candidates will be allowed provisionally to appear in the TET
examination with a condition that TET examination passed certificate
will be valid only after passing the TTC examination. The UPTET
examination was held on 27/28.6.2013 and the result of the UPTET
2013 was declared on 13.11.2013. At this stage, it is required to be
noted that the respective appellants – original respondents before the
High Court are the candidates who have passed UPTET examination,
however, at the relevant time when they appeared in the TET
examination, all of them were pursuing their TTC course. It appears
that thereafter a Government Order dated 11.7.2013 was issued for
filling up 14667 posts of Assistant Teachers of Science and 14667
posts of Assistant Teachers of Maths, total 29334 posts of Assistant
Teacher of Senior Basic Schools (Class VI to VIII). The Government
Order further provided eligibility educational qualification as B.Sc. and
TTC recognized by the NCTE and TET passed. The academic
qualification was modified in place of B.Sc. and it was made
graduation with a subject of Science or Maths, as the case may be. As
against the aforesaid vacancies, the candidates who have passed
UPTET examination 2011, CTET examination 2012, UPTET
examination 2013 and CTET examination 2013 were eligible to apply.
The last date for submission of the applications was 30.09.2013,
11
which was further extended to 10.10.2013. All the appellants applied
pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement. All of them were appointed
and all of them are working as Assistant Teachers in the respective
subjects since 2015.
7.2 After a period of two years – in the year 2017, a bunch of
petitions came to be filed before the High Court challenging the
appointments/appointment process initiated by the State Government
by G.O. dated 11.7.2013. Twofold submissions/grievances were
made, firstly, that the appointments have been offered to persons who
are ineligible in terms of the qualifications specified, inasmuch as they
do not have Science or Mathematics as one of the subjects in the
Graduation Degree, and secondly, the persons who had not passed an
examination or were not in the final year of their TTC had also
appeared in the TET examination, which was impermissible, and that,
such persons have also been appointed. The learned Single Bench of
the High Court disposed of the aforesaid petitions vide judgment and
order dated 8.5.2018. The learned Single Judge observed and held as
under:
th
“In view of the notification issued by the NCTE dated 11 of
February, 2011, as well as the Government Order issued on
th
15 of May, 2013, the inescapable conclusion culled out from
the provision is that only those persons are eligible to appear
in the TET examination who have acquired academic and
professional qualification and have either obtained training
qualification or are pursuing any of the teacher education
courses.
12
In view of the interpretation given to the word “pursuing” by
this Court, which stands implemented vide Government Order
th
dated 15 of May, 2013, it is clear that only those persons,
who are in the final year of their teacher training courses,
alone, would be entitled to appear in the TET examination.
The appointing authority, therefore, is directed to ensure that
before appointment letters are issued to the candidate, he/she
must have passed TET after completing a training course or
such persons were in the final year of their training
examination. A person, who does not come in either of the
two categories, would not be issued any appointment order.
The State Government shall implement its Government Order
th
of 15 of May, 2013 and circulars would be issued for its
strict compliance by the appointing authorities. The
appointing authorities shall also clearly state such fact in the
appointment letter issued to the candidates appointed as
Assistant Teachers.
This takes the Court to the last limb of petitioners' grievance,
regarding those who have been appointed as Assistant
Teachers, even while they had not even completed the first
year of their teacher training course. By way of illustration,
some of the petitioners have annexed materials to show that
appointment orders have been issued to persons who have
passed TET even before completing the first year of their
training course. Such appointment orders would be
inconsistent with the Government Orders, already issued by
th
the State Government, dated 15 of May, 2013 as well as
th
NCTE circular dated 11 of February, 2011.
Liberty, therefore, is reserved to the petitioners to challenge
such specific appointments before the appointing authorities,
i.e., the District Basic Education Officer concerned, at the first
instance, who shall examine such individual grievances on
facts after affording the opportunity of hearing to the selected
candidates.
The process, in that regard, would be concluded within a
period of six months from the date of raising such grievance,
along with a certified copy of this order, before the appointing
authority."
7.3 The judgment and order passed by the learned Single Bench
dated 8.5.2018 was the subject matter of appeals before the Division
Bench of the High Court. By the impugned common judgment and
13
order, the Division Bench has opined differently as under:
th
“A perusal of Clause 5(ii) of the notification dated 11
February 2011 issued by the NCTE indicates that a person
who is pursuing any of the teachers' training courses specified
rd
in the NCTE Noti23.8.2010 dated 23 August 2010 would also
be eligible. It appears to us that this benefit was considered
to be given to such candidates whose teacher training course
result had not been declared by the last date specified for
filling the online form for TET examination. That is why such
persons who were pursuing the teacher training course could
appear at the TET examination.
In our opinion "pursuing any of the teacher training course"
should not be restricted only to such persons who were
appearing in the examination of the teacher training course.
It should also include such persons who have studying in the
course but examination had not been held. But what is
important is that such persons should have been declared
successful in the teachers training course before the date on
which the examination result of TET is declared. If such
interpretation is not given then even if a candidate does not
pass the teachers' training course, the TET Certificate would
be issued to him and this would enable him to seek
appointment as an Assistant Teacher even though he has not
passed the qualifying examination. This clause merely
facilitates such person to appear at the TET examination even
if the result of the teacher training course has not been
declared. This interpretation would subserve the purpose for
which such persons were considered eligible. To give any
other interpretation would defeat the purpose of the facility
that has been provided to such persons.
In support of this interpretation, it would be appropriate to
refer to the schedule that was placed before the Court for the
2011 examination. The last date for applying was 18 October
2011. The examination was held on 13 November 2011 and
the result was declared on 25 November 2011. The case of
the appellants is that persons whose result of the teacher
training course has not been declared by 25 November 2011
were issued certificates and based on the certificates they
were appointed. According to them the result of the teacher
training course was declared in March 2012."
7.4 The impugned common judgment and order passed by the
Division Bench of the High Court is the subject matter of the present
14
appeals.
8. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the respective
parties at length.
8.1 The issue involved in the present appeals is the meaning and
interpretation of the word "pursuing" as appearing in Clause 5(ii) of
the NCTE guidelines. The question for consideration is the eligibility
criteria to appear in the TET examination. It is apparent from the
reading of the guidelines framed by the NCTE – para 5 that the
incumbents who have acquired the qualification academic as well as
professional can apply for TET examination. The second category of
candidates who can apply for TET examination is those who are
"pursuing" any teacher training course (TTC). The meaning of
"pursuing" is a person who is undergoing any of the teacher training
course (TTC). He/she must have been admitted and pursuing the
teacher training course which is prescribed as a qualification.
Declaration of the result, appearing in the examination or date of
filling up of the forms, etc. cannot be the criteria to appear in the TET
examination. Therefore, a candidate who is undergoing i.e.,
“pursuing” the requisite teacher training course (TTC) shall be eligible
to appear in the TET examination.
8.2. The learned Single Judge of the High Court held and concluded
15
that "only those persons who are in the final year of the teacher
training course (TTC) alone would be entitled to appear in the TET
examination". The Division Bench of the High Court has gone further
and has observed that "only such candidates, whose teacher training
course result has not been declared by the last date specified for filling
up the online form for TET examination can be said to be “pursuing"
the teacher training course as mentioned in clause 5(ii) of the NCTE
guidelines and could appear in the TET examination. Therefore,
according to the Division Bench of the High Court, as on the last date
specified for filling up the online form for TET examination, the
candidates must have appeared in the examination (of TTC) and the
result has not been declared. These riders are not proper given the
clear language used in clause 5(ii) of the NCTE guidelines. The
Division Bench of the High Court has read into and/or added
something more than what is provided in clause 5(ii) of the NCTE
guidelines. The language used in clause 5 (ii) of the NCTE guidelines
is simple, clear and unambiguous. As per the cardinal principle of the
rule of interpretation, while construing a particular provision, the
particular provision is required to be read as it is and nothing is to be
added or taken away.
8.3 Looking to the clear wordings in clause 5(ii) of the NCTE
guidelines and the phrase used is “pursuing”, the High Court is not
16
justified in adding the additional riders, such as, that to become
eligible for appearing in the TET examination, a candidate must have
appeared in the TTC examination and the result have not been
declared by the last date specified for filling up the online form for TET
examination. As per the dictionary meaning, the word "pursuing"
means undergoing and/or proceeding further. Therefore, a candidate
who has been admitted in any of the TTC and undergoing the teacher
training course (TTC) can be said to be "pursuing" such teacher
training course and shall be eligible to appear in the TET examination,
irrespective of the fact that whether, by the last date specified for
filling up the online form for TET examination, he has, in fact,
appeared in the examination of the concerned teacher training course
and the result is awaited. “Pursuing” the requisite teacher training
course is sufficient to make such a candidate eligible to appear in the
TET examination. Therefore, on a fair reading of clause 5(ii) of the
NCTE guidelines, a person who has been admitted in TTC and is
pursuing, he/she can appear in the TET examination. In the present
case, admittedly, on the cutoff date, all the candidates were pursuing
the concerned teacher training course. Thereafter, all of them have
cleared the TET examination as well as have cleared the concerned
teacher training course. At the time when they were appointed as
Assistant Teachers, all of them fulfilled the eligibility criteria for
17
appointment as Assistant Teachers. All of them have passed the TET
examination and have also passed the TTC as per the requisite
eligibility criteria. Thus, in our view, ousting certain incumbents by
the High Court cannot be sustained since they were pursuing TTC and
they were clearly eligible to appear in the TET examination and have
passed it while pursuing the requisite professional qualification for
being eligible to be appointed as Assistant Teachers.
8.4 It is not permissible to add riders as done by the High Court. The
phrase "pursuing" is to be given literal meaning. The expression ‘rule
of literal construction’ lays down that words of a statute are first
understood in their natural, ordinary or popular sense and phrases,
and sentences are construed according to their grammatical meaning.
The learned author G.P. Singh in ‘Principles of Statutory Interpretation’
th
(14 end.) at p. 91, has observed:
“… Natural and grammatical meaning.—The words of a statute are
first understood in their natural, ordinary or popular sense and phrases
and sentences are construed according to their grammatical meaning,
unless that leads to some absurdity or unless there is something in the
context, or in the object of the statute to suggest the contrary. “The true
way”, according to Lord Brougham [ Crawford v. Spooner , 1846 SCC
Online PC 7] is,
‘to take the words as the legislature have given them, and to
take the meaning which the words given naturally imply, unless
where the construction of those words is, either by the Preamble or
by the context of the words in question, controlled or altered;:
[ Crawford case (supra)]
and in the words of Viscount Haldane [ Attorney General v. Milne ,
1914 AC 765 (HL)],L.C. if the language used “has a natural meaning
we cannot depart from that meaning unless reading the statute as a
18
whole, the context directs us to do so. In an oftquoted passage, Lord
Wensleydale stated [ Grey v. Pearson , (1857) 6 HL Cas 61] the rule
thus:
‘… in construing wills and indeed statutes, and all written
instruments, the grammatical and ordinary sense of the words is to
be adhered to, unless that would lead to some absurdity, or some
repugnance or inconsistency with the rest of the instrument, in
which case the grammatical and ordinary sense of the words may
be modified, so as to avoid that absurdity, and inconsistency, but
no further.’”
Therefore, it is clear that the respective appellants herein whose
appointments were challenged were eligible to appear in the TET
examination at the time they were “pursuing” the concerned TTC.
Thus, we hold that the decision of the High Court, to the aforesaid
extent, is not sustainable. The impugned orders of the High Court are
accordingly modified to the aforesaid extent.
9. Now so far as the submission on behalf of some of the appellants
herein – original writ petitioners with regard to persons who have
passed Graduation without Science or Mathematics as one of the
subjects is concerned, the concerned District Education Officers are
directed to carry out the exercise to find out such candidates who are
Graduate and have been appointed as Assistant Teachers without
having Science or Mathematics as one of the subjects, within a period
of three months from today. Let the exercise be completed duly
considering the second proviso to Section 23 added by the Right of
Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2017.
19
10. The present appeals are allowed accordingly. No costs.
……………………………...J.
[ARUN MISHRA]
……………………………...J.
[S. ABDUL NAZEER]
……………………………...J.
[M.R. SHAH]
NEW DELHI;
JULY 16, 2019.
20
ITEM NO.6 COURT NO.4 SECTION III-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 16698/2018
OMKAR SINGH & ORS. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. Respondent(s)
IA No. 5660/2019 - AMENDMENT OF APPEAL / PETITION / I.A.
IA No. 90579/2018 - DELETING THE NAME OF PETITIONER/RESPONDENT
IA No. 90576/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 171991/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 114377/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 168289/2018 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION
IA No. 11902/2019 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT
IA No. 139406/2018 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT
IA No. 11872/2019 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT
IA No. 137569/2018 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT
IA No. 120331/2018 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT
IA No. 175210/2018 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT
IA No. 116612/2018 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT
IA No. 171986/2018 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT
IA No. 168160/2018 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT
IA No. 16179/2019 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT
IA No. 166974/2018 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES
IA No. 114374/2018 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES
IA No. 90578/2018 - PERMISSION TO FILE SYNOPSIS AND LIST OF DATES)
WITH
SLP [C] No.21286/2018 (III-A)
IA No. 99213/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 114387/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 167733/2018 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES
IA No. 114386/2018 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES
IA No. 99214/2018 - PERMISSION TO FILE SYNOPSIS AND LIST OF DATES)
SLP [C] No.18904/2018 (III-A)
IA No. 93511/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 116613/2018 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT
IA No. 94006/2018 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES
IA No. 168088/2018 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)
SLP [C] No.21287/2018 (III-A)
IA No. 97537/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
21
IA No. 97539/2018 - PERMISSION TO FILE SYNOPSIS AND LIST OF DATES)
SLP [C] No.20530/2018 (III-A)
IA No. 96275/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 96276/2018 - PERMISSION TO FILE LENGTHY LIST OF DATES)
SLP [C] No.18903/2018 (III-A)
IA No. 157623/2018 - CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION
IA No. 89729/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 9183/2019 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 93464/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 178096/2018 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION
IA No. 93461/2018 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES
IA No. 89732/2018 - PERMISSION TO FILE SYNOPSIS AND LIST OF DATES)
SLP [C] No.21288/2018 (III-A)
IA No. 95292/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 95295/2018 - PERMISSION TO FILE LENGTHY LIST OF DATES)
SLP [C] No.21289/2018(III-A)
IA No. 99121/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 99122/2018 - PERMISSION TO FILE SYNOPSIS AND LIST OF DATES)
SLP [C] No.18905/2018(III-A)
IA No. 93056/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 168333/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 93450/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 6752/2019 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT
IA No. 151691/2018 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT
IA No. 138253/2018 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT
IA No. 137979/2018 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT
IA No. 168332/2018 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES
IA No. 93447/2018 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES
IA No. 93057/2018 - PERMISSION TO FILE SYNOPSIS AND LIST OF DATES)
SLP [C] No.21291/2018 (III-A)
IA No. 97514/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 133817/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 11892/2019 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT
IA No. 169165/2018 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT
IA No. 151652/2018 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT
IA No. 133816/2018 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES
IA No. 97516/2018 - PERMISSION TO FILE SYNOPSIS AND LIST OF DATES)
SLP [C] No.21292/2018(III-A)
IA No. 99086/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 148074/2018 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES
IA No. 99087/2018 - PERMISSION TO FILE LENGTHY LIST OF DATES)
22
SLP [C] No.21295/2018 (III-A)
IA No. 99142/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 99156/2018 - PERMISSION TO FILE LENGTHY LIST OF DATES)
SLP [C] No.21297/2018(III-A)
IA No. 96519/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 133824/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 167843/2018 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION
IA No. 167727/2018 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES
IA No. 133821/2018 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES
IA No. 96520/2018 - PERMISSION TO FILE LENGTHY LIST OF DATES)
SLP [C] No.21298/2018 (III-A)
IA No. 96931/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 96933/2018 - PERMISSION TO FILE LENGTHY LIST OF DATES)
SLP [C] No.23805/2018 (III-A)
IA No. 112656/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT
IA No. 112658/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 112659/2018 - PERMISSION TO FILE LENGTHY LIST OF DATES)
SLP [C] No.23804/2018(III-A)
IA No. 116498/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT
IA No. 116499/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
SLP [C] No.24184/2018 (III-A)
IA No. 112425/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT
IA No. 112426/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 168044/2018 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES
IA No. 114391/2018 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)
SLP [C] No.23168/2018 (III-A)
IA No. 119729/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT
IA No. 132366/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 119730/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 137694/2018 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT
IA No. 119728/2018 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES
IA No. 132365/2018 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)
SLP [C] No.22532/2018 (III-A)
IA No. 116919/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT
IA No. 116920/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 116921/2018 - PERMISSION TO FILE LENGTHY LIST OF DATES)
23
SLP [C] No.23968/2018 (III-A)
IA No. 125076/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT
IA No. 125077/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 168326/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 14889/2019 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT
IA No. 11236/2019 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT
IA No. 9821/2019 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT
IA No. 168691/2018 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT
IA No. 168324/2018 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)
SLP [C] No.24176/2018 (III-A)
IA No. 126993/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT
IA No. 126994/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 138110/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 138107/2018 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES
IA No. 126995/2018 - PERMISSION TO FILE SYNOPSIS AND LIST OF DATES)
SLP [C] No.23545/2018 (III-A)
IA No. 122357/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
SLP [C] No.25476/2018 (III-A)
IA No. 129571/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT
IA No. 129572/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 138084/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 138081/2018 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)
SLP [C] No.24500/2018 (III-A)
IA No. 128613/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT
IA No. 128611/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 147993/2018 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION)
SLP [C] No.23724/2018 (III-A)
IA No. 123277/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT)
DIARY No.35576/2018 (III-A)
IA No. 146479/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT
IA No. 146480/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
IA No. 146481/2018 - PERMISSION TO FILE LENGTHY LIST OF DATES
IA No. 146478/2018 - PERMISSION TO FILE PETITION (SLP/TP/WP/..))
SLP [C] No.30148/2018 (III-A)
IA No. 164243/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT
IA No. 164241/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
24
DIARY No.35666/2018 (III-A)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.53818/2019-EXEMPTION FROM FILING
C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.53816/2019-PERMISSION TO
FILE PETITION (SLP/TP/WP/..) and IA No.53817/2019-CONDONATION OF
DELAY IN REFILING)
DIARY No.42111/2018(III-A)
IA No. 164477/2018 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING
IA No. 164483/2018 - DELETING THE NAME OF PETITIONER/RESPONDENT
IA No. 164479/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT
IA No. 164480/2018 - PERMISSION TO FILE SYNOPSIS AND LIST OF DATES)
Date : 16-07-2019 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Counsel for the parties:-
Mr. R. Venkataramani, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Dinesh Dwivedi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. V. Shekhar, Sr. Adv.
Mr. R.K. Singh, Adv.
Mr. Kumar Gaurav, Adv.
Mr. Robin Khokhar, Adv.
Mr. R. Venkataramani, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Robin Khokhar, Adv.
Mr. Yash Raj Bundela, Adv.
Mr. Praveen Vignesh, Adv.
Mr. R. Venkataramani, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Robin Khokhar, Adv.
Mr. Sandeep Kumar Dwivedi, Adv.
Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Japneet Kaur, Adv.
Ms. Vriti Gujral, Adv.
Ms. Pallavi Singh, Adv.
Mr. Anzu. K. Varkey, AOR
Mr. Nidesh Gupta, Sr. Adv.
Mr. R.K. Singh, Adv.
Mrs. Neeraj Singh, Adv.
Ms. Harshita Raghuvanshi, Adv.
Mr. K. Ramesh, Adv.
Anzu K. Varkey, Adv.
Mr. Rupender Singh Suri, Sr. Adv.
Mr. R.K. Singh, Adv.
Mr. Aditya Giri, Adv.
Mr. Vikas Singh, Adv.
Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Adv.
25
Mr. Rakesh K. Khanna, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Roopali Chaturvedi, Adv.
Mr. Sandeep Kumar Dwivedi, Adv.
Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Prashant Shukla, Adv.
Mr. Suyash Srivastava, Adv.
Ms. Nikita Capoor, Adv.
Ms. Shreya Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Ravindra Sadanand Chingale, AOR
Mrs. V. Mohana, Sr. Adv.
Mr. R.K. Singh, Adv.
Mrs. Neeraj Singh, Adv.
Mr. Kumar Gaurav, Adv.
Ms. Ritu Reniwal, Adv.
Mr. Rohit Singh, AOR
Mr. P.V. Surendranath, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Resmitha R. Chandran, Adv.
Ms. Lekha Sudhakaran, Adv.
Mrs. Kiran Suri, Sr. Adv.
Mr. R.K. Singh, Adv.
Mr. Ved Prakash, Adv.
Mr. Sanjay Rastogi, Adv.
Mr. Pallav Shishodia, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sandeep Kumar Dwivedi, Adv.
Ms. Roopali Chaturvedi, Adv.
Mr. Pallav Shishodia, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Pradeep Kumar Dwivedi, Adv.
Dr. Vinod Kr. Tewari, Adv.
Mr. Ajay K. Mishra,Sr. Adv.
Mr. Rajesh K. Singh, Adv.
Mr. Krishnanand Pandeya, AOR
Ms. Pooja, Adv.
Mr. Ravi S. Jha, Adv.
Mr. Kedar Nath Tripathy, AOR
Mr. Mukesh Verma, Adv.
Mr. Sanjeet Paliwal, Adv.
Mr. Sibo Sankar Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Niranjan Sahu, Adv.
Mr. Raj Singh Rana, AOR
Ms. Parul Shukla, AOR
Mr. Gaurav Yadava, Adv.
Mr. Virendra Kasana, adv.
26
Mr. Vijay Pratap Yadav, Adv.
Mr. Karunakar Mahalik, AOR
Mr. R.K. Singh, Adv.
Mrs. Neeraj Singh, Adv.
Ms. Ritu Reniwal, Adv.
Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR
Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, AOR
Mr. R.K. Singh, Adv.
Ms. Ritu Reniwal, Adv.
Mr. Prithvi Raj Singh, Adv.
Ms. Sheetal Rajput, Adv.
Mr. Robin Khokhar, AOR
Mr. R.K. Singh, Adv.
Mrs. Neeraj Singh, Adv.
Mr. Kumar Gaurav, Adv.
Ms. Ritu Reniwal, Adv.
Mr. Robin Khokhar, Adv.
Mr. R.K. Singh, Adv.
Mr. Sushil Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Rajeev Kumar Gupta, Adv.
Mrs. Prachi Bhatnagar, Adv.
Mr. Balraj Dewan, AOR
Mr. Mrigank Prabhakar, AOR
Mr. Devvrat, AOR
Mr. R.K. Singh, Adv.
Ms. Priyanka Das, Adv.
Mr. Tom Joseph, Adv.
Mr. U.C. Mohanty, Adv.
Mr. Binay Kumar Das, AOR
Mr. R.K. Singh, Adv.
Mr. P. Dayal, Adv.
Mrs. Neeraj Singh, Adv.
Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Shalu Sharma, AOR
Mr. Anand Nandan, Adv.
Ms. Shalu Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Parul Shukla, Adv.
Mr. Rajesh Srivastava, Adv.
Mr. Abbula Kalam, Adv.
Mr. Abdul Qadir, Adv.
Mr. Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi, Adv.
27
Mr. Vaibhav Manu Srivastava, Adv.
Mr. Manoj K. Mishra, AOR
Ms. Roopali Chaturvedi, AOR
Mr. Rakesh Uttamchandra Upadhyay, AOR
Mr. R.K. Singh, Adv.
Mrs. Neeraj Singh, Adv.
Mr. Shafiq Khan, Adv.
Ms. Nidhi Singh Dubey, Adv.
Mr. Sanjay Rastogi, AOR
Mr. Dhruv Gautam, Adv.
Mr. Devashish Chauhan, Adv.
Ms. Pallavi Mishra, Adv.
Ms. Neha Agarwal, Adv.
Ms. Charu Ambwani, AOR
Mr. Nishesh Sharma, AOR
Mr. Durga Dutt, AOR
Mr. Rohit Priyadarshi, Adv.
Mr. R.K. Singh, Adv.
Mrs. Neeraj Singh, Adv.
Mr. Rahul Kumar Tripathi, Adv.
Ms. Ritu Reniwal, Adv.
Mr. Parminder Singh Bhullar, AOR
Mr. Vivek Singh, AOR
Mr. Swastik Dalai, Adv.
Dr. Vinod Kumar Tewari, AOR
Mr. R.K. Singh, Adv.
Mrs. Neeraj Singh, Adv.
Mr. Kumar Gaurav, Adv.
Ms. Ritu Reniwal, Adv.
Mr. A. Lakshminarayanan, AOR
Ms. Manju Jetley, AOR
Mr. Amit Pawan, AOR
Ms. Garima Prashad, AOR
Mr. Satyajeet Kumar, AOR
Ms. Parul Shukla, AOR
Mr. Rakesh Mishra, AOR
Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Singh, AOR
Mr. Rajeev K. Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Ashutosh Bhardwaj, Adv.
Mr. Rajesh Srivastava, AOR
Ms. Charu Ambwani, AOR
28
Mr. Puskar Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi, AOR
Mr. Susheel Tomar, Adv.
Mr. Sanjeev Malhotra, AOR
Mr. Raj Kishor Choudhary, AOR
Mr. Vaibhav Manu Srivastava, AOR
Ms. Kamakshi S. Mehlwal, AOR
Mr. Nishit Agrawal, AOR
Mr. Harsh Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Udayaditya Banerjee, AOR
Ms. Khushboo Vinodray Malkan, AOR
Mr. Alok Singh, Adv.
Mr. Narayan R. Panicker, Adv.
Dr. Amarendra P. Yadav, Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Singh, Adv.
Ms. Manju Sharma Jaitley, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Application(s) for permission to file Special Leave
Petition(s) is/are allowed.
Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
Applications for impleadment are allowed to the extent of
intervention.
Applications for intervention are allowed.
The Appeals are allowed in terms of the singed reportable
order.
Pending application(s) stand(s) disposed of.
(ASHA SUNDRIYAL) (JAGDISH CHANDER)
COURT MASTER BRANCH OFFICER
[Signed reportable order is placed on the file]