The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused to extend the deadline for additional counselling, or to permit private self-financing unaided colleges, to admit students on their own against unfilled seats in Haryana’s Diploma in Elementary Education (D.El.Ed) course.
Dismissing a petition filed by the Haryana Self Finance Private Colleges Association, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor held that extending admissions would undermine the objective of ensuring quality teacher education.
“We are of the considered view that the plea of the petitioners for extension of the last date for any additional counselling session or for the purpose of admitting students on its own for the unfilled seats, cannot be countenanced, as the same would negate the very purpose of imparting quality education to those, who have to further impart elementary education to students in their formative years.
“Any relaxation in this regard shall be counter-productive and would seriously prejudice the cause of education within the State,” the Bench observed. Haryana was represented in the matter by Additional Advocate-General Deepak Balyan.
Mandatory academic requirements cannot be diluted
The court examined the National Council for Teacher Education’s 2014 Regulations, which prescribe a minimum of 200 working days each year for the two-year professional programme, excluding examination and admission periods. The regulations also require minimum attendance of 80 per cent, including practicum, and 90 per cent for school internship.
Stressing the importance of compliance with these requirements, the Bench observed: “The requirement of adherence to the minimum number of working days and percentage of attendance and other mandatory requirements including school internship, community survey etc., is not disputed and rightly so”.
The court’s concern was that extending admissions could compromise the prescribed curriculum and training requirements of students preparing to teach children during their formative years.
Petitioners’ plea to fill vacant seats rejected
The petitioners were seeking an extension of the admission deadline until October 30. In alternative, they sought compensation of Rs 51,600 per student for alleged losses arising from delayed admissions.
The Bench was told that a large number of students were precluded from applying for admission to the course following late declaration of results by the education boards.
As a result, only 9,081 candidates applied against 18,850 available seats, and only 8,724 were admitted. The association claimed that 2,523 of the 3,550 seats allocated to its member institutions remained vacant.
Rejecting the request for additional counselling or admissions by colleges on their own, the Bench held that the relief could not be granted at the expense of the prescribed educational standards.
“The plea of the petitioners for extension of the last date for any additional counselling session or for the purpose of admitting students on its own for the unfilled seats, cannot be countenanced,” the court said.
The court also rejected the alternative compensation claim, observing that it found no circumstances warranting such relief while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Supreme Court schedule must be followed strictly
The Bench reiterated that the Supreme Court’s directions in the case of “Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya versus State of Uttar Pradesh” required the admission process to conclude by June 28, enabling the academic session to commence on July 1.
Before parting with the judgment, the Bench directed the State Government to ensure publication of the admission policy well before the commencement of the next calendar year.
“The State Government shall ensure the publication of a policy in terms of the directions issued in Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya well before the commencement of the next calendar year,” the court ordered.
