1. The present petition is filed by the 100 students of respondent No.3-College and have prayed for the following reliefs:-
"(A). Your Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order and/or direction, and be pleased to direct the respondent No.1 university to permit the petitioners to appear in the examinations for the B.Ed. Course for the current Academic Session 2011-2012, in the interest of justice and equity;
(B). Pending admission hearing and till final disposal of the present petition, the respondent No.1 be directed enlist the petitioners as well as to allow the petitioners to appear in the First Semester Examination of B.Ed. Course commencing from 17.01.2012;
(C). Your Lordships be pleased to pass such other and further orders as may be deemed fit, just and proper in the interest of justice."
2. From the record of this petition itself, it transpires that earlier, the recognition of respondent No.3-College came to be withdrawn against which, management of respondent No.3-College filed writ petition before this Court wherein, certain orders were passed for giving one more chance to the management of respondent No.3-College to fulfill the requirements of National Council for Teachers Education Act and Regulations. The very management of respondent No.3-College thereafter, filed writ petition being Special Civil Application No.9484 of 2011 before this Court and the Division Bench of this Court, vide judgment and order dated 07.10.2011, was pleased to reject the said writ petition. It is pertinent to note that respondent No.3-College has challenged the said judgment and order dated 07.10.2011 by way of filing Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.28528 of 2011 wherein, initially, vide order dated 17.10.2011, the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to issue notice and also grant order of status-quo. The Special Leave Petition filed by respondent No.3-College as well as another similarly situated college being Special Leave Petition No.28473 of 2011 were heard together and leave was granted by the Hon'ble Apex Court and both the Civil Appeal Nos.11215 of 2011 and 11216 of 2011 came to be dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide judgment and order dated 16.12.2011.
3. Mr.P.P.
Majmudar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has candidly submitted that respondent No.3-College is an unrecognised institution. However, the petitioners being students, were not aware about the same and because of the pendency of litigation, the petitioners opted for respondent No.3-College. Mr.Majmudar further submitted that however, at the time of admission, considering that respondent No.3-College is a recognised institution, the petitioners had taken admission in the said college. Mr.Majmudar, therefore, urged that the petitioners may be transferred to any other recognised B.Ed. College and may be permitted to appear in the examination. No other contention has been raised on behalf of the petitioners.
4. As averred in this petition, reliance is placed on order dated 26.08.2011 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.9484 of 2011 whereby, the Division Bench of this Court passed the following order:-
"In the meantime, taking into consideration the report dated 25th March, 2011 submitted with letter F.No. 61-1247/2011/RTI/80820, dated 19th August, 2011, issued by Regional Director, NCTE, Western Region, Bhopal, we direct Saurashtra University to allot students to the petitioner Institution, subject to the decision of the case.
Post the matter on 30th August, 2011 within ten cases."
5. Mr.Thakkar, learned counsel, who generally appears for University, was requested by this Court to accept the advance copy of this petition. Mr.Thakkar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3-College, on advance copy, has informed the Court that those petitions have been withdrawn. However, without going into those facts, it is an admitted position that the management of respondent No.3-B.Ed. College had filed Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Apex Court and those Special Leave Petitions/Civil Appeals have been dismissed vide judgment and order dated 16.12.2011. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Shri Morvi Sarvajanik Kelavni Mandal Sanchalit MSKM B.Ed. College V/s. National Council for Teachers Education and Ors. Reported in 2011(13) SCALE 598, has observed as under:-
"10.
Mushroom growth of ill-equipped, under-staffed and un-recognised educational institutions was noticed by this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale and Ors. (1992) 4 SCC 435. This Court observed that the field of education had become a fertile, perennial and profitable business with the least capital outlay in some States and that societies and individuals were establishing such institutions without complying with the statutory requirements. The unfortunate part is that despite repeated pronouncements of this Court over the past two decades deprecating the setting up of such institutions. The mushrooming of the colleges continues all over the country at times in complicity with the statutory authorities, who fail to check this process by effectively enforcing the provisions of the NCTE Act and the Regulations framed thereunder.
11. The present is one such case where the institution established by the appellant has been inspected more than once and several deficiencies that seriously affect its capacity to impart quality education and training to future teachers specifically pointed out. Inadequacy of space and staff, apart from other requirements stipulated under the provisions of the Act and the Regulations, is something which disqualifies any institution from seeking recognition. Such deficiencies have not been disputed before us nor can the same be disputed in the light of the reports submitted by the inspecting teams from time to time, including the report submitted on the basis of the latest inspection that was conducted pursuant to the directions issued by the High Court. It is difficult to appreciate how the institution could have reported compliance with the requirements of the regulations and complete removal of the deficiencies after the order passed by the High Court when the institution had neither the land standing in its name nor the building constructed in which it could conduct the training programme. The fact that the institution was being run in a building which was shared by two other colleges was itself sufficient to justify withdrawal of the recognition granted in its favour. It was also noted by the inspecting team that four lecturers employed by the appellant did not have the requisite M.Ed. qualification. Suffice it to say that the institution was lacking in essential infrastructural facilities which clearly justified withdrawal of the recognition earlier granted to it.
12. Confronted with the above position, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the students admitted to the college for the academic session 2011-2012 could be allowed to appear in the examination to avoid prejudice to them and to save their careers. A similar contention urged before the High Court has been rejected by it relying upon the decisions of this Court in which decisions this Court has not favoured grant of such relief to students admitted to unrecognised institution on consideration of misplaced sympathy. The High Court has also noted that the students had been transferred to other recognised colleges and that in any case students admitted for the academic session 2011-2012 could not be allowed to continue in an institution which did not have the requisite infrastructure prescribed under the NCTE Regulations and norms. It was argued on behalf of the appellants that the High Court was not right in observing that students had been transferred to other institutions. At any rate the order withdrawing recognition could not, according to the learned counsel, affect students admitted to the institution for the academic session 2011-2012 as the withdrawal order could only be prospective in nature and having been passed in August, 2011 was relevant only for the academic session 2012- 2013. We do not think so, firstly, because the recognition of the institution stood withdrawn on 20th July, 2011 which meant that while it had no effect qua admissions for the academic session 2010-2011 it was certainly operative qua admissions made for the academic session 2011-12 which commenced from 1st August, 2011 onwards. The fact that there was a modification of the said order of withdrawal on 24th August, 2011 did not obliterate the earlier order dated 20th July, 2011. The modifying order would in our opinion relate back and be effective from 20th July, 2011 when the recognition was first withdrawn. Such being the position admissions made for the academic session 2011-2012 were not protected under the statute.
13. Secondly, because this Court has in a long line of decisions rendered from time to time disapproved of students being allowed to continue in unrecognised institutions only on sympathetic considerations. In N.M. Nageshwaramma (supra) this Court while dealing with the prayer for grant of permission to the students admitted to unrecognised institution observed:
"3.
xxxxxx We are unable to accede to these requests. These institutions were established and the students were admitted into these institutes despite a series of press notes issued by the Government. If by a fiat of the court we direct the Government to permit them to appear at the examination we will practically be encouraging and condoning the establishment of unauthorised institutions. It is not appropriate that the jurisdiction of the court either under Article 32 of the Constitution or Article 226 should be frittered away for such a purpose. The Teachers Training Institutes are meant to teach children of impressionable age and we cannot let loose on the innocent and unwary children, teachers who have not received proper and adequate training. True they will be required to pass the examination but that may not be enough. Training for a certain minimum period in a properly organised and equipped Training Institute is probably essential before a teacher may be duly launched. We have no hesitation in dismissing the writ petitions with costs."
(emphasis supplied)
14. To the same effect is the decision of this Court in Managing Committee of Bhagwan Budh Primary Teachers Training College and another v. State of Bihar & Ors. (1990) Supp. SCC 722, where this Court observed:
"2.
It is not possible to grant any such permission as prayed for because the granting of such permission would be clearly violating the provisions of the Education Act (see the judgments in S.L.P. No. 12014 of 1987 decided on November 25, 1987 and the A.P. Christians Medical Educational Society v. Government of A.P.)....".
15. In State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. v. St. Joseph Teachers Training Institute and Anr. (1991) 3 SCC 87, this Court once again found fault with the grant of relief to students admitted to unrecognised institutions on humanitarian grounds. This Court said:
"6.
The practice of admitting students by unauthorised educational institutions and then seeking permission for permitting the students to appear at the examination has been looked with disfavour by this Court. ............ In A.P. Christians Medical Educational Society v. Government of A.P (1986) 2 SCC 667, a similar request made on behalf of the institution and the students for permitting them to appear at the examination even though affiliation had not been granted, was rejected by this Court. The court observed that any direction of the nature sought for permitting the students to appear at the examination without the institution being affiliated or recognised would be in clear transgression of the provision of the Act and the regulations. The court cannot be a party to direct the students to disobey the statute as that would be destructive of the rule of law. The Full Bench noted these decisions and observations and yet it granted relief to the students on humanitarian grounds. Courts cannot grant relief to a party on humanitarian grounds contrary to law. Since the students of unrecognised institutions were legally not entitled to appear at the examination held by the Education Department of the government, the High Court acted in violation of law in granting permission to such students for appearing at the public examination. The directions issued by the Full Bench are destructive of the rule of law. Since the Division Bench issued the impugned orders following the judgment of the Full Bench, the impugned orders are not sustainable in law."
(emphasis supplied)
16. Reference may also be made to State of Maharashtra v. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale and Ors. (supra) and Chairman, Bhartia Education Society v. Himachal Pradesh & Ors. (supra). In the latter case this Court observed :
"15.
The practice of admitting students by unrecognised institutions and then seeking permission for the students to appear for the examinations has been repeatedly disapproved by this Court (see N.M. Nageshwaramma v. State of A.P, A.P. Christian Medical Educational Society v. Govt. of A.P. and State of Maharashtra v. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale4). We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the decision of the High Court rejecting the prayer of the students admitted in 1999 to regularise their admissions by directing the Board to permit them to appear for the JBT examination conducted by it. The two appeals (CAs Nos. 1228 and 1229 of 2011) filed by the Society/Institute and the students in regard to the 1999 admissions are therefore liable to be dismissed."
17. There is no distinguishing feature between the cases mentioned above and the case at hand for us to strike a discordant note. The institution established by the appellant is not equipped with the infrastructure required under the NCTE Act and the Regulations. It is not in a position to impart quality education, no matter admissions for the session 2011-2012 were made pursuant to the interim directions issued by the High Court. We have, therefore, no hesitation in rejecting the prayer for permitting the students to continue in the unrecognised institution of the appellant or directing that they may be permitted to appear in the examination. We, however, make it clear that this order will not prevent the respondent-University from examining the feasibility of reallocating the students who were admitted through the University process of selection and counselling to other recognised colleges to prevent any prejudice to such students. Such re-allocation for the next session may not remedy the situation fully qua the students who may have to start the course afresh but it would ensure that if such admissions/reallocation is indeed feasible, the students may complete their studies in a recognised college instead of wasting their time in a college which does not enjoy recognition by the NCTE. We, however, leave this aspect entirely for the consideration of the University at the appropriate level, having regard to its Rules and Regulations and subject to availability of seats for such adjustment to be made as also the terms and conditions on which the same could be made. This order shall also not prevent the affected students from seeking such reliefs against the appellant college as may be legally permissible including relief by way of refund of the fee recovered from them."
6. In the instant case also, respondent No.3-College is an unrecognised institute and is not equipped. However, they continued unrecognised institutions and it appears that have admitted the students without any authority under law.
7. It is however, worthwhile to note that even before this Court, the University had assured that the interest of students will be taken care of by transferring them to any other recognised colleges. Mr.Thakkar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2-University, has made a statement that the respondent No.2-University shall act as per the directives enshrined in paragraph No.17 of the said judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Shri Morvi Sarvajanik Kelavni Mandal(Supra).
8. Following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shri Morvi Sarvajanik Kelavni Mandal(Supra) and considering the fact that respondent No.3-College is an unrecognised institution, the petitioners cannot be permitted to appear in the examination, as prayed for in the petition. However, considering the future of the petitioners, who are students and who are faced with this situation as being admitted to an unrecognised institution like respondent No.3, appropriate directions need to be issued directing respondent No.2-University to adhere to the assurance as well as statement made at the bar today.
9. In view of the foregoing reasons, the petitioners are not entitled to the reliefs claimed for in the present petition. However, considering the facts, as narrated above, respondent No.2-University is directed to act as per the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court made in paragraph No.17 of the judgment in case of Shri Morvi Sarvajanik Kelavni Mandal(Supra), as assured by learned counsel Mr.Thakkar and transfer the students of respondent No.3-College, after due verification, as expeditiously as possible. Such an exercise shall be carried out by respondent No.2-University not later than 10.02.2012.
10. In view of the above, the present petition is not entertained and the same is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs.
(R.M.CHHAYA, J.) Hitesh Top