1. The question for consideration in this batch of writ petitions is whether the State acted illegally in granting affiliation to the petitioner institutions for conducting Diploma in Elementary Education (for short D.El.Ed.) course since the academic session 2015-16, despite the National Council for Teacher Education1 having granted recognition from the academic session 2014-15 onwards.
2. All the petitioners were granted recognition by N.C.T.E. in terms of Section 14 (1) of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 19932 for conducting D.El.Ed. (also known as B.T.C.) Course with annual intake of 50 from the academic session 2014-15 subject to certain conditions, one of which, inter alia, stipulates that the institutions shall make admission only after obtaining affiliation from the examining body. In the State, under a Government Order dated 18.1.2010, the State Government grants affiliation to private institutions for running B.T.C. Course on recommendation of a State Level Committee comprising of nominee of the Principal Secretary, Basic Education (Chairperson), Director, Basic Education (Member), Director, State Council for Education Research and Training (Member)3 and Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority (Member Secretary)4. By a Government Order dated 30.9.2014, certain amendments were made in the Government Order dated 18.1.2010. Now, in place of S.C.E.R.T., the role of inviting applications for affiliation and their scrutiny has been assigned to the S.E.R.A. In terms thereof, the S.E.R.A. issued advertisements in various newspapers in the first week of October, 2014 inviting applications from private institutions desirous of obtaining affiliation from the State Government for running B.T.C. Course for academic session 2014-15. The applications were to be submitted by 5.11.2014 upto 5.00 p.m. In pursuance thereto, the petitioners had submitted their applications for grant of affiliation for the academic session 2014-15. In some cases, certain deficiencies were pointed out in the applications by S.E.R.A., which were duly removed. Ultimately, the State Level Committee in the meeting dated 22.9.2015 recommended for grant of affiliation to the petitioner institutions albeit from the academic session 2015-16. The State Level Committee noted that the Supreme Court in the case of Baba Shiv Nath Singh Shikshan Evam Prashikshan Sansthan Vs. N.C.T.E. and others5 by judgment and order dated 8.9.2015 had directed for start of academic session 2014-15 from 22.9.2015, consequently, the recommendation for affiliation was made since the academic session 2015-16. In pursuance thereof, the State had granted affiliation to the petitioner institutions by orders issued on different dates in the month of October and November, 2015 since the academic session 2015-16.
3. The petitioners have approached this Court challenging the affiliation orders issued by the State Government in so far as it denies affiliation to the petitioners since academic session 2014-15. The prayer made in the writ petitions is for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to antedate the affiliation from the academic session 2014-15 and allot students for admission to the course for the said session. It is urged by the petitioners that they were granted recognition by N.C.T.E. from the academic session 2014-15 and they had filed the applications for affiliation in time as stipulated in the advertisement issued by S.E.R.A., consequently, there was no justification for not granting affiliation from the same session i.e. 2014-15. It is submitted that the delay in grant of affiliation was wholly attributable to the State respondents and thus, the petitioners cannot be made to suffer. It is pointed out that the admissions to B.T.C. Course 2014-15 are being made by the respondents even after 22.9.2015 and in this regard, several advertisements issued by the D.I.E.T. in various districts have been brought on record.
4. On the other hand, the State respondents submitted that earlier it was not clear whether the time frame prescribed by the Supreme Court in the case of Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya Vs. State of U.P. and others6, rendered in the context of B.Ed. Course, would also apply to B.T.C. Course. It is urged that the position became clear after the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Baba Shiv Nath Singh (supra) delivered on 8.9.2015. Consequently, the State Level Committee, which considered the application for grant of affiliation in the meeting dated 22.9.2015, recommended for grant of affiliation for the academic session 2015-16. It is urged that there was no delay on part of the State respondents in granting affiliation, inasmuch as various deficiencies were found in the applications submitted by the petitioners and soon after shortcomings were removed, the applications came to be processed. It is further submitted that in the State of Uttar Pradesh, there are 63 Government District Institute of Education and Training (D.I.E.T.) and there are 883 recognised private colleges upto academic session 2014-15 authorised to impart training in B.T.C. Course. In all these 946 colleges, admission in B.T.C. Course 2014-15 was being done through D.I.E.T. centres. Even after the start of academic session on 22.9.2015, it was noticed that large number of seats remained vacant and consequently, the D.I.E.T. centres in various districts continued to issue advertisement for conducting next round of counseling for admission to academic session 2014-15. The S.E.R.A., on coming to know of these advertisements, issued a circular letter dated 31.12.2015, prohibiting all admissions after 31.12.2015. It further directed that the students, who were admitted upto 31.12.2015, would be made to complete their 200 days as per N.C.T.E. norms, prior to their final examination, by conducting extra classes. According to the counter affidavit filed by S.E.R.A., until 31.12.2015, 85.65% of the seats had been filled up. Thus, out of 49507 seats of B.T.C. in all the institutions taken together as many as 4240 seats had been filled up, whereas 7103 remained vacant. It is urged that in these circumstances, the petitioners were rightly granted affiliation since the academic session 2015-16.
5. The Supreme Court in the case of College of Professional Education and others Vs. State of U.P. and others7 had laid down the procedure and terms and conditions of admission, recognition and affiliation to B.Ed. Course in the State. It also specifies a time frame within which these steps are to be undertaken. The time schedule laid down therein was reiterated subject to certain clarifications by the Supreme Court in the case of Maa Vaishno Devi (supra). In para 87 of the said judgment, the Supreme Court laid down a complete time schedule within which various steps in regard to grant of recognition and affiliation are to be undertaken. Subsequently, by an order dated 28.6.2013, certain typographical errors in the original order were corrected. Thus, according to the directions given in the said judgment, the time schedule for some of the steps which are necessary to be noted for the purposes of the instant case are as under:-
1. Submission of applications for recognition in terms of Regulation 5.4 1st September to 1st October of the year immediately preceding the relevant academic year
12. Issuance of formal order of recognition By 3rd March of each year
13. Last date for submitting proposal for affiliation By 10th March of each year
16. Final date of issuance/ grant of affiliation for the relevant academic year By 10th May of each year
6. In the case of Baba Shiv Nath Singh (supra), the Supreme Court was confronted with request from various institutions to antedate the recognition granted for running B.T.C. Course since the academic session 2015-16. The petitioners therein prayed for antedating the recognition either to academic session 2013-14 or academic session 2014-15. The plea was based on the contention that the academic session 2015-16 had yet not commenced and academic sessions 2013-14 and 2014-15 are inordinately delayed. It was urged before the Supreme Court that in case they were not permitted to admit the students during the academic session 2014-15, which had yet not commenced, it would be a waste of available infrastructure and man power. In that context, the Supreme Court, after noticing the factual position portrayed before it by the parties, issued following directions so as to ensure maintaining discipline, uniformity and consistency in the academic calendar, keeping in mind the interest of the institutions and the students:-
"(i) The commencement of the Academic Session 2014-2015 will be from the date as mentioned on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh i.e. 22nd September, 2015. The session will commence for the seats available against the first, second and third batch of seats/students mentioned in the Chart extracted above, meaning thereby that for the Academic Session 2014-2015 the seats available against the fourth and fifth batch will not be filled up.
(ii) The Academic Session 2014-2015 will be brought to a close on completion of the mandatory number of working days at the earliest and without any delay.
(iii) The Academic Session 2015-2016 will commence on 22nd September, 2016 and affiliations/admissions etc. in respect of the said Academic Year would stand concluded well in time to enable the commencement of the Session from the date mentioned i.e., 22nd September, 2016.
(iv) The Academic Session 2015-2016 similarly will be brought to its earliest conclusion so that the next Academic Session can begin as per the original calendar i.e., July, 2017 and thereafter each Academic Session will strictly adhere to the academic calendar of the State.
(iv) We direct all Authorities i.e. NCTE and SCERT to strictly comply with and adhere to the above directions and not to permit recognition or affiliation beyond the dates mentioned in Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya (supra) and not to grant admissions beyond such dates which may have the effect of putting the date of commencement of the concerned Academic Session itself in peril".
7. Thus, the Supreme Court in categorical terms had clarified that N.C.T.E. and S.C.E.R.T., who respectively perform the function of granting approval and affiliation, are to adhere to the time schedule prescribed in Maa Vaishno Devi (supra) and not to grant admissions beyond such dates. The only relaxation granted in the judgment was in respect of the date of commencement of academic session 2014-15 since 22.9.2015 and academic session 2015-16 since 22.9.2016.
8. Concededly, there had been delay on part of the State respondents in inviting applications for grant of affiliation for the academic session 2014-15. In this respect, the State respondents, as noticed above, have their own explanation with regard to confusion in relation to applicability of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Maa Vaishno Devi (supra) to B.T.C. course. However, the question which arises for consideration is whether in view of delay on part of the State respondents, it was estopped from taking the stand that the affiliation would not be granted for the academic session 2014-15 despite categorical direction by the Supreme Court in the case of Baba Shiv Nath Singh (supra) regarding the date of commencement of session since 22.9.2015.
9. In Maa Vaishno Devi (supra) the Supreme Court has specifically dealt with the said issue in extenso in paragraphs 81, 82 and 87.4, which are as under:-
"81. Lastly, the question which is required to be discussed in light of the facts of the present cases is adherence to the Schedule. Once the relevant Schedules have been prescribed under the Regulations or under the Judge made law, none, whosoever it be, is entitled to carve out exceptions to the prescribed Schedule. Adherence to the Schedule is the essence of granting admission in a fair and transparent manner as well as to maintain the standards of education. The purpose of providing a time schedule is to ensure that all concerned authorities act within the stipulated time. Where, on the one hand, it places an obligation upon the authorities to act according to the Schedule, there it also provides complete clarity to other stakeholders as to when their application would either be accepted and/or rejected and what will be the time duration for it to be processed at different quarters. It also gives clear understanding to the students for whose benefit the entire process is set up as to when their examinations would be held, when results would be declared and when they are expected to take admission to different colleges in order of merit obtained by them in the entrance examinations or other processes for the purposes of subject and college preference.
82. We are constrained to reiterate with emphasis at our command that the prescribed schedules under the Regulations and the judgments must be strictly adhered to without exceptions. None in the hierarchy of the State Government, University, NCTE or any other authority or body involved in this process can breach the Schedule for any direct or indirect reason. Anybody who is found to be defaulting in this behalf is bound to render himself or herself liable for initiation of proceedings under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 as well as for a disciplinary action in accordance with the orders of the Court. In the case of Parshavnath Charitable Trust & others v. All India Council for Technical Education & Ors. (2013) 3 SCC 385), decided on the same date, this Court held as under :
"26... Time schedule is one such condition specifically prescribed for admission to the colleges. Adherence to admission schedule is again a subject which requires strict conformity by all concerned, without exception. Reference in this regard can be made to Ranjan Purohit and Ors. V. Rajasthan University of Health Science and Ors. (2012) 10 SCC 770 at this stage, in addition to Medical Council of India v. Madhu Singh, (2002) 7 SCC 258."
87.4. We make it clear that no Authority/person/Council/ Committee shall be entitled to vary the Schedule for any reason whatsoever. Any non-compliance shall amount to violating the orders of the Court."
10. It is noticeable that in the case of one of the petitioner (Aman Institute of Management and Education) dealt by the Supreme Court in the case of Maa Vaishno Devi (supra), the High Court had recorded findings in favour of the petitioner to the following effect:-
"Assuming that the petitioner is qualified to be affiliated, even then petitioner cannot be granted any indulgence on account of cut-off date fixed by the apex court i.e. 10.5.2012. This Court does not have any power to reschedule the time schedule fixed by the apex court. The petitioner, if is aggrieved by the said cut-off date, is at liberty to approach the apex court for clarification and further orders, so that they are able to convince the apex court regarding their rightful claim.
In the present case, the Court feels that there is no shortcoming in the petitioner-institution at the moment and the State Government has acted unmindfully, but it has to be looked into at this juncture whether the cut-off date can be by-passed. No such direction is possible at the hands of this Court and, therefore, any direction in favour of the petitioner will amount to violating the orders passed by the apex court.
The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the opposite parties themselves have not followed the time schedule as fixed by the apex court can be looked into and can be gone into by the apex court. But this Court feels that no such direction for allocation of students can be issued in favour of the petitioner at this juncture.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed."
(emphasis supplied by me)
11. The plea was repelled after holding that the time schedule shall be complied with by every authority/person/council/committee and non compliance shall amount to violation of the orders of that court. In paragraph 87.3 of the said judgment, it was observed as under:-
"87.3. The recognition and affiliation granted as per above schedule shall be applicable for the current academic year. For example recognition granted upto 3rd March, 2013 and affiliation granted upto 10th May, 2013 shall be effective for the academic year 2013- 2014 i.e. the courses starting from 1st April, 2013. For the academic year 2013-2014, no recognition shall be issued after 3rd March, 2013 and no affiliation shall be granted after 10th May, 2013. Any affiliation or recognition granted after the above cut- off dates shall only be valid for the academic year 2014-2015."
12. The Supreme Court, despite being apprised of the factual position that there had been delay on part of the State respondents in certain cases in granting recognition/affiliation, refused to relax the time schedule on such plea and clarified that any affiliation or recognition granted after the cut off dates shall only be valid for the next academic year.
13. In view of the aforesaid legal position, this Court is unable to accept the plea of the petitioners that on account of delay on part of the State respondents, they cannot be made to suffer and were entitled to grant of affiliation for the academic session 2014-15. As noted above, in the case of Baba Shiv Nath Singh (supra), the limited relaxation that had been granted by the Supreme Court is in relation to the date until which admissions were to be made and regarding date of commencement of academic session 2014-15 and 2015-16. In the case of the petitioners, until 29.9.2015, the petitioners were not even having affiliation in their favour. Concededly, grant of affiliation is a step preceding entitlement to admit students to a course. In such circumstances, this Court is unable to find any fault in the decision of the State in granting affiliation since the academic session 2015-16.
14. An attempt was made by learned counsel for the petitioners to distinguish the judgment in the case of Baba Shiv Nath Singh (supra) by contending that therein, the N.C.T.E. itself had granted recognition for the academic session 2015-16, whereas in the case of the petitioners, the recognition had been granted for the academic session 2014-15. However, in the opinion of the Court, the said fact alone will have no bearing on the ratio laid down in the said judgment which in unequivocal terms prohibits grant of recognition/affiliation beyond the time frame laid down in the case of Maa Vaishno Devi (supra).
15. In view of the foregoing discussion, the writ petitions lack merits and are dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 25.1.2016 SL