These two writ petitions namely Writ Petition Nos. 33836 of 2011 and 37179 of 2011 basically arise out of a common issue as to whether the college in question is required to possess 10,000 sq. meters of land before any affiliation could be granted by the State Government.
The order under challenge in Writ Petition No.33836 of 2011 is that of the Registrar, Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj University, Kanpur (University) dated 31.5.2011 rejecting the request of the institution for grant of affiliation on the ground that as per the State Government G.O the institution imparting training must have at least 10,000 sq. meters of land whereas the institution only possesses 2500 sq. meters of land.
Challenging the said order dated 31.5 .2011 the Writ Petition No.33836 of 2011 was filed by the Committee of Management of Ganga Prasad Sewa Sansthan and another seeking quashing of the order dated 31.5.2011. At the time of admission this Court by its order dated 7.6.2011called upon the respondents to file counter affidavit and a further direction was given by the Court which reads as under "Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that if affiliation is not granted by7th of July, 2011, one academic year will again be lost, thus, in the meantime, as contended by the learned counsel for the respondent- University that all the necessary papers will be forwarded by the University to the State Government within ten days. The State Government shall consider the matter of granting affiliation to the petitioner within fifteen days, thereafter, and if affiliation cannot be granted within the said period, then grant of provisional affiliation may be considered."
The said writ petition remained pending.
In compliance of the order of the Court dated 7.6.2011 the State Government thereafter passed the order dated 29.6.2011 rejecting the claim of the college for grant of affiliation. This order has been impugned in writ petition no.37179 of 2011.
Since the two writ petitions raised the same question as to whether the college was required to possess 10,000 sq. meters of land before affiliation could be granted, being common in both writ petitions, the two writ petitions are being taken up together.
There is a society under the name of Ganga Prasad Sewa Sansthan which is registered under the Societies Registration Act 1860. This society runs a college by the name of Jagannath Prasad Smarak College of Education, village Bundhawa, Post Ghoorpur, Tehsil Bara, District Allahabad (the College). This college imparts one year training in the subject of Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.). The college is managed by a Committee of Management which was constituted on 10.3.2010. On 24.10.2008 an application was moved by the petitioner before the National Council for Teachers Training for grant of recognition to conduct B.Ed. Training course and an Inspection Team visited the institution and after scrutiny of papers and videographs as well as documents furnished along with the application, submitted its report. Certain objections were raised by the Regional Committee of the National Council for Teachers Education (NCTE). After those objections were removed the matter was again considered by the National Regional Committee in its 174th meeting held from 8th to 10th December, 2010 and a decision was taken by the Committee to grant recognition to the college for conducting B.Ed. Course in terms of provisions of Clause 7 (11) of the NCTE Regulation 2009. This recognition carried with it certain conditions and subject to fulfilment of those conditions the Northern Regional Committee of the NCTE granted recognition to the college for conducting B.Ed. one year course with an annual intake of 100 students for the academic session 2010-11 vide its order dated 23.12.2010.
On the basis of recognition so granted to the college by the NCTE, the college through its resolution and proposal dated 26.5.2011 applied to the Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj University, Kanpur for grant of affiliation. The proposal of the college was rejected by the University by order dated 31.5.2011 on the ground that the land in possession of the college was only 2500 sq. meters whereas as per G.O. issued by the State Government a college seeking affiliation must possess 10,000 sq. meters of land. The request for affiliation was therefore declined.
However, in compliance of the order dated 7.6.2011 of this Court wherein a direction was issued to the State Government to consider the matter of grant of affiliation to the college and if affiliation cannot be granted then grant of provisional affiliation may be considered, the State Government passed the order dated 29.6.2011 impugned in writ petition no.37179 of 2011 rejecting the request of the college for grant of affiliation. In the said order in addition to the ground taken that the college did not possess 10,000 sq. meters of land certain other grounds have been taken for rejecting the request of grant of affiliation which need to be examined also.
I have heard Sri Shailendra, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Neeraj Tiwari appearing for the respondent University and learned Standing Counsel in both the writ petitions. With the consent of the parties, the matter is being heard and decided at this stage itself.
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that under Section 14(6) of the NCTE Act, 1993 once recognition has been granted to the institution running education course as per requirements of the NCTE, affiliation to the institution cannot be denied. It is further submitted that as per standards laid down by the NCTE a institution conducting B.Ed. Programme must possess at least 2500 sq. meters of land well demarcated for the initial intake of 100 students out of which the built up area should be 1,500 sq. meters and the remaining space for lawns, play-field etc. Sri Shalendra further submits that an inspection team had visited the college and on the basis of the report recognition was granted by the NCTE to the college to run one year B.Ed. Course for the academic session 2010-11. The further submission of Sri Shailendra is that the Inspection Committee comprising Dr. Ram Bali Yadav, Principle, Dr. H.N.Misra, College of Education, Kanpur, Dr. S. P. Diwedi, Principal, S.N. Degree College, and Dr. O. P. Srivastava, Assistant Director of Higher Education, Allahabad as nominee of the Director of Education, Higher Education, Uttar Pradesh had visited the college and inspected the records as well as facilities provided by the college and infrastructure and, thereafter, submitted its report dated 3.4.2011 which is filed as Annexure-7 to the writ petition. In its report the Committee had found that the college had fulfilled all the requirements as required under the NCTE Act. The built up area was 1512.26 sq. meters and the land in the name of the college and in its possession was 2500 sq. meters. The submission of the learned counsel for the the petitioners is that when the Committee comprising a nominee of the State Government and two teachers as nominees of the University had submitted its report stating in absolutely clear terms that the college fulfilled all the requirements of infrastructure as well as area, required by the NCTE Act, there was no justification for declining the request of the college for grant of affiliation. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that there is no such requirement that the college must possess 10,000 sq. meters of land.
Replying to the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel has submitted that in terms of the G.O. of the State Government dated 7.11.2006 the college conducting a degree course in rural area was required to possess in its name 10,000 sq. meters of land and since the college did not possess 10,000 sq. meters of land no affiliation could be granted to the college. He has also referred additional grounds namely 1,2,3,5,6 and 7 and has submitted that for other reasons also the request for affiliation was refused and, therefore, there was no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 29.6.2011. The National Council for Teachers Education was established with a view to achieve the planned and coordinated development of teacher education system throughout the country rules and regulations have been framed under the Act and every institution imparting education for teachers for primary, secondary and higher education is entitled to run its course. Only after approval or recognition has been granted by the National Council for Teachers Education what should be the infrastructure, the minimum qualification prescribed and intake of students as well as requirement of faculty members is regulated by the Act and regulations framed thereunder.
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the Act is a Central Act it shall have overriding effect over any provisions of law in the matter of education framed by the State Government by the Act or Rules or G.Os. and, therefore, the G.O. dated 7.11.2006 laying down requirement of 10,000 sq. meters will have no effect once the NCTE itself has provided that the institution conducting B.Ed. Course and imparting training to 100 students is to possess 2,500 sq. meters of land. He has referred to the decision of the Supreme Court reported in (2006) 9 SCC 1 State of Maharastra vs. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya and others and has specifically referred to paragraph 80 wherein the Supreme Court has held that once recognition has been granted by the NCTE under Section 14(6) of the Act, every university ("examining body") is obliged to grant affiliation to such institution. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since recognition has been granted by the NCTE on 23.12.2010 and the college also possesses 2500 sq. meters of land, therefore, grant of affiliation could not be denied.
A perusal of the order dated 23.12.2010 granting recognition to the college will show that even though recognition is granted by the NCTE, that does not ensure an automatic grant of affiliation. The order itself states that such recognition/permission is subject to fulfilment of all such other requirements as may be prescribed under relevant norms and standards of NCTE for every regulatory body of UGC , State Government etc. It is this condition in the order dated 23.12.2010 on which the learned standing counsel is laying stress in support of his submission that even though the NCTE may have prescribed norms of 2500 sq. meters of land but under the G.O. of the State Government dated 7.11.2006 the college imparting B.Ed. degree course in rural area must possess 10,000 sq. meters of land. The question whether the norms laid down by the NCTE would have overriding effect over any conditions or other parameters laid down by the State Government has been considered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in the judgment reported in (2007) 5 ADJ 170, Dau Dayal Mahila (P.G.) College and others vs. state of U.P. and others. The Court relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahvidyalaya and others held as follows:-
"26. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahvidyalaya and others(supra) has dealt in detail with the intent and all prevailing authority of the National Council for Teachers Education Act, the jurisdiction exercised by the Bodies constituted under the said Act. Suffice is to reproduce the following paragraphs of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India:
"48 In the instant case, admittedly, Parliament has enacted 1993 Act, which is in force. The Preamble of the Act provides for establishment of National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) with a view to achieving planned and coordinated development of the teacher-education system throughout the country, the regulation and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the teacher-education system and for matters connected therewith. With a view to achieving that object, National Council for Teacher Education has been established at four places by the Central Government. It is thus clear that the Entry 66 of List 1 of Schedule VII. It is, therefore, not open to the State Legislature to encroach upon the said filed. Parliament alone could have exercised the power by making appropriate law. In the circumstances, it is not open to State Government to refuse permission relying on a State Act or on 'policy consideration'.
?................................................
57. It is thus clear that the Central Government has considered the subject of secondary education and higher education at the national level. The Act of 1993 also requires Parliament to consider Teacher Education System 'throughout the country'. NCTE, therefore, in our opinion, is expected to deal with applications for establishing new B.Ed. colleges or allowing increase in intake capacity, keeping in view 1993 Act and planned and coordinated development of teacher-education system in the country. It is neither open to the State Government nor to a University to consider the local condition or apply 'State Policy' to refuse such permission. In fact, as held by this Court in cases referred to hereinabove. State Government has no power to reject the prayer of an institution or to override the decision of NCTE. The action of the State Government, therefore, was contrary to law and has rightly be set aside by the High Court."
27.From the aforesaid, it is apparently clear that the National Council for Teachers Education is the best judge for planned and coordinated development of teachers education/training throughout the country including the requirement of the of the infrastructure, qualifications of the faculty members, intake of number of students to be permitted for each course as well as for the curriculum to be prescribed for the course concerned.
33. It is settled law that no policy decision of the Sate Government can run contrary to the Statutory Provisions of an Act. The Parliament has specifically framed National Council for Teachers Education Act, in respect of subject covered by Entry-66 of the List-III (concurrent list) of the Constitution of India. The policy decision of the State Government must necessarily give away to the Statutory provisions of the Act and rules framed thereunder. Accordingly it is held that the State Government/its Institutions, cannot refuse affiliation to the petitioners institutions, which have been granted recognition for starting Basic Training Course by the National Council for Teachers Education under Section 14 (4). Such institutions are legally entitled to affiliation by the Examining Body."
Sri Neeraj Tiwari appearing for the University placed reliance on two decisions of the Supreme Court reported in (2004) 4 SCC 513 State of T.N. and another vs. S.V. Bratheep (minor) and others and (2011) 4 SCC 606, Visveswaraiah Technological University and another vs. Krishnendu Halder and others.
In the case of S.V.Bratheep the question before the Court as outlined in para-5 of the said judgement was as to whether the norms prescribed by the State Government are contradictory to the norms fixed by All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) or are only in the nature of higher qualifications above the minimum prescribed by AICTE for admission to engineering college and whether the prescription of standards made by the State Government is in any way adverse to or lower to the marks fixed by the AICTE. In that case the minimum qualifying marks prescribed by the State Government were higher than those prescribed by the AICTE. The Supreme Court held that the prescription of higher minimum qualification marks does not in any manner belittle those prescribed by the AICTE.
In the case of Visveswaraiah Technological University (Supra), the question for consideration before the Supreme Court was whether the eligibility criteria for admission to the engineering course stipulated under the statutory rules and regulations of the Sate Government/University can be relaxed or ignored and candidates who did not meet with such eligibility criteria can be given admission on the ground that a large number of seats have remained unfilled in professional colleges if such candidates possess the minimum eligibility prescribed under the norms of the AICTE. The Court while considering the case of S.V. Bratheep held that reducing the standards to fill the seats will be a dangerous trend which will destroy the quality of education. The need to fill seats cannot be permitted to override the need to maintain the quality of education.
Para-17 of the said judgment referred by Sri Neeraj Tiwari reads as follows:-
"17. No student or college, in the teeth of the existing and prevalent rules of the State and the University can say that such rules should be ignored, whenever there are unfilled vacancies in colleges. In fact the State/University, may, in spite of vacancies, continue with the higher eligibility criteria to maintain better standards of higher education in the State or in the colleges affiliated to the University. Determination of such standards, being part of the academic policy of the University, are beyond the purview of judicial review, unless it is established that such standards are arbitrary or "adversely affect" the standards, if any, fixed by the central body under a Central enactment. The order of the Division Bench is therefore unsustainable."
In my opinion neither of the judgments referred to by the respondents have any application in the facts of the present case as the question involved in those cases related to prescription of standards of education or prescription of a higher minimum qualifying marks than that fixed by AICTE and it was in this context that the Apex Court held that if the norms prescribed by the University or State Government do not adversely impact the standards fixed by the AICTE the prescription of such higher minimum qualification cannot be held to be bad in law. The question involved in the present case is not one of prescription of a higher standard of education prescribed by the State Government than that prescribed by the NCTE. The simple question involved in the present case is whether affiliation to the examining body could be denied by the State Government simply because the college possessed in its name 2500 sq.meters of land as fixed by the NCTE for imparting B.Ed. Education to 100 students in one academic session or it should have possessed 10,000 sq. meters of land as prescribed under the G.O. 7.11.2006. At the cost of repetition it may be pointed out that a three member committee comprising of nominated members of the University and of the Director of Higher Education, Uttar Pradesh had recorded a clear cut finding that the college fulfilled all the necessary requirements regarding building, infrastructure etc. as prescribed under the NCTE Act.
The prescription of requirement of 10,000 sq. meters of land to be possessed by the College does not fall in the same category as the prescription of higher marks than that the prescribed by the AICTE and it cannot be said to fall in the same bracket as prescription of a higher minimum passing qualification than that the prescribed by the AICTE (which were the subject matter of consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of S.V. Bratheep and Visveswaraiah Technological University).
Therefore, in my opinion, the refusal to grant affiliation to the college only on the basis of the G.O. dated 7.11.2006 is absolutely illegal and irrational and the said G.O., therefore, is inoperable in respect of those institutions which fulfilled the building norms laid down by the NCTE. So far as the grounds no.1,2,3,5,6 and 7 in the impugned order dated 29.6.2011 are concerned, these grounds have already been adequately answered in the report of the Committee of three members comprising of two nominees of the University and one nominee of Director of Higher Education, Uttar Pradesh dated 3.4.2011 and it appears that those objections have been deliberately taken only to be rejected.
For reasons stated above, the order dated 31.5.2011 impugned in the Writ Petition No.33836 of 2011 and the order dated 29.6.2011 impugned in the Writ Petition No.37179 of 2011 are therefore quashed.
The Writ Petitions stand allowed.
A direction is issued to respondent no.1, State Government to grant affiliation to the college and necessary orders to that effect shall be passed within a period of 15 days from the date a certified copy of this order is presented before the Competent Authority.
Order Date:19.4.2012 Asha