1. Heard counsels for the parties. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, I proceed to decide the matter at this stage under the Rules of the Court.
2. The writ petition is directed against the order dated 12.11.2009 passed by the Northern Regional Committee, National Council for Teacher Education, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as "NCTE") according recognition/permission to the petitioner's institution for B.Ed. Course (Secondary Level) of one year from academic session 2009-10 on certain conditions otherwise it is effective from academic session 2010-11.
3. The petitioner claims that the said recognition ought to apply with effect from the academic session 2007-08 so as to cover the students, who have already passed their "Shastri Course" from petitioner's institution in the said academic session and thereafter.
4. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present dispute are as under.
5. Shri Gauri Shanker Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Sujanganj, Jaunpur (hereinafter referred to as "the College") is managed by a society registred under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It was duly affiliated to Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya and is imparting instructions of studies at Shastri and Acharya. The College intended to commence Bachelor of Education Shiksha Shastri course, applied to NCTE for grant of approval vide application dated 24th July, 2006. A conditional letter of recognition was granted on 26th May, 2007 subject to the condition of appointment of qualified staff through duly constituted Selection Committee as per the norms of NCTE/State Government Affiliating University before commencement of the course. Five conditions were required to be complied with by the institutions which are as under:
"(1) Appointment of qualified staff through duly constituted selection committee as per the norms of NCTE/ State Govt. Affiliating University given effect before the commencement of the course.
(2) Send a blue print of the building plan showing clearly demarcated area for B.Ed. (add.) M.Ed. Programme.
(3) Advertisement notice.
(4) Consolidate staff list on the prescribed format duly approved by the affiliation body.
(5) Proceedings of the Selection committee along with a copy of the letter from the affiliating body nomination a member for the selection."
6. Para 3 of the aforesaid letter states that conditional recognition is granted with the advise to remove deficiencies shown in 5th column, reproduced above, and furnish compliance within 30 days from the date of issue of the aforesaid letter. There are some more directions in paras 4, 5 and 6 of the aforesaid letter, which reads as under:
"4. The institution shall undertake appointment of the staff by a duly constituted selected committee and ensure selection of candidates possessing qualifications as prescribed under rules. (Appointment shall be made on the basis of recommendations of the Selection Committee constituted as per the policy of the UGC/ Affiliating University).
5. Attention of the institution concerned is also drawn to section 7(12) of NCTE Regulations dt. 13.01.2006, which reads as "The institutions concerned, after appointing the requisite faculty/staff, shall put the information on its official website and also formally inform the Regional Committee concerned. The Regional Committee concerned shall then issue a formal unconditional recognition order". Compliance with the requirements shall be submitted on a Sworn affidavit and annexures thereto for issue of unconditional recognition order. Until then the institution shall not admit students to the course.
6. Therefore, the institution are hereby issued a letter of conditional recognition for further necessary action to submit requisite compliance and take steps as per the NCTE Rules and Regulations before the commencement of the session."
7. The letter categorically directed the College not to admit any student to the aforesaid course till an unconditional recognition is issued by the Regional Committee, NCTE.
8. The College claims to have complied with the aforesaid five deficiencies and informed NCTE vide letter dated 25th June, 2007. In the meantime State Government also issued a no objection letter on 21st June, 2007, permitted the petitioner-college to run Shiksha Shastri (B.Ed.) Course. Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi (hereinafter referred to as "the University") also granted affiliation/recognition as a examining body to the aforesaid course in the petitioner College vide university's letter dated 18.12.2007.
9. It is said that for academic session 2007-08, pursuant to a Joint Entrance Examination conducted by Chhatrapati Sahu Ji Maharaj University, Kanpur, 83 students were forwarded to the College for admission to the aforesaid course. The petitioner-college admitted 80 candidates out of said list in academic session 2007-08 and 20 seats remained unfilled. The aforesaid students completed their course and appeared in final examination conducted by the University. 79 students passed the examination and one failed. The students, who passed the examination, were issued marks sheet and degree by University.
10. Again for academic session 2008-09, 111 students were forwarded by the examining body i.e. Agra University out of which 94 candidates took admission in the petitioner's college. These admissions have been granted in June, 2009 and the students are undergoing their course.
11. It is also said that for academic session 2007-08 joint entrance examining body namely Chhatrapati Sahu Ji Maharaj University, Kanpur forwarded 8 more candidates, who were granted admission in February, 2009 and the students are presently undergoing studies.
12. The matter of unconditional recognition was considered by NCTE and vide order dated 12th August, 2009, it declined to grant recognition to petitioner's college. The petitioner filed an appeal under Section 18 of National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993, which has been allowed vide order dated 8th October, 2009 (Annexure 10 to the writ petition) pursuant whereto the impugned order of recognition has been issued by NCTE.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once a conditional recognition was granted, which culminated in final unconditional recognition, the students, who were already admitted by petitioner's college, cannot be deprived of the benefit of recognition of the course and therefore, the impugned order, in so far as it direct that the recognition shall be effective from academic session 2009-10, is illegal. It must relate back to the date when conditional recognition was granted.
14. By means of a supplementary affidavit, petitioner has placed on record a document relating to the letters, issued by University nominating experts for Selection Committee for appointment of teachers in the college and the selection made by the said Committee. It is worthy to mention that letters nominating three experts issued by University is dated 16th August, 2007 pursuant whereto selection was made by University on 5th September, 2007. The course commenced is under the Self Finance Scheme. The teachers were appointed on contract basis. It is said that several lecturers were appointed on 5th September, 2007.
15. The university has filed a separate counter affidavit stating therein that affiliation granted by it, is only on the basis of certificate and documents sent by the College regarding land and building. For rest of the matter, it is the decision of NCTE which shall be final. It is also stated that dispute in the present writ petition is primarily between the petitioner and NCTE.
16. On behalf of NCTE, a separate counter affidavit has been filed sworn by Dr. K.S. Yadav, Regional Director, Northern Regional Committee, (NCTE). It is stated therein that conditional recognition letter specifically mention that until issuance of unconditional letter of recognition, the college shall not admit students to the aforesaid course. In the circumstances it was not open or permissible to the College to admit any student in the course in question. If college has done something illegal and in breach of aforesaid specific condition contained in the letter dated 26th May, 2007, it cannot take and cannot be made to take advantage of its own breach. They also said that even if final recognition granted by NCTE may relate back to conditional recognition that would not allow the College to flout one of the clear mandate contained in the letter dated 26th May, 2007, which became final having never been challenged by the College before the appropriate forum.
17. In the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner, this breach has been admitted but what is stated in defence is that it appears to be a misconstruction and confusion prevail with the respondents. There was no deliberate omission or error on the part of the petitioner. It is also however, pointed out that students, who were admitted in academic session 2007-08 were not being permitted to appear in examination by University whereupon the College filed writ petition no.60218 of 2008 wherein an interim order was passed on 9th February, 2009. Pursuant to the interim order, the students appeared in the examination of University. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of finally on 4th January, 2010 with the following order:
"Today supplementary affidavit has been filed in writ petition no.60218 of 2008 annexing therewith copy of order dated 11.11.2009. This order has been passed by Northern Regional Committee, National Council for Teacher Education, Jaipur. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Shri Neeraj Tewari, learned counsel for Bundelkhand University and Shri Rajeev Joshi, learned for N.C.T.E state that the above order dated 11.11.2009 has been passed in pursuance of earlier order of appellate authority dated 13.7.2009. It has further been stated that in view of order dated 11.11.2009 result of the examination which has already been held under interim order passed in these two writ petitions is to be declared. In view of the above joint statement both these writ petitions are disposed of with the direction that the result of the examination which had been held under the interim order passed in these writ petitions shall be declared."
18. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that under Section 14 of NCTE Act, 1993, recognition was granted. The Act does not contemplate two recognitions one conditional and another unconditional. This distinction has been brought into existence under Regulations of 2007 as is evident from Regulation 7 (9) and (11). It is contended that Regulations apparently go beyond the scope of the statute and cannot deprive the college from admitting students once recognition is granted may be conditional.
19. The argument at the first flush appears to be quite attractive particularly for the reason that the college has put in jeopardy the stakes of hundreds of students it has admitted even before it could get recognition under Regulation 7(11) of the Regulations of 2007 and by ignoring condition provided in para 5 of the conditional recognition letter dated 26th May, 2007. The sympathy for the students normally has tilted balance in deciding such matters so as not to prejudice their interest but experience show that this approach has not only largely misused by mischievous educational institution but a system has developed where repeatedly such kind of illegality are being committed and thereafter on the plea that innocent students may suffer, equity jurisdiction of this Court is invoked to justify and get an approval on the illegal or at least defiance act of the college.
20. It is no doubt true that in the letter dated 26th May, 2007, NCTE has categorically directed the college not to admit students "till an unconditional recognition order is issued". It categorically says, "compliance with the requirements shall be submitted on a Sworn affidavit and annexures thereto for issue of unconditional recognition order. Until then the institution shall not admit students to the course."
21. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since Act does not contemplate any conditional or unconditional recognition, once a recognition is granted, it is valid for all purposes and cannot be deferred so as to deprive the College from admitting students in the course concerned. It is contended that in this case Regulation of 2005 shall apply and not of 2007.
22. I find that in Regulations of 2005 also Regulation 7(12) which reads as under:
"The institution concerned, after appointing the requisite faculty/staff, shall put the information on its official website and also formally inform the Regional Committee concerned. The Regional Committee concerned shall then issue a formal unconditional recognition order."
23. Regulation 8(10) of Regulation of 2005 contemplates that till such unconditional recognition is not granted, no admission shall be given. Regulation 8(10) reads as under:
"An institution shall make admission only after it obtains unconditional letter of recognition from the Regional Committee concerned, and affiliation from the examining body."
24. Validity of aforesaid Regulations is not under challenge. Therefore, this matter has to be considered and decided in the light of the aforesaid statutory provisions.
25. Final recognition was not granted to the petitioners in the academic session 2007-08 or 2008-09 when the petitioner institution proceeded ahead to take admission in B.Ed. course. The students who appeared in the Joint Entrance Examination and were recommended by the concerned entrance examination conducting body obviously stood cheated, may be due to misrepresentation of the petitioner college. It nowhere says that the College ever informed Joint Entrance examination holding University that NCTE has not authorised it for taking admission in the College. No such caveat notified for the students also. This action of the petitioner college clearly is a misrepresentation on its part so much so that knowing it well that it ought not to have admitted a student till unconditional recognition is granted, it ignored such condition contained in the letter dated 26.05.2007 as also Regulation 8(10) of Regulations of 2005 and now on the ground that students who are innocent in the matter are likely to suffer, it wants a seal of approval and validation to its illegal act from this Court.
26. It appears in the earlier writ petition filed by petitioner seeking permission for the students it has admitted in the academic session 2007-08, the argument with respect to the Regulations was raised but no decision ultimately has been pronounced by the Court. In the present writ petition validates of the Regulations has not been challenged nor any submission has been advanced on this aspect. In the absence of any challenge to the statutory provision, this Court is bound to decide the matter in accordance with the statutory provisions.
27. In the absence of any authority on the part of the petitioner to admit students in the academic session 2007-08 and 2008-09, merely for the reason that it has proceeded ahead in flagrant defiance of negative mandate contained in the letter dated 26.05.2007 read with Regulation 8(10) of Regulations 2005. It cannot be said that act of petitioner would justify to relate back the impugned order to the aforesaid two academic sessions. This would amount to conferring benefit upon the petitioner of its own wrong. A deliberate, intentional and non defiance to a statutory condition cannot be ignored lightly so as to give a benefit to a person who has gained by such breach. It is true that equity, sympathy etc. sometimes constitutes a relevant factor to decide a matter but where a flagrant violation of statutory provision has been shown, such attributes on the part of the Court would not justify to grant relief to a person who is guilty of proceeding in breach of requisite directions and statutory provisions.
28. In State of West Bengal & others Vs. Banibrata Ghosh & others (2009) 3 SCC 250, such a request was declined to be accepted by the Apex Court observing that it would be a misplaced sympathy.
29. In D.M. Premkumari Vs. The Divisional Commissioner, Mysore Division and others 2009 (2) SCALE 731, the Court observed :
"The law is merciless", is a most frequently quoted saying. It has led people to mistakenly think that it is separated from feelings of righteousness. We have become used to the understanding that such emotions as indignation, sorrow and compassion should not exist in legal cases, especially not in judiciary. This, in our view, is a misunderstanding. Judiciary has a very strong sense of justice and it works to maintain social justice and fairness. We hasten to add, judiciary does not believe in misplaced sympathy."
30. Giving reasons for not extending the indulgence in favour of the persons, who have worked for sometimes though not validly appointed, in State of Bihar Vs. Upendra Narayan Singh & others JT 2009 (4) SC 577, the Court observed :
"...the Courts gradually realized that unwarranted sympathy shown to the progenies of spoil system has eaten into the vitals of service structure of the State and public bodies and this is the reason why relief of reinstatement and/or regularization of service has been denied to illegal appointees/backdoor entrants in large number of cases..."
31. In Om Prakash & others Vs. Radhacharan & others 2009 (6) SC 329, the Court observed :
"It is now a well settled principle of law that sentiment or sympathy alone would not be a guiding factor in determining the rights of the parties which are otherwise clear and unambiguous."
32. In Subha B. Nair & others Vs. State of Kerala & others 2008 (7) SCC 210, the Court said :
"This Court furthermore cannot issue a direction only on sentiment/sympathy."
33. In Jagdish Singh Vs. Punjab Engineering College & others JT 2009 (8) SC 501, the Court referred to the observations made earlier in Kerala Solvent Extractions Ltd. Vs. A. Unnikrishnan and another 1994 (1) SCALE 63 with approval as under :
"The reliefs granted by the courts must be seen to be logical and tenable within the framework of the law and should not incur and justify the criticism that the jurisdiction of the courts tends to degenerate into misplaced sympathy, generosity and private benevolence. It is essential to maintain the integrity of legal reasoning and the legitimacy of the conclusions. They must emanate logically from the legal findings and the judicial results must be seen to be principled and supportable on those findings. Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority, predictability and respectability."
34. The petitioner is not only guilty of violating statutory provision but also the letter dated 26th May, 2007. It is also guilty of defrauding several students by admitting to a course for which permission was not granted. Therefore, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
35. It is hereby dismissed with cost, which I quantify to Rs.50,000/-.
36. This is however made clear that this order shall not preclude the concerned students from taking such action as advised for refund of fee etc. as also appropriate damages/compensation from the petitioner's College.
Order Date :- 20.5.2011 KA