Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri V.D. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Anil Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 and Km. Rashmi Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent nos.4 and 5.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners Committee of Management, Post Graduate Sri Gandhi Degree College, Maltari, Azamgarh and others before this Court for issuing a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to treat the Post Graduate Diploma in Nursery Education posts run by the petitioners college during the academic session 1993-94 to 1997-98 as valid teachers training qualification for purposes of admission to different courses as also for employment in the absence of approval from National Council for Teachers Education or alternatively quash the order dated 4.12.2007 issued by the Regional Director, National Council for Teachers Education, Jaipur (annexure no.18 to the writ petition) and to accord recognition to the Post Graduate Diploma in Nursery Education run by the petitioners' college during the academic session 1993-94 to 1997-98.
It appears from the material brought on record that the Executive Council of Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University, Jaunpur (hereinafter referred to as the University) in exercise of power under Section of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) issued an ordinance and resolved to start a new course of Teachers Training Education in the name and style of Post Graduate Diploma in Nursery Education (hereinafter referred to as the Course) from the session 1993-94. The aforesaid decision of the University was communicated to the affiliated degree colleges where B.Ed degree course was already running including the petitioners college which is one of the constituent and affiliated degree college to the University running the B.Ed. Course. The petitioners applied and were granted permission by the University to run the course upto 1997-98. In the year 1993 the Parliament enacted National Council for Teachers Education, Act (Parliamentary Act No.73 of 1993) provisions whereof were actually enforced by means of the notification, notifying 1.7.1995 as the date of enforcement of the Act. In the year 1995 the Union of India established a body, namely, National Council for Teachers Education (NCTE) under Section 3 of the Act with the object and intention to improve the teachers' education. The NCTE was also given authority for providing recognition to the teachers training courses run by the institutions throughout India.
The Registrar of the University by his communication dated 17.2.1999 intimated to the petitioners the decision of the Executive Council for discontinuing all Diploma courses including the course from academic session 1998-99. Thereafter the petitioners did not run any training course subsequent to 1997-98 session.
Section 14 (1) of the Act of 1993 along with the proviso envisaged submission of application forms before the Regional Committee within a period of six months from the appointed date with regard to the recognition of such teachers training courses which were already underway and in which instructions of studies were being imparted.
The said section further visualized that upon submitting of an application form, within a period of six months from the appointed date the institution concerned could continue to run the course till such point of time till final decision was taken by the Regional Level Committee on the application for recognition of such training course envisaged under Section 14(1) of 1993 Act. Time for submission of application forms for grant of recognition with regard to on going courses was extended twice, firstly till August 1997 and again till 31.3.1997. It transpires that the University submitted an application before the Northern Regional Committee, NCTE, Jaipur for recognition of the Post Graduate Diploma Course in Nursery Education on which queries were sought by the Regional Director, NCTE by letter dated 13.10.2000 which was duly replied by the Registrar of the University.
The provisions of 1993 Act were amended by means of National Council for Teachers Training Education (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 2006 (Ordinance No.2 of 2006) for the purpose of enabling those institutions which had not obtained recognition of their teacher training courses run by them to submit application for accord and recognition ex post facto with regard to degrees already awarded pertaining to teachers training qualifications. For the purpose of giving effect to the said amended provisions a set of rules known as National Council for Teachers Education (Procedure for Recognition of Certain Categories of Institutions) Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) were framed. The petitioners claim, acting in pursuance to the aforesaid Rules an application dated 2.11.2006 (annexure no.14 to the writ petition) was filed on behalf of the petitioners college for validation of degrees of P.G. Diploma in Nursery Education awarded by the petitioners' institution for the session 1993-94 to 1997-98 before the Regional Secretary.
Subsequently another application in this regard was filed by the petitioners on 2.2.2007 (annexure no.15 to the writ petition) before the Regional Secretary. By a communication dated 4.12.2007 (annexure no.18 to the writ petition) issued by the respondent no.4, petitioners were informed that their application dated 2.2.2007 could not be considered as the same was submitted on 9.2.2007 i.e. after the expiry of 10 days from the date of the commencement of the Rules i.e.1.11.2006 which was the period prescribed under the Rules for receiving such application and also without compensation as required under Clause 18(f) of the Ordinance.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the refusal of the respondents to treat the degree of P.G. Diploma in Nursery Education Course awarded by the petitioners to the students who had obtained admission in the petitioners institution for the sessions1993-94, 1994-95, 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98 which was clearly protected under the proviso to Section 14 of the Act as amended from time to time is absolutely illegal and arbitrary.
He next submitted that the reason given in the impugned order by the respondent no.4 for rejecting the petitioners application dated 2.2.2007 filed before the respondent no.4 for validation of the course is also hyper-technical and which has the effect of defeating the object of the ordinance which was promulgated with the noble purpose of giving opportunity to those institutions which had not obtained recognition of their teaching courses run by them to get the said courses validated and the hyper-technical approach adopted by the respondent no.4 in dealing with the application filed by the petitioner before it in this regard is highly reprehensible.
He lastly submitted that the impugned order may be set aside and the respondent no.4 be directed to reconsider the petitioners application dated 2.2.2007 after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to deposit the required compensation.
Per contra Km. Rashmi Tripathi, learned counsel for the NCTE-respondent nos.4 and 5 submitted that the petitioners institution having failed to apply for recognition from the NCTE for teachers training course after the appointed date as per the provisions of Section 14(1) of the Act, the candidates obtaining degree from such institutions shall not be eligible for appointment in any Government Department or any private institution.
She next submitted that admittedly the petitioners had not forwarded any application for recognition in respect of the training course which the petitioners had started prior to the appointed date within the period of six months of the appointed date, hence the degree of B.Ed course awarded by the petitioners' institution is invalid.
She further submitted that since the application dated 2nd November, 2006 for validation of the course run by the petitioners was neither served to the respondent no.3 within the prescribed period of 10 days nor the same was accompanied by compensation as stipulated under the Rules, the respondent no.4 did not commit any illegality or infirmity in refusing to consider the same.
She also submitted that the earlier application dated 2.11.2006 which the petitioners had allegedly sent to the respondent no.3 was not received by the respondent no.3. She lastly submitted that the petitioners were not entitled to the benefit of proviso to Section 14 of the Act on the basis of the application which was moved by the University before the respondent no.3 purporting to be under Section 14 of the Act for the recognition of the course.
After having examined the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as the other materials brought on record, I do not find that there is any merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the same are liable to be rejected.
There is no dispute about fact that the petitioners did not move any application before the Regional Committee either within the period of six months from the appointed date or within such time as extended upto the year 1997 for recognition of the courses/instructions which the petitioners were imparting since 1993. Thus, the question which arises for consideration is that whether despite the petitioners failure to file an application before the Regional Committee as envisaged under Section 14 of the 1993 Act, degrees imparted by the petitioners' institution during the sessions 1993-1998 could be deemed to be valid, in view of the proviso to Section 14(1) of the Act. In order to appreciate the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it will be useful to reproduce the relevant provisions of the 1993 Act:
Section 14: Recognition of institutions offering course or training in teacher education:
(1) Every institution offering or intending to offer a course or training in teacher education on or after the appointed day, may, for grant of recognition under this Act, make an application to the Regional Committee concerned in such form and in such manner as may be determined by regulations:
Provided that an institution offering a course or training in teacher education immediately before the appointed day, shall be entitled to continue such course or training for a period of six months, if it has made an application for recognition within the said period and until the disposal of the application by the Regional Committee.
(2) The fee to be paid along with the application under sub-section (1) shall be such as may be prescribed.
(3) On receipt of an application by the Regional Committee from any institution under sub-section (1), and after obtaining from the institution concerned such other particulars as it may consider necessary, it shall,-
(a) if it is satisfied that such institution has adequate financial resources, accommodation, library, qualified staff, laboratory and that it fulfils such other conditions required for proper functioning of the institution for a course or training in teacher education, as may be determined by regulations, pass an order granting recognition to such institution, subject to such conditions as may be determined by regulations; or
(b) if it is of the opinion that such institution does not fulfill the requirements laid down in sub-clause (a), pass an order refusing recognition to such institution for reasons to, be recorded in writing:
Provided that before passing an order under sub-clause (b), the Regional Committee shall provide a reasonable opportunity to the concerned institution for making a written representation.
(4) Every order granting or refusing recognition to an Institution for a course or training in teacher education under sub-section (3) shall be published in the Official Gazette and communicated in writing for appropriate action to such institution and to the concerned examining body, the local authority or the State Government and the Central Government.
(5) Every institution, in respect of which recognition has been refused shall discontinue the course or training in teacher education from the end of the academic session next following the date of receipt of the order refusing recognition passed under clause (b) of sub-section (3).
(6) Every examining body shall, on receipt of the order under sub-section (4),-
(a) grant affiliation to the institution, where recognition has been granted; or
(b) cancel the affiliation of the institution, where recognition has been refused.
The Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 11223 of 2009, State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Bhupendra Nath Tripathi & Ors. while examining the same issue held as hereunder:
17. Section 17 of the Act mandates that the affiliating body to grant affiliation only after the institution concerned has obtained recognition from the Regional Committee concerned under Section 14 or permission for a course or training under Section 15. Section 17 (3) declares that once the recognition of a recognized institution is withdrawn under sub-section (1), such institution shall discontinue the course or training in teacher education, and the concerned University or the examining body shall cancel affiliation of the institution with effect from the end of the academic session next following the date of communication of the said order.
18. A fair reading and analysis of the scheme of the Act with respect to recognition of the institution imparting course or training in teacher education is an essential preclude to the core questions involved. On a plain reading of the provisions it is evident that on and from the date of enforcement of the Act, every institution offering or intending to offer the course or training in teacher education, was required to make application to the Regional Committee in such form and manner as may be determined by the regulations as provided in Section 14 of the Act. The proviso to Section 14 (1) states that an institution offering a course or training in teacher education immediately before the appointed day, shall be entitled to continue such course or training for a period of six months if it has made an application for recognition within the said period and until disposal of the application by the Regional Committee. What happens in case of existing institution makes application seeking recognition within the prescribed time but no decision is taken by the Council within the period of six months? Does it mean that the institution can impart training only for a period of six months and thereafter close the institution? Section 14 (5) states that every institution, in respect of which recognition has been refused shall discontinue that course or training in teacher education from the end of the academic session next following the date of receipt of the order refusing recognition passed under clause (b) of sub-section (3).
19. A plain reading of provisions suggests that all such institutions offering a course or training in teacher education prior to the Act coming into force, are entitled to continue such course or training until the application is disposed of provided such an application has been made within six months from the appointed day. The consequence of not being able to gain recognition is the discontinuance of the course. Once an application seeking recognition has been filed by the institution within the prescribed period of six months the institution is entitled to continue offering a course or training in teacher education until the disposal of the application by the Regional Committee. Once the recognition is granted by the Regional Committee to the institution offering a course or training in teacher education, the same shall relate back to the date of filing of application. Section 14 (5) read with Section 14 (1) enables the institution offering a course or training in teacher education on the appointed day to continue the course or training as the case may be during the pendency of the application seeking recognition and even in case of refusal of recognition, the course may have to be discontinued, only at the end of academic session. The institution offering training or course is entitled to award degree or certificate as the case may be.
The Apex Court in para 21 of the same judgment further held as follows:-
21..... The NCTE Act in no manner makes any distinction between the degrees granted by the Universities or authorized bodies recognized by the University Grants Commission prior to the enactment of the Act and the degrees granted by the recognized institutions after the Act has come into force. NCTE Act provides for the recognition of the institution offering course or training in teacher education and does not speak about recognition of the degrees granted by the institution prior to the Act coming into force. Thus, degrees granted by the institutions already in existence offering a course or training in teacher education shall be deemed to be at par with the degrees or certificates granted by the recognized institutions after the commencement of the Act provided those institutions in existence offering the course also received recognition under the Act.
Thus, in view of the settled law on the issue and the admitted factual position that the petitioners had not filed any application as envisaged under Section 14 of the 1993 Act within the prescribed period as amended from time to time the degrees granted by the petitioner in the courses cannot be held to be valid degrees. No benefit can be given to the petitioners of the application which was moved by the University before the respondent no.4 for recognition of the course as the Act as well as the Rules envisage separate applications by individual institutions in this regard.
Now coming to the next question as to whether reason given by the respondent no.4 by the impugned order dated 4.12.2007 for refusing to consider the petitioners application dated 2.2.2007 for recognition of the course can be sustained or not I find that from the record it appears after the Ordinance No.2 of 2006 was issued, the petitioners sent an application dated 2.11.2006 to the Regional Committee of N.C.T.E. for recognition of the course. Regarding the said application stand taken by the N.C.T.E. is that the said application was never received by the Regional Committee of the N.C.T.E. Petitioners have failed to bring on record any proof to falsify the stand taken by the respondent no.3.
The record further shows that another application dated 2.11.2006 was sent by the petitioners to the Regional Committee of N.C.T.E with an identical prayer which was processed by the Regional Committee and thereafter by the impugned communication of the Deputy Direction of N.C.T.E. the petitioners were informed that the application for recognition/validation of its degrees for the aforesaid sessions 1993-94 and 1997-98 cannot be considered since the same had been received beyond the prescribed period of limitation of ten days and also on the ground that the application was not accompanied by compensation as presented under the Rules and the Ordinance.
Learned counsel for the petitioners despite having made elaborate submissions failed to demonstrate that the reasons given by the respondent no.4 in the impugned order for refusing to consider the petitioners application dated 2.2.2007 suffer from any arbitrariness or illegality.
It being the cardinal principal of law that where a statue prescribes a particular manner for doing a certain act then such Act has to be performed in the manner prescribed and in no other way. In the present case admittedly neither the petitioners' application under the Ordinance was prescribed within the stipulated period nor the same was accompanied with the compensation as required by the Rules.
The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.9.2011 Bhaskar