The recognition granted by Northern Region Committee (in short referred to as the ''Committee') in favour of the petitioners stands withdrawn vide order dated 15/21.5.2011 which is subject matter of challenge before this Court.
The brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are enumerated as under: -
Sri Suraj Singh Memorial College, Avagarh, District Aligarh (in short as the 'Institution') is a degree college affiliated with Dr. B. R. Ambedkar University, Agra. The institution in question is running Bachelor of Education course. The said college is governed by the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 and the First Statute of Agra University. The recognition for imparting instruction of studies in Bachelor of Education course with an annual intake of 100 students was granted by order dated 4.8.2004 passed by the Northern Regional Committee, National Council for Teacher Education, Jaipur. The affiliation to the said institution was granted on 8.10.2004 with Dr. B.R.Ambedkar University, Agra for running Bachelor of Education Course for a limited period of one year. However, by means of a subsequent order of Chancellor of the University dated 10.11.2006, the institution was granted permanent affiliation w.e.f. 1.7.2005. The initial course was started by the institution from the academic year 2004-05. The admission of the students was granted on the basis of an entrance test conducted by the University from academic session 2004-05 till 2008-09 and thereafter again in the academic session 2010-2011. However, from the academic session 2007-08, such admissions were granted on the basis of Common Admission Test under the orders of the State Government by different Universities nominated for such purpose for different years.
In a meeting of the Committee held from 24/27th June, 2010, a decision for issuing show-cause notice was taken against the petitioners' institution on account of alleged shortcomings recorded in the meeting. According to the show-cause notice, following defects were noticed on the part of the petitioner's institution: -
(i) Principal has not been appointed as per National Council for Teacher Education (N.C.T.E.)norms;
(ii) Faculty members, namely Anuj Kumar Pandey and Santosh Kumar are not qualified as per N.C.T.E. Norms;
(iii) Seven computers were not sufficient for the annual intake of 100 students;
(iv) Toilet and drinking water facility was not adequate;
(v) The college website as per N.C.T.E. Norms had not been developed.
The show-cause notice was replied by the petitioners on 3.3.2011, which was accompanied by several documents which formed part of the enclosures of the said reply.
After considering the reply submitted by the petitioners, the Committee did not accept the explanation of the petitioners and decided to withdraw the recognition of the petitioners institution for imparting education in Bachelor of Education course for the academic session 2011-12 in purported exercise of powers under section 17 of the National Council for Teachers Education Act (in short as the 'Act').
The Committee recorded the following reasons:-
(1) The petitioners had been conducting the Bachelor of Education Course without a qualified Principal and lecturer appointed in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 :-
(ii) The petitioners have appointed a Principal and two lecturers in accordance with the norms. However, their appointments have not been approved by the Vice-Chancellor and unless the selections are approved, no appointment order can be issued.
(iii) The toilet facility in the institution continued to be inadequate, unhygienic/unhealthy and were insufficient.
As a consequence of the decision to withdraw the recognition, the University did not forward the name of the petitioners institution as duly recognized and affiliated college for admission for the academic session 2011-12. It is under these circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed.
The following issues have been raised in the writ petition :-
a)A perusal of the impugned decision would demonstrate that it is based upon factors several of which were never satisfied in the meeting dated 24.6.2011 and 27.4.2011 with regard to which the petitioners were never afforded any opportunity to submit their reply.
b)The decisions have been taken without taking into consideration the reply submitted by the petitioners and documents filed in support thereof.
c)The inference drawn by the impugned order that the institution was managed without a duly qualified Principal and Lecturers is factually incorrect.
d)The appointment of the Principal and lecturers have been made keeping in view the norms set out by the NCTE. The delay in approval is on account of failure of the University to take a decision in this behalf.
e)The objection in the order impugned that the website of the institution does not stand developed is purely a speculation and conjecture in nature. The certificate issued by M/s Max Tech Solutions, Agra confirms that the web side of the institution is registered and and was activated on 25.3.2007.
Respondent no. 5, in reply, has stated that the decision has been taken strictly in accordance with law and only after examining the reply submitted by the petitioners. It is further submitted that a complaint was received against the petitioners institution from the University, as a result of which, an inspection of the institution was conducted and inspection report was placed in the meeting the Committee. After deliberation in the meeting, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioners. On the reply filed by the petitioners, it was decided to inspect the institution of the petitioners to ascertain the deficiency and only after discovering the deficiency, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioners. Even though the selection of the Principal and two lecturers has been made in accordance with the norms set out by the NCTE but their appointments are yet to be approved by the University. The petitioners issued order of appointment without approval by the University. Anything to the contrary was denied in this behalf.
On the other hand, the stand of the University is that after recognition has been withdrawn, the petitioners-institution was delisted for the purpose of seeking admission for the academic session 2010-11. It is admitted by the University in their reply that the approval was granted on 4.9.2004 in respect of 8 teachers. In respect of the Principal Dr. Sharad Verma, approval was granted by the University vide order dated on 21.9.2006. Subsequently another approval was granted by the University on 25.9.2006 in respect of 8 lecturers. Another approval was granted on the posts of 8 lecturers on 29.3.2010. Apart from above, no approval was granted in respect of teachers or Principal. However, there is no denial that the selection of the Principal and 2 lecturers is pending before the University.
After examining the plea of the parties, the following questions arise for consideration in the present case:-
i)Whether the petitioners could issue order of appointment without seeking approval of the University, if not, in absence of qualified staff, can recognition be withdrawn ?
ii)Can recognition be withdrawn once the selection process has been concluded by the petitioners ? Can delay in granting approval by the Vice-Chancellor of the selection made by the petitioners be a ground to seek withdrawal of the recognition on account of qualified persons not holding the posts of Principal and two lecturers in the institution in question.
In order to examine these issues, it is necessary to understand the scheme of Act, which deals with the affiliation and recognition of the institutions: Under the scheme of the Act, National Council of Teachers Education is a body which accords recognition to the petitioners' institution. It is an Act of Parliament which came into force on 17.8.1995. The NCTE is the sole body which regulates and controls the field of teachers education and also lays down norms and guidelines and standard of teachers education to be maintained by the institutions. It provides that no institution can start teachers training unless such institution is recognized for such training course for the teachers education by the concerned Regional Committee constituted under the Act. Section 14 of the Act empowers the Regional Committee to grant recognition to the institution on an application being filed by the said institution. Before granting any such recognition, a satisfaction has to be recorded by the said Committee that such recognized institution has adequate financial resources, accommodation, library, qualified staff, laboratory and that it fulfills such other conditions required for proper conduct of the new course or training in teacher education. It is only after satisfying the said conditions, recognition can be granted. The intended purpose of granting recognition and affiliation is to provide legitimacy in degrees issued by the institution. The intended purpose implied in granting recognition is to ensure that the standard of education is maintained by such institutions. The necessary feature in this behalf is the qualification of the teachers who are required to train the students. The recognizing body has a right to fix norms in this behalf.
Applying this principle in the present case, it would be seen that after inspection conducted by the recognizing body, some deficiencies were found, which find mention in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner. The principal objection taken is that the institution did not have a qualified principal and two lecturers. After seeking reply from the petitioner, it has been observed that even though the Principal and two lecturers have been selected in accordance with the norms set out by the NCTE, their appointments have not been approved by the Vice-Chancellor and unless and until their appointments are approved by the Vice-Chancellor, they are not entitled to be appointed. The consequence is that the institution is run without a Principal and two lecturers, who constitute the teaching faculty of the institution.
It is not disputed that the selection process has been initiated in this behalf by the petitioners and selection committee consisting of panel of experts as well as members of selection committee recommended the names of the Principal and two lecturers in this behalf. The selection panel has been sent to the University by the petitioners on 12.12.2010. The decision in this behalf is awaited. Before any approval was accorded, the petitioners have appointed the Principal and two lecturers. This is in clear violation of Section 31(11) (a) of the Act. This section clearly provides that no appointment shall be made by the managing committee unless the same is approved by the Vice-Chancellor. The appointment of the lecturers have been made in the last week of December, 2010 and in terms of the statute, no such appointments could be made. One can safely state that there is no Principal and lecturers in saddle in the institution until the selection is approved by the University.
The question that arises is whether recognition can be withdrawn on this count. It is not in dispute that selection list has been referred to the University by the petitioners as stated by them in the petition. The University is stated to have indicated that no such recommendation has been made. If the recommendation for approving the selection stands referred to the University, the decision in this respect is to be taken by the Vice-Chancellor within 30 days of receipt of such recommendation. If he fails to do so, it shall be treated as deemed approval, as per Section 31(11) (c) of the Act. The only question required to be examined is as to whether such a list has been referred. The categorical stand taken by the University is that such approval is not pending before them. However, the fact remains that the selection process has been initiated and select list of the Principal and two lecturers have already been formalized, as such, there is no reason to disbelieve that recommendation has not been forwarded to the University by the college. The Principal and two lecturers are already working in the institution, which fact has been acknowledged by the recognizing body. It is not denied by them that the appointments of Principal and lecturers are not in accordance with the norms. All that is being disputed is that the selection process has not been conducted in accordance with procedure set up. This aspect of the matter I would discuss in latter part of the judgment.
Once it is accepted that the selection of the Principal and two lecturers have been made in accordance with the norms, there should be no difficulty for the University to grant approval in this behalf. I so say, because, as in the present case, the obligation is only on the University to accord approval. If it has not been done till date, by mandate of law, they are required to do so. In paragraph 37 of the writ petition, it is contended that the recommendations of the selection committee along with all the papers pertaining to the said selection have been sent to the University along with covering letter dated 12.12.2010. In reply to this paragraph, the University has stated that the petitioner has not explained as to under what circumstances expert empaneled in the year 2009 selection could be appointed for the selection of 2010. This is clear a indication that the University is already seized of the matter and they are trying to wriggle out from the same by filing supplementary counter affidavit to deny it. It has no where been denied in the counter affidavit that they have not received any such recommendations. It appears from the stand of the respondents that the selection committee was not constituted of the competent persons, which is the reason for delay in approval. After having said so, the only course left to them was to reject the said recommendations, which has not been done till date. In such a circumstance, one has to presume that the University has no objection in granting such approval as by operation of law if no such approval has been granted after expiry of 30 days, it shall be deemed to have been approved. Conclusion is that the University has failed to take a decision within 30 days from the date of receipt of the recommendations made by the selection committee, there will be implied approval of the same and consequently the appointments made are held to be valid.
Second question arise in the present case is that whether recommending body can question the selection process undertaken by the institution while determining the eligibility of the teaching faculty.
Examining the principle required for recognition, the recognizing body can prescribe norms and qualifications for appointing a member in the teaching faculty. The norms relate to the qualification plus experience and other allied issues connected with it. How the selection is to be made by the selection committee is required to be judged by the affiliating body of the institution. The scheme of the Act provides mode & method of such selection, composition of selection committee and mode of selection in making such appointments. After selection process is completed, the University is still to see as to whether selection has been made in accordance with the norms set out by them. It is in this area, the University has a right to approve or dis-approve the selections. The recognizing body has no role to play in the matter.
The impugned order clearly makes a mention that selection has been made without any advertisement which is not the domain of the recognizing body. Once any selection has been approved by the University, there is presumption of correctness of such a selection unless challenged. All that the recognizing body has to ensure is as to whether persons selected have requisite qualifications and experience in this behalf and not to enter into an arena to examine the correctness of the selection process.
For the reasons above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned decision of the Northern Regional Committee, National Council for Teacher Education,Jaipur taken with regard to the petitioners college in its meeting held on 15-21st May, 2011 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) are hereby quashed.
Dated: 16th December, 2011 SU.