Heard Mr. Prashant Chandra, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Shashank Bhasin learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Sameer Kalia, Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, Mr. M.M. Asthana, learned counsel for the National Council for Teacher Education (in short 'N.C.T.E') and Mr. Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for the University.
The petitioner has felt offending with the minutes of meeting dated 6th December 2013 of State Level Committee which has considered the subject of affiliation of several colleges including the petitioner. A bare perusal of the minutes of meeting dated 6th December 2013 shows that pursuant to the decision taken in the meeting of State Level Committee on 17th October 2013, the petitioner was asked to submit reply with regard to the short comings of infrastructure in the Schools. The petitioner submitted also after considering the petitioner's reply the State Level committee observed that the land for establishment of Central Public School was granted to the Institute for Literacy Development, whereas Institute of Literacy Development has sublet it to the Central Women's College by means of another lease deed which is in violation of Government Orders issued by the State Government. By means of Government Order dated 24.12.2011 as well as 29. 03.2012, the land is required to be recorded either in the name of the private Institute or in the name of Society or Trust which run the institute. Since the Institute of Literacy Development (lease holder) has sub-let it to another body i.e. Central Women College, it has been observed that the same is in violation of the aforesaid Government Orders. Moreover the map proposed by the Institute has also not been approved, there are some other shortcomings including that No Objection Certificate has not been issued by the Competent Authority and further there is No Objection Certificate provided by the authority. Therefore, the Committee took a decision to intimate the decision taken by it to the petitioner to remove the shortcomings and also to issue direction to the inspecting panel to submit its clear recommendation. The petitioner has assailed the aforesaid decision of the State Level Committee claiming the same being without jurisdiction, in the light of the various provisions of the National Council for Teachers Eduction Act, 1993 (for short 'the Act').
Mr. Prashant Chandra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that The National Council for Teacher Education Act (in short NCTE Act) is a Central Act, therefore, it will have supremacy over the State Act and its executive directions. He submits that subject for Basic Training Course is covered under entries 66 of List 1 of 7th Schedule of the Constitution of India, whereas the State Government receives strength from entry 25 of list 3 of the 7th Schedule to frame the Act / executive policies on the subject of eduction to include Technical Education and Medical Education and Universities which is subject to the provisions of entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of list 1. It is stated that under section 3(1)of the NCTE Act the National Council for Teacher Education (in short Council) have been established. The functions of the Council has been envisaged under Chapter III of the Act which contains three section 12, 12A and 13, section 12 provides that it shall be the duty of the council to take such steps as it may think fit for ensuring planned and cordial development of Teacher Eduction and for the determination and maintenance of standards for Teacher Eduction and for the purpose of performing its function under this Act, the Council may:-
a. .......
b........
c........
d.......
e. lay down norms for any specified category of courses or training in teacher education including the minimum eligibility criteria for admission thereof, and the method of selection of candidates, duration of the course, course contents and mode of curriculum;
f..........
g. lay down standards in respect of examinations leading to teacher eduction qualifications, criteria for admission to such examinations and schemes of courses or training;
h.......
I.......
j.............
k..............
l..............
m.............
n.............
Section 12-A. Provides provisions for Power of Council to determine minimum standards of eduction in Schools teachers. Section 13 provides provision for inspection for the purpose of ascertaining whether recognized institutions are functioning in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
In exercise of power provided under section 32(2) of the Act, the National Council for Teachers Education has framed the regulations which is called "The National Council for Teachers Education Recognition of Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2009. Regulation 8 provides the conditions for grant of recognition, Regulation 8 (7) provides that no such Institute shall be granted recognition under this Regulations unless the institution or society sponsoring the institution is in possession of required land on the date of application. Sub-clause IV of Regulation 8(7) provides that the society sponsoring the Institute shall be required to transfer and vest the title of the land and building in the name of institute within a period of six months from the date of recognition or under sub regulation (ii) of Regulation 7.
In the light of the aforesaid Act, he submitted that the Act is complete code to regulate the establishment of institutions as well as its standard of education. Therefore, at no stage the Stage Government is empowered to intervene in the matter. He further drew attention of this Court towards section 14 of the Act, which provides the provisions for recognition of institutions offering the course or training in teacher education. Section 14(1) provides that every institution offering or intending to offer the course or training in teacher eduction may for grant of recognition under this Act, make an application to the Regional Committee concerned. On receipt of application, if the Regional Committee is satisfied that such institution has adequate financial resources, accommodation, library, qualified staff, laboratory and that it fulfills such other conditions required for proper functioning of institution for a course or training in teacher education, as may be determined by regulation pass an order granting recognition to such institution subject to said conditions as may be determined by regulations or if, it is of the opinion that such institution does not fulfill the requirement laid down in sub clause (a) and pass an order refusing recognition to such institutions for reasons to be recorded in writing. Every order granting or refusing recognition to an institution for a Course of Training in Teacher Education shall be published in the Official Gazette and communicated in writing for appropriate action to such institution and to the concerned examining body or local authority or the State Government and the Central Government. S.14(6) Provides that every examining body shall, on receipt of order of recognition.
a. grant affiliation to the institution where recognition has been granted or b. cancelled the affiliation of the institution where recognition has been refused.
In the light of the aforesaid provisions the learned Senior Counsel submited that once the recognition is granted by the Regional Level Committee the examining body is bound to grant affiliation to the institution. Thus it is stated that once the recognition is granted by the Competent Authority, the State Government or the University has no jurisdiction to question about the infrastructure/accommodation or other conditions which are required to be fulfilled by the institution. It is stated by him that once the Regional Level committee has expressed its satisfaction over there and issued an order of recognition there is no room for another body to examine the same thing.
The petitioner has also challenged the Government Orders dated 18th January 2010, 24th December 2011 as well as Government 29th March 2012. The Government Order dated 18.01.2010 has provided the procedure as well as laid down some conditions for grant of No Objection Certificate. The Government Order dated 24.12.2011 has facilitated those private institutions who do not have own land in its name for establishment of Schools on the land leased out by the Government, semi Government Institutions and Development Authority/ Awas Vikas Parishad or any Government Authority.
The Government Order dated 29 March 2012 provides that for issuance of No Objection Certificate to the private institutions to run the two years BTC/ NTTE Courses, it is not necessary that either the land has been leased out to the institution or it is recorded in the revenue record in the name of institute. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Government Order dated 29 March 2012 is dehors the provisions of NCTE Act and the regulations framed under it. He further stated that the executive policy of the respondent is beyond the legislative competence, therefore, it is not sustainable.
In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner also cited some decisions referred as Under:
State of Maharashtra Vs. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya and others (2006) 9 SCC1.
"74. 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 co-ordinated development of teacher-education system in the country. It is neither open to the State Government nor to a University to consider the local conditions 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 overrule the decision of NCTE. The action of the State Government, therefore, was contrary to law and has rightly been set aside by the High Court."
"80. In our opinion, the observations that the provisions of Sections 82 and 83 of the Maharashtra University Act are "null and void" could not be said to be correct. To us, it appears that what the High Court wanted to convey was that the provisions of Sections 82 and 83 would not apply to an institution covered by 1993 Act. As per the scheme of the Act, once recognition has been granted by NCTE under Section 14(6) of the Act , every university ('examining body') is obliged to grant affiliation to such institution and sections 82 and 83 of the University Act do not apply to such cases."
St. Johns Teachers Training Institute Vs. Regional Director, National Council for Teacher Education and another (2003) 3 SCC 321:
"19. Regulation 6(ii) of these Regulations provides that the endorsement of the State Government/Union Territory Administration in regard to issue of NOC will be considered by the Regional Committee while taking a decision on the application for recognition. This provision shows that even if the NOC is not granted by the concerned State Government or Union Territory and the same is refused, the entire matter will be examined by the Regional Committee while taking a decision on the application for recognition. Therefore, the grant or refusal of a NOC by the State Government or Union Territory is not conclusive or binding and the views expressed by the State Government will be considered by the Regional Committee while taking the decision on the application for grant of recognition. In view of these new Regulations the challenge raised to the validity of Regulations 5(e) and (f) has been further whittled down. The role of the State Government is certainly important for supplying the requisite data which is essential for formation of opinion by the Regional Committee while taking a decision under Sub-section (3) of Section 14 of the Act. Therefore no exception can be taken to such a course of action."
East Coast Railway and another Vs. Mahadev Appa Rao and others 2010 7SCC 678 Committee of Management Ganga Prasad, Sewa Sansthan and another Vs. State of U.P. (2012) 6 ADJ 490.
In this case one Government Order dated 7th November 2006 laid down a requirement of 1000 square meter for establishment of institute conducting B.Ed. Course and imparting training to 100 institutions where NCTE Act provides a different criteria. Therefore, this Court held that refusal to grant of the College only on the basis of Government Order dated 7th November 2006 is absolutely illegal and irrational and the Government Order is in operable in respect of those institutions which fulfilled the building norms lays down by the NCTE.
Maa Vaishna Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya Vs. State of U.P. and others (2013) 2SCC 617.
59. "The above enunciated principles clearly show that the Council is the authority constituted under the Central Act with the responsibility of maintaining education of standards and judging upon the infra-structure and facilities available for imparting such professional education. Its opinion is of utmost importance and shall take precedence over the views of the State as well as that of the University. The concerned Department of the State and the affiliating University have a role to play but it is limited in its application. They cannot lay down any guideline or policy which would be in conflict with the Central statute or the standards laid down by the Central body. State can frame its policy for admission to such professional courses but such policy again has to be in conformity with the directives issued by the Central body. In the present cases, there is not much conflict on this issue, but it needs to be clarified that while the State grants its approval, and University its affiliation,for increased intake of seats or commencement of a new course/college, its directions should not offend and be repugnant to what has been laid down in the conditions for approval granted by the Central authority or Council. What is most important is that all these authorities have to work ad idem as they all have a common object to achieve i.e. of imparting of education properly and ensuring maintenance of proper standards of education, examination and infrastructure for betterment of educational system. Only if all these authorities work in a coordinated manner and with cooperation, will they be able to achieve the very object for which all these entities exist."
"69. Thus, grant of recognition or affiliation to an institute is a condition precedent to running of the courses by the Institute. If either of them is not granted to the institute, it would not be in a position to commence the relevant academic courses. There is a possibility of some conflict between a University Act or Ordinance relating to affiliation with the provisions of the Central Act. In such cases, the matter is squarely answered in the case of Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya (supra) where the Court stated that after coming into operation of the Central Act, the operation of the University Act would be deemed to have become unenforceable in case of technical colleges. It also observed that provision of the Universities Act regarding affiliation of technical colleges and conditions for grant of continuation of such affiliation by university would remain operative but the conditions that are prescribed by the university for grant and continuation of affiliation must be inconformity with the norms and guidelines prescribed by the NCTE."
"70. Under Section 14 and particularly in terms of Section 14(3)(a) of the Act, the NCTE is required to grant or refuse recognition to an institute. It has been empowered to impose such conditions as it may consider fit and proper keeping in view the legislative intent and object in mind. In terms of Section 14(6) of the Act, the examining body shall grant affiliation to the institute where recognition has been granted. In other words, granting recognition is the basic requirement for grant of affiliation. It cannot be said that affiliation is insignificant or a mere formality on the part of the examining body. It is the requirement of law that affiliation should be granted by the affiliating body in accordance with the prescribed procedure and upon proper application of mind. Recognition and affiliation are expressions of distinct meaning and consequences. In Bhartia Education Society V. State of H.P. This Court held that : (SCC P.534, prara 19) "19. The purpose of 'recognition' and 'affiliation' is different. In the context of the Act, 'affiliation' enables and permits an institution to send its students to participate in public examinations conducted by the examining body and secure the qualification in the nature of degrees, diploma and certificates. On the other hand, recognition is the licence to the institution to offer a course or training in teaching education.
The Court also emphasised that the affiliating body/examining body does not have any discretion to refuse affiliation with reference to any of the factors which have been considered by the NCTE while granting recognition."
"71. The examining body can impose conditions in relation to its own requirements. These aspects are
(a) eligibility of students for admission;
(b) conduct of examinations;
(c) the manner in which the prescribed courses should be completed; and
(d) to see that the conditions imposed by the NCTE are complied with.
Despite the fact that recognition itself covers the larger precepts of affiliation, still the affiliating body is not to grant affiliation automatically but must exercise its discretion fairly and transparently while ensuring that conditions of the law of the university and the functions of the affiliating body should be complementary to the recognition of NCTE and ought not to be in derogation thereto."
Mr. Sameer Kalia, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, submits that State Counsel of Educational Research and Training (SCERT) published notice dated 17.08.2012 inviting the applications from the recognized private institutions for the purpose of grant of affiliation for running a BTC/NTTE Courses. The applications were to be made to the concerned District Institute of Education and Training by 31st August 2012. The petitioner institution was granted recognition for the academic session 2013-14 by NCTE, by means of letter dated 29th 12.2012. The State Level Committee held a meeting on 19-21.03.2013 for the grant of affiliation for the academic session 2012-13, whereas the petitioner institute was granted recognition by NCTE for the academic session 2013-14. The petitioners institution was inspected, but it was found that the land is not recorded in the name of petitioner institution and the land leased out to it was sub-let by it to another institute which was found in violation of Government Order dated 18.01.2010, 24.12.2012 & 29.03.2013. The petitioner's institution was duly informed about the shortcomings found in the inspection made by the Examination Committee. The petitioner submitted reply which was considered, but it was found that petitioner had not cured the shortcomings found by the inspection Committee.
So far as the power of the State Government for issuance of Government Order is concerned it is stated by him that the State Government / examining Body has been empowered by the Council under the NCTE Act itself to ensure the compliance of the conditions laid down under the Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that the State Government by issuing the Government Orders impugned has exceeded its jurisdiction.
The learned counsel for the opposite party No. 5 Mr. Mukund Madhav Asthana, contended that earlier when petitioner institute had submitted an application for recognition of D.EI.Ed. (B.T.C.) Course on 23.09.2010 the name of applicant was shown as Institute of Literacy Development Land, was titled as "(lease land from the Government Body, Lucknow Development Authority)".
However, the Chairman of the Institute undertook before the Regional Director NCR, Jaipur to follow the paragraph 8(7)(i) of Regulations, 2009 which is recorded as under:
"We undertake here with on behalf of our College ans Society Management to shift the D.EI.ED. (B.T.C) Course of study after a year period 2012-13 to permanent place or be purchased through sale deed from the Society. Since our Society M/s. Institute of Literacy Development is managing both the Institutions College Central Woman's College of Education as well as Central Public School from its own resources. Therefore, this will be easier for the society to transfer the entire land building and related infrastructure to D.EI.Ed. (B.T.C.) Programme through sale deed vide Resolution No. 128 dated 03.12.2011."
He further drew attention of this Court towards the lease deed and submitted that para 3 of the lease deed indicates that lessee shall use the aforesaid disputed plot solely for the purpose of running the school and no other use of land shall be permissible, and the lessee shall have no right to sub divide/transfer the plot allotted to them. On the basis of the terms of lease the Additional Commissioner, Lucknow granted No Objection Certificate to run BTC/NTTE Courses, meanwhile the State Government issued an order dated 29th March 2012 to the effect that for running of BTC/NTTE Course by self-financing Institute the objection/ no objection certificate will be issued to those institutions which have leased from the Government Body or Institute and its name is recorded in the Revenue record. Since the petitioner institution does not fulfill the criteria laid down as above, the State Level Committee took a decision to ask it further to remove the deficiency and thus the State Level Committee has not committed error in taking such a decision.
The preamble of NCTE Act, 1993 speaks that it is an Act to provide for the establishment of National Council for Teacher Education 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 ( including qualification of schools teachers) and for matters connected therewith.
Section 2 (d) of the Act defines " examining body" as examining body means a University, agency or authority to which an institution is affiliated for conducting examinations in teacher education qualifications. Section 2 (e) defines " institution" as institution means an institution, which offers courses or raining in teacher education. Section 3 of the Act provides for establishment of the council by the Central Government which is called National Council for Teacher Education.
Section 12 of the Act speaks about functions of the Council. It speaks that it shall be the duty of the Council to take all steps as it may think fit for ensuring planned and coordinated development of teacher education and for the determination and maintenance of standards for teacher education and for the purposes of performing its functions under this Act. A number of steps have been enumerated for doing by the Council.
Section 14 provides provisions for recognition of institutions, who offer course or training in teacher education. Section 20 of the Act empowers the council to establish the Regional Committees to perform the function assigned to it by the Council.
Section 14 of the Act empowers the Regional Committee to accept the application from the Institution for grant of recognition and pass an order granting recognition to such institution, if it is satisfied that such institution has adequate financial resources, accommodation, library, qualifying staff,laboratory and such other conditions required for proper functioning of the institution for all courses or training in teacher education as may be determined by the Regulation. Pursuant to the decision of the Regional Committee for granting or refusing recognition to an institution for a course or training in teacher education examining body has been empowered to grant affiliation to the Institution where recognition has been granted or to cancel the affiliation of the institution where recognition has been refused.
In exercise of power provided under Section 32 (2) of the NCTE Act, 1993 the National Council for Teacher Education( recognition, norms and procedure) regulations 2009 have been framed. Clause 3 (3)of Appendix 2 of the Regulations,2009 provides the admission procedure and speaks that admission shall be made on merit on the basis of marks obtained in the qualifying examination and/ or in the entrance examination or any other selection process as per the policy of the State Government/ UT Administration.
Regulation 7 of the Regulations 2009 requires recommendation or comments on the application for grant of recognition by the State Government or Union Territory Administration which shall be taken into consideration by the Regional Committee concerned while disposing of the application. Letter of indent regarding decision for grant of recognition would be sent to the Institution and affiliated body with request that the process of appointment of qualified staff as per policy of the State Government or University Grant Commission or University may be initiated. It is also provided that the institution shall submit the list of faculty as approved by the affiliating body to the Regional Committee. In appointment of faculty the approval of the affiliating body has been made compulsory and only on such information received by the Regional Committee it shall issue a formal order of recognition.
Regulation 8 (7) ( clause 1) provides that no institution shall be granted recognition under these regulations unless the institutions or society sponsoring the institution is in possession of required land on the date of application. Clause (2) provides that the Society sponsoring the institution shall have to ensure that proposed teacher education institution has well demarcated the land area as specified by the norms. The teacher education institution shall not be allowed to have any other institution within its demarcated area or building and shall not have any other course (s) in its building.
Thus, it is evident that the State Government/ affiliating body plays an important role in the matter of grant of recognition.
In order to impart the teachers training course the NCTE has chosen the State Council of Educational Research and Training the State of U.P. Lucknow as its agent to accept the applications from the institutions offering the training courses on the format uploaded on the internet.
In the case of State of Maharasthra Vs. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya and others ( supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the State Government has no power to reject the prayer of an institution or to overrule the decision of NCTE and thus held that the action of the State Government, which was contrary to law, has rightly been set aside by the High Court.
Thus, it is apparent that the NCTE has supreme role to examine the availability of the infrastructure of the institution as well as to examine the qualification of the faculty to uplift and maintain the standard of teachers' education but it cannot be denied that the NCTE acts through the State Government which is affiliating body as even for grant of recognition to the institution , recommendation of the State agency has been made compulsory under the NCTE Act.
At this stage it is worth to mention the case of Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya Vs. State of U.P. and others (2013) 2 S.C.C. 617 in which the scope of grant of recognition and grant of affiliation by the examining body has been discussed in the following paragraphs;
69.Thus, grant of recognition or affiliation to an institute is a condition precedent to running of the courses by institute. If either of them is not granted to the institute, it would not be in a position to commence the relevant academic courses. There is a possibility of some conflict between a University Act or Ordinance relating to affiliation with the provisions of the Central Act. In such cases, the matter is squarely answered in Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shgastra Mahavidyalaya where the Court stated that after coming into operation of the Central Act, the operation of the University Act would be deemed to have become unenforceable in case of technical colleges. It also observed that provision of the Universities Act regarding affiliation of technical colleges and conditions for grant of continuation of such affiliation by the University would remain operative but the conditions that are prescribed by the University for grant and continuation of affiliation must be in conformity with the norms and guidelines prescribed by NCTE.
70.Under section 14 and particularly in terms of section 14(3)(a) of the Act, NCTE is required to grant or refuse recognition to an institute. It has been empowered to impose such conditions as it may consider fit and proper keeping in view the legislative intent and object in mind. In terms of Section 14 (6) of the Act, the examining body shall grant affiliation to the Institute where recognition has been granted. In other words, granting recognition is the basic requirement for grant of affiliation. It cannot be said that affiliation is insignificant or a mere formality on the part of the examining body. It is the requirement of law that affiliation should be granted by the affiliating body in accordance with the prescribed procedure and upon proper application of mind. Recognition and affiliation are expressions of the distinct meaning and consequences. In Bhartia Education Society Vs. State of H.P. (2011) 4 SCC 527 this Court held that "19. The purpose of '' recognition' and '' affiliation' is different. In the context of the NCTE Act, '' affiliation' enables and permits an institution to send its students to participate in public examinations conducted by the examining body and secure the qualification in the nature of degrees, diplomas and certificates. On the other hand, '' recognition' is the licence to the Institution to offer a course or training in teaching education."
In this case Hon'ble Supreme Court has referred one its another decision, I.e, Chairman Bhartia Education Society Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others (2011) 4 Supreme Court Cases 527. Paragraph 19 of this judgment is already quoted herein above as it is referred in the judgment of Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya ( supra).. However there are some more paragraphs, which are important in the reference of the present case. Those are quoted herein under:-
22." Sub-section (6) of section 14 no doubt mandates every examining body to grant affiliation to the institution on receipt of the order of NCTE granting recognition to such institution. This only means that recognition is a condition precedent for affiliation and that the examining body does not have any discretion to refuse affiliation with reference to any of the factors which have been considered by the NCTE while granting recognition. For example, NCTE is required to satisfy itself about the adequate financial resources, accommodation, library, qualified staff, and laboratory required for proper functioning of an institution for a course or training in teacher education. Therefore, when recognition is granted by NCTE, it is implied that NCTE has satisfied itself on those aspects. Consequently, the examining body may not refuse affiliation on the ground that the institution does not have adequate financial resources, accommodation, library, qualified staff, or laboratory required for proper functioning of the institution. But this does not mean that the examining body cannot require compliance with its own requirements in regard to eligibility of candidates for admissions to courses or manner of admission of students or other areas falling within the sphere of the State government and/or the examining body. Even the order of recognition dated 17.7.2000 issued by NCTE specifically contemplates the need for the institution to comply with and fulfill the requirement of the affiliating body and state government, in addition to the conditions of NCTE."
24." The examining body can therefore impose its own requirements in regard to eligibility of students for admission to a course in addition to those prescribed by NCTE. The state government and the examining body may also regulate the manner of admissions. As a consequence, if there is any irregularity in admissions or violation of the eligibility criteria prescribed by the examining body or any irregularity with reference to any of the matters regulated and governed by the examining body, the examining body may cancel the affiliation irrespective of the fact that the institution continues to enjoy the recognition of the NCTE. Sub-section (6) of section 14 cannot be interpreted in a manner so as to make the process of affiliation, an automatic rubber-stamping consequent upon recognition, without any kind of discretion in the examining body to examine whether the institution deserves affiliation or not, independent of the recognition. An institution requires the recognition of NCTE as well as affiliation with the examining body, before it can offer a course or training in teacher education or admit students to such course or training. Be that as it may. "
The institutions in question have been granted recognition for teacher training courses, subject to fulfillment of requirements as prescribed by the regulatory body like U.G.C., affiliating university/ body, the State Government.
In the case of Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court held that granting recognition is basic requirement for grant of affiliation. It cannot be said that affiliation is insignificant or a mere formality on the part of the examining body. It is the requirement of law that affiliation should be granted by the affiliating body in accordance with the prescribed procedure and upon proper application of mind. Hon'ble Supreme Court has also referred its another judgment, i.e, Chairman Bhartia Education Society ( supra) in which purpose of recognition and affiliation has been described.
In Paragraph 19 of the said judgment Honble Supreme Court has held that purpose of recognition and affiliation is different. In the context of NCTE Act affiliation enables and permits an institution to send its students to participate in public examinations conducted by the examining body and secure the qualification in the nature of degrees,diplomas and certificates. On the other hand the recognition is the licence to the institution to offer a course ore training in teaching education.
In paragraph 22 of Chairman Bhartia Education Society ( supra) it has further been held that the recognition is a condition precedent for affiliation and that the examining body does not have any discretion to refuse affiliation with reference to any of the factors which have been considered by the NCTE while granting recognition. But this does not mean that the examining body cannot require compliance with this own requirements in regard to eligibility of candidates for admissions to courses or manner of admission of students or other areas falling within the sphere of the State government or the examining body.
A bare perusal of the order impugned shows that the State Level Committee has taken a decision to intimate illegality in subletting the land to another institute which is not permissible under law.
Regulation 8(7) of the NCTE Regulations 2009 provides that 8(7)(1) provides that no institution shall be granted recognition under these regulations unless the institution or society sponsoring the institution is in possession of the required land on the date of application. The land free from all encumbrances could be either on ownership basis or on lease from Government or Government Institutions for a period of not less than 30 years.
Regulation 8(7)(ii) provides that the society sponsoring the Institution shall have to ensure that proposed teacher education institution has a well demarcated land area as specified by the norms. The teacher education institution shall not be allowed to have any other institution within its demarcated area or building and shall not have any other courses in its building.
Regulation 8(8) provides that the institution or society shall furnish an affidavit on Rs.100 stamp paper duty duly attested by Oath Commissioner or Notary Public stating the precise location of the land ( Khasra number, village, district, State etc.) the total area in possession and the permission of the Competent Authority to use the land for educational purposes and mode of possession i.e. ownership or lease.
Regulation 8(11) provides that in the case of change of premises, prior approval of the Regional Committee concerned shall be necessary, which could be accorded after due inspection of the institution at the new site.
Regulation 8(12) provides that the University or Examining Body shall grant affiliation only after issue of the formal recognition order under sub-regulation (11) of Regulation 7 of these Regulations. Further, admissions by the institution shall be made only after affiliation by the University or Affiliating body and as per the State policy.
A bare perusal of the impugned decision of the State Level committee shows that there is an objection of the State Level Committee that the petitioner's institute has been sublet the same very land which was leased out by the Land Development Authority, Lucknow, to the Central Public School without permission of the Competent Authority.
More over, the map of the petitioner institute is not sanctioned by the Competent Authority nor has Objection Certificate been issued by the Fire Extinguishing department . All these requirements are in consonance of the provisions of the NCTE, Regulations 2009 framed under NCTE Act, therefore, it cannot be said that the State Level Committee has taken the decision which is contrary to the provisions of the Act as well as the regulations framed thereunder.
The State Level committee examined the grant of affiliation to the petitioner-Institutions and found that title of the land in possession of the institution is also not registered in its name in the revenue records. The Lease Deed dated 11.10.2013 presented by the petitioner was also examined. For the purposes of ascertaining the requirement of land, Government Orders have been issued from time to time by the State Government, inter-alia, on 24.12.2011 and 29.03.2012 which are in consonance with the provision of the NCTE Act and Regulations framed thereunder:
In regard to availability of the land with the Petitioner-Institution, it has been submitted by leaned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, that the said land was initially granted on lease by the Lucknow Development Authority ('L.D.A.') to the Central Public School with certain conditions. Condition No.3 speaks that the aforesaid school's plot shall be used only for the purposes of running the school and no other use of the land shall be permissible. Further Condition No.7 of this lease deed provides that the lessee shall have no right to sub-divide/transfer the plot allotted to them. A perusal of the lease deed reveals that it was executed between the 'L.D.A.' and the Central Public School and not the society as is being claimed by the petitioner as such, firstly, the society sponsoring the institution has no right to transfer the land belonging to school to the Petitioner-Institution, secondly, sub-lease was even otherwise not permissible in view of the terms and conditions contained at Clause-7 of the Lease Deed dated 23.01.2002.
Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, submitted that during the course of proceedings in the instant writ petition, it came to light and notice of the opposite parties that other writ petitions had also been preferred before this Hon'ble Court, one of them is Writ Petition No. 527 (M/S) of 2014 with respect to grant of affiliation to the Petitioner-Institution for running B.Ed. course. Interestingly, another lease deed dated 07.03.3008 was relied upon by the Petitioner-Institution while claiming affiliation for the said purpose.
A perusal of the aforesaid lease deed dated 07.03.2008, reveals that the same was executed between the Central Public School through Institution of Literacy Development through its Secretary and Central Women College of Eduction. Now, it is apparent that for the same land, 03 lease deeds are in existence for three different courses alleged to be run by the same society and by all the three lease deed, the entire land is shown to have been transferred on lease as such. Moreover, as stated above, existence of three courses is prohibited on the same land available for teacher education.
It is further clear that the petitioner-Institution does not have the title of the land transferred in its name which was undertaken by it before the 'NCTE' prior to grant of recognition and is as such violative of Regulation 8(7)(i) to (iv) as well as violative of Government Orders issued for the purpose of considering grant of affiliation and it is also apparent that the Petitioner has played fraud upon the authorities while seeking recognition from the 'NCTE' and affiliation from the State Government /University.
In terms of the judicial pronouncements referred herein above, I am of the considered opinion that the State being affiliating body is empowered to satisfy itself regarding the fulfillment of the requirement for grant of affiliation. Therefore, it is incorrect to say, that through the decision impugned the State Government has exceeded it jurisdiction. Since the impugned decision of the State Level Committee is in consonance of the Act as well as the regulations framed therein, therefore this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter.
In the result the writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.May.2014 A.K. Singh.