IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.8460 of 2014 BETWEEN J.E.S. College of Education.
AND ... PETITIONER The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. M.V. RAJA RAAM Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION MR. K. RAMAKANTH REDDY The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Petitioner society questions the order of the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) dated 07.04.2011 withdrawing the recognition granted to the petitioner society vide order dated 08.04.2003 for B.Ed course.
2. The writ petition is filed three years after the order impugned on the ground that the petitioner did not receive the said order at any point of time and had no knowledge of such order and that the petitioner came to know of the order from the neighbouring institutions and secured a copy thereafter and filed the present writ petition.
3. The facts pleaded in the affidavit are that the petitioner society was accorded recognition by NCTE under its order dated 08.04.2003 to start B.Ed course for one year from the academic year 2002-2003 with annual intake of 100 students subject to fulfillment of conditions stipulated therein. The condition 3(c) of the said order is relevant, as the recognition of the petitioner has since been withdrawn on that ground. The said clause 3(c) is extracted hereunder:
“3 . Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers vested under Section 14(3)(a) of the NCTE Act, 1993, the Regional Committee hereby grants recognition to J.E.S. COLLEGE OF EDUCATION, VISAKHAPATNAM DT, ANDHRA PRADESH f or B.Ed Course of One year from the academic session 2002-2003 with an annual intake of 100 students subject to fulfillment of the following:
a) …
a) …
a) The institution shall shift to its own premises within three years from the date of recognition (In case the course is started in rented premises).
5. Petitioner states that the college was being run in rented premises for academic year 2002-2003 to 2005-2006 at D.No.40-6-10 at Prema Samajam Road, Daba Gardens, Visakhapatnam. Petitioner, further, states that since it was enable to run the college by mutual consent, it had handed over the college to St. Xavier’s Educational Society and requested the University authorities (1) to change the name of the college from JES College of Education to St. Xavier’s College of Education; (2) to change the name of the management from Jain Educational Society to St. Xavier’s Educational Society and (3) request to accord permission to shift the college from its old premises in Daba gardens to Chinamushidivada, Pendurthi, Visakhapatnam. Petitioner also states that the said intimation was also sent to NCTE and fee for recognizing the said change was also paid.
6. It is further stated that the Secretary of St. Xavier’s Educational Society addressed a letter to NCTE, Regional Office, requesting to permit to shift the premises of the college from old premises to new premises in the permanent building of St. Xavier’s Educational Society at Chinamushidivada, Pendurthi, Visakhapatnam and a fee of Rs.40,000/- was also paid to NCTE. A copy of the said letter dated 28.09.2006 is produced along with the writ petition, which refers to earlier request of 18.06.2006 of St. Xavier’s Educational Society requesting permission for shifting of the college in the building of the new management. Petitioner states that since the college was included in the counseling, the college continued to admit students and they continued to study in the new premises in the permanent building of St. Xavier’s Educational Society.
7. The affidavit, further, refers to the correspondence of St. Xavier’s Educational Society with the University authorities.
NCTE addressed a letter dated 21.12.2006 to the petitioner that the institution has not shifted to its own premises as per the inputs received from the institutions as well as the University and required the petitioner to show cause as to why recognition should not be withdrawn. Petitioner states that a reply was given on 30.12.2006 explaining the reasons in details and sought permission for change of management and also shifting of the college and requested to cause inspection. However, no reply is stated to have been received from NCTE but the petitioner received letter of the NCTE dated 07.04.2011 wherein it was stated that the matter was placed in the 178th meeting held on 13th – 14th July 2010 and the committee decided to issue show cause notice to the petitioner and as no reply was received from the petitioner, NCTE has withdrawn the recognition in its 201st meeting held on 22nd – 23rd February 2011. Petitioner states that since the impugned order was not communicated, it has obtained a copy and filed the present writ petition.
8. The writ petition is opposed by NCTE and various decisions of the Supreme Court including the latest decision in MAA VAISHNO DEVI
[1]
MAHILA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. STATE OF U.P. are relied upon by NCTE. It is stated that conditional recognition was granted to the petitioner in 2003. Thereafter, a letter dated 28.09.2006 was received with a request to accord permission for shifting of the premises of the college along with D.D. of Rs.40,000/-.
However, subsequent letter dated 31.08.2007 was also received seeking change of management as well as shifting of the college to the new building of the new management. Hence, as per the 178th meeting of NCTE it was decided to issue a show cause notice pointing out various deficiencies, which are listed under para 9 of the counter. Admtitedly, no reply was received by NCTE in response thereto; hence, recognition was withdrawn under the impugned order as per the decision taken in its 201st meeting. Counter affidavit states that the petitioner institution has changed the management, which is not permissible as per NCTE Regulations and the show cause notice mailed to the petitioner institutions on the address at which recognition is granted, invoked no response.
9. Mr. Ramakanth Reddy, learned standing counsel for NCTE, placed before this Court the Regulations framed by NCTE, which are titled as the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2009. So far as is relevant for this case, Regulation 8(11) is extracted hereunder:
“8. Conditions for grant of recognition.-
… (11) In 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. Application for change of premises, in triplicate, in the specified format along with other relevant documents shall be submitted by the institution to the Regional Office for prior approval of change of premises. The change can be permitted to a site which, if applied initially, could have qualified for establishment of an institution as per specified norms of National council for Teacher Education. The change shall be displayed on website thereafter. The application for change of premises shall be accompanied by a demand draft of Rs.40,000 (or as revised from time to time) of a Nationalised Bank drawn in favour of the Member Secretary, National Council for Teacher Education and payable at the city where the Regional Committee is located. The fee may also be paid online at the bank designated by National Council for Teacher Education.”
Similarly, even 2005 regulations of the NCTE also provide under Regulation 8(9) that in 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.
10. In view of the above regulations, learned standing counsel submits that the recognition granted to the petitioner by NCTE on 08.04.2003 itself was conditional that the college must shift to its own premises in three years whereas after three years the petitioner society handed over the college to a new management without obtaining permission from NCTE and by that time itself, three years period granted in the conditional recognition lapsed. The new management shifted the college to its premises and the change of location also was without approval of NCTE. Based on that, it is contended that the petitioner institution neither has recognition nor the change of management or change of location is approved by NCTE. Learned standing counsel also submits that since the orders of NCTE passed three years ago are questioned in the writ petition, petitioner is not entitled to any relief inasmuch as the petitioner, as such, has transferred the management to St. Xavier’s Educational Society, which is not a party to this writ petition.
11. The undisputed facts show that the petitioner was granted conditional recognition and the crucial condition is already extracted above in the opening paragraph. Petitioner has, admittedly, run the college as per the recognition for initial period of three years and thereafter, transferred the management to St. Xavier’s Educational Society and the later had shifted the college to its premises. As per the regulations of NCTE, extracted above, it was essential for the petitioner to obtain prior approval of NCTE before change of location, which, admittedly, was not secured. The letter dated 28.09.2006 seeking approval of change of management was evidently made by the transferee management society and not by the petitioner institution. Since the transferee management itself was not approved by NCTE, therefore, no action could have been taken on such request of transferee management. It is rightly pointed out by the learned standing counsel that St. Xavier’s Educational Society is not party to this writ petition and the petitioner, as such, has, admittedly ceased to manage the college.
12. In addition to the above, NCTE has, admittedly, sent a show cause notice to the petitioner on the address at which the petitioner college was functioning. It may be that the petitioner did not receive the same, as the college was shifted. However, that cannot be said to be a ground to question the impugned order passed by NCTE on the ground that it was passed without notice and opportunity to the petitioner. Apparently, having transferred the management and shifted the college, the petitioner was not prosecuting the proceedings before NCTE and it is only the transferee management, which was corresponding with NCTE and the University.
13. Keeping all these aspects in mind, it is evident that the petitioner has neither obtained approval for change of management nor has obtained prior approval authorizing it to shift the college from one location to another location. The withdrawal of recognition by NCTE, therefore, cannot be said to be without any basis and is, therefore, justified on facts as well as in law. Hence, I do find any ground to interfere with the impugned order, particularly, in view of the fact that neither the petitioner nor the new management has got recognition of NCTE since 08.04.2011. However, petitioner is at liberty to apply afresh before NCTE as and when notification is issued by NCTE seeking its recognition and as and when such an application is made, NCTE shall consider the same on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
Subject to the liberty above, the writ petition is dismissed.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J
December 19, 2014 DSK
[1] (2013) 2 SCC 617