1. Heard learned advocate Mr. H.J. Nanavati appearing for the petitioner and Mrs.V.D.Nanavati appearing for respondent University. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 NCTE is not present.
2. The petitioner has come forward with grievance that though the staff profile submitted by the petitioner is approved by the respondent University, NCTE is not granting recognition only on the ground or objection that the University has granted approval on ad hoc basis.
3. Learned advocate Mr.Nanavati for the petitioner has submitted that since the first day, entire set up and other subsequent actions including the management of the college depends on the recognition by NCTE. He submitted that in almost all cases, the staff is appointed at initial stage for a period of one year during which the formalities of approval, recognition and evaluation is completed. He also submitted that in view of such facts and circumstances, the University, as a practice, approves the staff profile on ad hoc basis and conveys the approval to NCTE accordingly. Learned advocate Mr.Nanavati also alleged that despite the said practice prevailing in all institute and despite the fact that in all other cases, the said practice is accepted by NCTE and necessary consequential orders including recognition is granted by NCTE, only in the case of present petitioner, the said practice is not accepted by the respondent NCTE and recognition is not granted. In such background of facts and for said reason, the petitioner has preferred present petition and prayed for below mentioned reliefs:
"6(B) Quash and set aside the impugned order dated 15.2.2012 passed by respondent No.1 NCTE (Annexure G) as being arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 30 of the Constitution of India.
6(C) Declare that, having regard to the fact that the Petitioner has fulfilled and complied with all the requirements as per NCTE norms for grant of recognition to start B.Ed. College, the impugned order dated 15.2.2012 passed by respondent NCTE (Annexure G) refusing to grant recognition to the Petitioner for starting B.Ed. College is bad and arbitrary, inasmuch as it is not within the competence of the Petitioner to get the staff list approved by respondent no.2 affiliating University on permanent basis as it is the discretionary power and/or Policy of the respondent no.2 University to approve staff profile on ad-hoc basis for one year.
7(D) Direct the respondent No.2 Gujarat University to grant permanent approval for the staff list submitted by the Petitioner for the proposed B.Ed. College keeping in mind the norms of respondent NCTE, and further be pleased to direct the respondent NCTE to reconsider its decision with regard to grant of recognition to the Petitioner for starting B.Ed. College from the Academic Year 2012-13, on such terms and conditions as may be thought fit by this Hon'ble Court."
4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the difficulty which the petitioner institute is facing since last one year, it is considered appropriate to pass below mentioned order so that in next academic year also the petitioner college may not suffer unnecessary hardships.
4.1. Respondent no.1 NCTE shall take up the case of present petitioner for re-consideration and place the case of petitioner before the approval committee, in turn, the approval committee shall reconsider the case of the petitioner for the purpose of granting recognition. If all other things are found in order then merely on the ground that the University has approved the staff profile only on ad-hoc basis, the approval committee/NCTE shall not decline to reconsider the case of the petitioner and after examining the entire record, respondent no.1 NCTE, upon being satisfied, grant tentative recognition which shall not create any right or equity of any nature whatsoever in favour of the petitioner much less to claim on the basis of such tentative affirmation for permanent and regular recognition. The decision which shall be taken by the approval committee/NCTE will be conveyed to the petitioner and respondent no.2 university. If, upon being satisfied in light of other documents and details NCTE/approval committee decides to grant tentative recognition in favour of the petitioner, then subsequent steps including the step to allotment of students to the petitioner college may be taken. The petitioner college and respondent no.2 University shall while granting admission to the students clarify, in writing that the recognition and affiliation to the petitioner college are tentative and subject to final decision by NCTE after appropriate examination of relevant records. The approval committee/NCTE shall take necessary and appropriate decision in accordance with applicable rules and also by taking into account present order in focus, on or before 31/05/2012 and convey the same accordingly.
5. With the aforesaid clarifications and observations, present petition stands disposed of.
6. It is clarified that if the decision taken by NCTE/approval committee is not in favour of the petitioner or if the petitioner feels aggrieved in any manner by the decision of the approval committee or respondent University or NCTE, it will be open to the petitioner to take out appropriate fresh proceedings before appropriate forum if considered necessary or if so advised.
(K.M.THAKER, J.) (ila) Top