By way of filing the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 9th December 2011 passed by the first respondent vide which the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rejected and order dated 28th July 2011 passed by the second respondent has been confirmed.
2 The Petitioner is a Public Charitable Trust, which was granted recognition to start B.Ed. College with an intake capacity of 100 students. It is the case of the petitioner that as the premises in which B.Ed College was being run was a leased premises, the petitioner purchased the land bearing Survey No.84/2 admeasuring 1228.40 square meters, situate at Mouje Hadad, Taluka Danta, District Banaskantha It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner made an application to the second respondent on 11th April 2011 for granting the permission to shift the college to the new premises whereupon the premises of the petitioner have been inspected by the inspection team.
3 The Petitioner college was served a show cause notice by National Council for Teacher Education vide letter no. APW03113/323350/149/2011/78206 dated 19.05.2011, wherein eight deficiencies were pointed out to the petitioner college. The petitioner college was granted 30 days time to respond to the show cause notice before passing a withdrawal order.
4 It appears that petitioner submitted a detailed reply on 12.6.2011. However, in the meantime respondent NCTE passed an order on 28.7.2011 withdrawing the recognition granted to the petitioner. It also appears that petitioner college has admitted about 43 students in the B.Ed Course and therefore, according to the petitioner the withdrawal of recognition can take place only from the next Academic Year i.e. 2012-2013. The petitioner, therefore, filed Special Civil Application No.11899 of 2011 before this Court and during the pendency of the same, the petitioner has also filed statutory appeal before the first respondent. While the aforesaid writ petition was rejected by this Court vide order dated 7th October 2011, the appeal came to be rejected vide impugned order dated 9th December 2011.
5 In Adarsh Shiksha Mahavidyalaya And Others v. Subhash Rahangdale & Ors., (2012) 2 SCC 425 the Apex Court while deciding group of appeals has observed as under:
"7. We have prefaced disposal of these appeals, which are directed against interlocutory order dated 17.12.2008 and final order dated 13.03.2009 passed by the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No. 6146 of 2008 and connected matters by highlighting the need for well-equipped and trained teachers because in the last three decades private institutions engaged in conducting teacher training courses / programmes have indulged in brazen and bizarre exploitation of the aspirants for admission to teacher training courses and ranked commercialisation and the regulatory bodies constituted under the laws enacted by Parliament and State Legislatures have failed to stem the rot. The cases filed by these institutions, many of whom have not been granted recognition due to nonfulfilment of the conditions specified in the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (for short, 'the 1993 Act') and the Regulations framed thereunder and by the students who have taken admission in such institutions with the hope that at the end of the day they will be able to get favourable order by invoking sympathy of the Court, have choked the dockets of various High Courts and even this Court. The enormity of litigation in this field gives an impression that implementation of the provisions contained in the 1993 Act and the Regulations framed thereunder has been acutely deficient and the objects sought to be achieved by enacting the special legislation, namely, 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 have not been fulfilled so far.
9. With a view to achieve the object of planned and coordinated development for the teacher education system throughout the country and for regulation and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the teacher education system and for matters connected therewith, Parliament enacted the 1993 Act. The 1993 Act provides for the establishment of a Council to be called the National Council for Teacher Education (for short "the NCTE") with multifarious functions, powers and duties.
78. Learned counsel for the appellants did not seriously contest the position that the provisions contained in Sections 14(3) and 15(3) read with Regulation 7(2), (3),(4), (5) and (9) are mandatory and the Regional Committee cannot grant recognition unless it is satisfied that the applicant has fulfilled the mandatory conditions prescribed in the 1993 Act and the Regulations. They also did not dispute that in view of Section 16, examining body cannot grant affiliation, whether provisional or permanent to any institution or hold examination for the courses of training conducted by a recognized institution unless the institution concerned has obtained recognition under Section 14 or permission for a course or training under Section
79. What needs to be emphasised is that no recognition/permission can be granted to any institution desirous of conducting teacher training course unless the mandatory conditions enshrined in Sections 14(3) or 15(3) read with the relevant clauses of Regulations 7 and 8 are fulfilled and that in view of the negative mandate contained in Section 17A read with Regulation 8(10), no institution can admit any student unless it has obtained unconditional recognition from the Regional Committee and affiliation from the examining body.
87. As a sequel to the above discussion, we hold that the impugned orders do not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference by this Court. We also reiterate that:
(i) The Regional Committees established under Section 20 of the 1993 Act are duty bound to ensure that no private institution offering or intending to offer a course or training in teacher education is granted recognition unless it satisfies the conditions specified in Section 14(3)(a) of the 1993 Act and Regulations 7 and 8 of the Regulations. Likewise, no recognised institution intending to start any new course or training in teacher education shall be granted permission unless it satisfies the conditions specified in Section 15(3)(a) of the 1993 Act and the relevant Regulations.
(ii) The State Government / UT Administration, to whom a copy of the application made by an institution for grant of recognition is sent in terms of Regulation 7(2) of the Regulations, is under an obligation to make its recommendations within the time specified in Regulation 7(3) of the Regulations.
(iii) While granting recognition, the Regional Committees are required to give due weightage to the recommendations made by the State Government/UT Administration and keep in view the observations made by this Court in St.Johns Teachers Training Institute v. Regional Director, NCTE (2003) 3 SCC 321 and National Council for Teacher Education v. Shri Shyam Shiksha Prashikshan Sansthan, which have been extracted in the earlier part of this judgment.
(iv) The recognition granted by the Regional Committees under Section 14(3)(a) of the 1993 Act read with Regulations 7 and 8 of the Regulations and permission granted under Section 15(3)(a) read with the relevant Regulations shall operate prospectively, i.e., from the date of communication of the order of recognition or permission, as the case may be.
(v) The recognition can be refused by the Regional Committee under Section 14(3)(b), in the first instance, when an application for recognition is made by an institution. Likewise, permission can be refused under Section 15(3) (b).
(vi) If the recognition is refused under Section 14(3)(b) after affording reasonable opportunity to the applicant to make a written representation, the concerned (iv) The recognition granted by the Regional Committees under Section 14(3)(a) of the 1993 Act read with Regulations 7 and 8 of the Regulations and permission granted under Section 15(3)(a) read with the relevant Regulations shall operate prospectively, i.e., from the date of communication of the order of recognition or permission, as the case may be.
(v) The recognition can be refused by the Regional Committee under Section 14(3)(b), in the first instance, when an application for recognition is made by an institution. Likewise, permission can be refused under Section 15(3) (b).
(vi) If the recognition is refused under Section 14(3)(b) after affording reasonable opportunity to the applicant to make a written representation, the concerned institution is required to discontinue the course or training from the end of the academic session next following the date of receipt of the order.
(vii) Once the recognition is granted, the same can be withdrawn only under Section 17(1) if there is a contravention of the provisions of the Act or the Rules, or the Regulations, or orders made therein, or any condition subject to which recognition was granted under Section 14(3)(a) or permission was granted under Section 15(3)(a).
(viii) The withdrawal of recognition becomes effective from the end of the academic session next following the date of communication of the order of withdrawal.
(ix) Once the recognition is withdrawn under Section 17(1), the concerned institution is required to discontinue the course or training in teacher education and the examining body is obliged to cancel the affiliation. The effect of withdrawal of the recognition is that the qualification in teacher education obtained pursuant to the course or training undertaken at such institution is not to be treated as valid qualification for the purpose of employment under the Central Government, any State Government or University or in any educational body aided by the Central or the State Government.
(x) In view of the mandate of Section 16, no examining body, as defined in Section 2(d) of the 1993 Act, shall grant affiliation unless the applicant has obtained recognition from the Regional Committee under Section 14 or permission for starting a new course or training under Section 15.
(xi) While granting affiliation, the examining body shall be free to demand rigorous compliance of the conditions contained in the statute like the University Act or the State Education Board Act under which it was established or the guidelines / norms which may have been laid down by the concerned examining body.
(xii) No institution shall admit any student to a teacher training course or programme unless it has obtained recognition under Section 14 or permission under Section 15, as the case may be.
(xiii) While making admissions, every recognised institution is duty bound to strictly adhere to para 3.1 to 3.3 of the Norms and Standards for Secondary/Pre-School Teacher Education Programme contained in Appendix-1 to the Regulations.
(xiv) If any institution admits any student in violation of the Norms and Standards laid down by the NCTE, then the Regional Committee shall initiate action for withdrawal of the recognition of such institution and pass appropriate order after complying with the rules of natural justice.
(xv) The students admitted by unrecognised institution and institutions which are not affiliated to any examining body are not entitled to appear in the examination conducted by the examining body or any other authorised agency.
(xvi) The students admitted by the recognised institutions otherwise than through the entrance/eligibility test conducted in accordance with the admission procedure contained in para 3.3 of Appendix-1 of the Regulations are also not entitled to appear in the examination conducted by the examining body or any other authorised agency.
(xvii) The NCTE shall issue direction for mandatory inspection of recognised institutions on periodical basis and all the Regional Committees are duty bound to take action in accordance with those directions.
(xviii) In future, the High Courts shall not entertain prayer for interim relief by unrecognised institutions and the institutions which have not been granted affiliation by the examining body and/or the students admitted by such institutions for permission to appear in the examination or for declaration of the result of examination. This would also apply to the recognised institutions if they admit students otherwise than in accordance with the procedure contained in Appendix-1 of the Regulations."
5 In Special Civil Application No.3205 of 2009. a Division Bench of this Court has observed as under:
"27. All the defects to the extent clarified above, must be removed by all the institutions. We are clearly of the view that educational institutions and trusts running such institutions must confirm to the norms set by NCTE and such confirmation must be before recognition is granted. In peculiar facts of these cases, however, we propose to give one last chance to all the petitioners to remove all the defects. Some of the defects are such which can be cured within a short time. Some however, such as shifting of college in the building owned by the trust may take longer time. We would however, provide uniform time limit for curing all defects to all the institutions. Though we are conscious that some of the defects may take considerable time for curing, one cannot lose sight of the fact that during pendency of this petition all the petitioners have enjoyed extension of more than one year. Such defects in fact ought to have been removed even before recognitions were granted. However, considering large number of institutions are involved and that cancelling the recognitions would amount to leaving large number of employees jobless and wasting of infrastructure and other facilities in which the institutions have invested considerable funds, we are inclined to give some extension to all the petitioners.
28. We once again clarify that the view that we take in this judgment is in peculiar facts of the case. It is true that an educational institution before it can start a Self Finance college, must fulfill all the norms and standards laid down by the governing bodies such as NCTE. It is equally true that with respect to the norms and in particular with those which have a direct bearing on the standard of education, there should be no compromise made. Facts of the present group of petitions are extremely peculiar. In all cases NCTE itself has granted recognition for starting Self Finance B.Ed./PTC/M.Ed. college. Such colleges had been running for several years in some cases since year 2001-2002. Many years thereafter, on the premise that such recognitions were granted without full verification of fulfillment of infrastructural and other norms, the Committees were formed for physical verification of such institutions. On the basis of reports of such Committees, after issuance of show cause notices, recognitions were cancelled. Appeals were also dismissed. These educational institutions approached this Court and have been enjoying interim protection since previous academic year. They have also been permitted to run their courses and admit students. One full academic year has passed while this Court has been hearing the petitions. Next academic year was about to begin. Further orders have been passed permitting these institutions to admit students for the coming year. The admissions granted to the students would therefore, have to be regulated. Even other-wise abruptly withdrawing the recognition of these institutions would result into teaching and non-teaching staff being rendered jobless. After giving guidelines, it would be necessary that NCTE should verify with respect to each educational institution whether the requirements as interpreted here-in-above are fulfilled or not. Thus this would consume considerable time. Considering all these aspects of the matter, we are of the opinion that some reasonable time may be permitted to all the institutions to fulfill all the requirements and norms laid down in statute to run their educational institutions. If they do so within the time so permitted, NCTE shall not disturb recognitions previously granted.
29. Under the circumstances, these petitions as well as Civil Applications are disposed of with following directions :
i) All the petitioners shall remove all the defects and confirm to all the norms of NCTE as applicable to the concerned institution as interpreted and explained here-in-above for which the petitioners shall have time upto 31.12.2010.
ii) Institutions after curing all the defects not later than by 7.1.2011, shall intimate to the NCTE that defects have been cured and invite the inspection team to carry out inspection.
For the above purpose, the concerned institution shall along with its communication to NCTE attach a draft of Rs. 10,000/- in favor of NCTE for one time cost of such inspection If any institution fails to send such a communication within the time permitted, its recognition shall automatically stand withdrawn without requirement of passing any order. Though students already admitted shall not be affected by such withdrawal, the institution will not be permitted to admit any students in the next academic year.
iii) Upon receipt of such a communication, NCTE shall depute a team of qualified persons to visit the institutions, verify the infrastructure and other facilities available as also inspect the documents with respect to such facilities.
iv) Upon inspection, if NCTE finds that all defects are cured, certificate to that effect shall be given to the concerned institution and its recognition shall be continued.
v) If upon inspection however, NCTE finds any of the defects still remaining, it will be open for NCTE to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after issuing show cause notice to the concerned institution/trust.
vi) In view of above directions, all the orders cancelling recognition of the institutions are set aside. It is clarified that quashing of orders passed by the NCTE is not on merits, but only to enable the institutions to fulfill all the requirements within the extended time."
6. Mr Navin Pahwa, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the new building has been constructed and the petitioner is meeting with all the requirements. In view of the aforesaid submissions and in view of the aforesaid observations made by this Court as well as the Apex Court, the ends of justice will be met if the following directions are issued :
Rule returnable on 28th August 2012.
The petitioner will deposit Rs.10,000 within one week from today and upon depositing the same, the Council to cause inspection of the site of the institution as prescribed under Rule 8 to find out whether the petitioner institution is functioning in according with the provisions of the Act and the Rules. The Council, upon completion of the inspection, shall submit the report before the returnable date.
Direct Service is permitted today.
(K.S.Jhaveri, J.) *mohd Top