This Writ Petition has been filed for quashing the impugned show cause notice sent through e-mail dated 27.02.2017, and consequently direct the respondent to conduct composite inspection of the petitioner college for B.Ed additional intake and M.Ed (Basic Course) for the academic year 2017- 2018.
2. The Petitioner institution, which is run by a Trust, is stated to be offering B.Ed course from 2007 onwards. The petitioner institution is covered by the new regulations brought out by the first respondent/National Council for Teacher Education(NCTE) from the academic year 2014 onwards. The instructions for submitting online application for grant of recognition or permission or additional intake or new teacher educational programmes was published by the first respondent/NCTE. The last clause of page number 2 of the instructions speaks about the eligibility of the institution to apply for permission for more courses by a single application. Therefore, the petitioner, as an existing educational institution applied for two courses, namely (i) seeking permission number to admit additional intake of 50 students in B.Ed course and permission to start Master of Education (M.Ed) course. The said application was made by the petitioner on 30.05.2016. After an inspection was made by the first respondent, a show cause notice was issued on 05.01.2017 stating that the petitioner cannot apply for two different courses namely, B.Ed – Al and M.Ed and called upon the petitioner to submit their reply. A reply was given on 11.01.2017 stating that the petitioner went by the instructions published by the first respondent and as per last clause of Page No.2 of the general instructions, the petitioner applied for two courses through a single application. However, inspite of aforesaid reply, another show cause notice was issued on 27.02.2017 stating that it is not possible, under the current instruction and practice to consider permission for two courses in a single application by the institution. The said order is being challenged before this Court.
3. Heard Mr.R.Kannan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Mr.J.Harikrishna, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent;Mr.V. Anandhamoorthy, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents 3 and 5 and Mr.U. Venkatesan, learned counsel for the fifth respondent.
4. It is evident from the records especially, the instructions for submitting online application published by the first respondent/NCTE that any institution/society could apply for two courses through one application. The relevant portion of the instructions is extracted as follows:-
“It may be noted if any prospective Society/Organization is opting for multiple Teacher Education Programmes/Courses either New Programmes or Additional Intake, the intending applicant can apply in the same application. The Applicant need not submit separate applications for the same institute. Provision for selecting New Programmes/Additional Intakes are available under “Part-2 Details of Programme(s) Applied For” in the online Application Module.”
5. When such a provision has been made in the instruction given by the first respondent, contrary to that, the first respondent cannot call upon the petitioner to submit two applications for two courses. When the author of the instructions, namely, the first respondent itself, is not respecting and acting upon it, the first respondent, which is supposed to be an expert body, cannot expect others to follow the same. If such an attitude is allowed to be exhibited by the first respondent, it will go against public policy and there would not be any rules and regulations and no one would follow the rules and regulations. Therefore, the first respondent should sensitize its officials about the rules and regulations prescribed by it. Therefore, the reasons given in the show cause notice is contrary to the instructions given by the first respondent and the same is not sustainable. Therefore, the impugned show cause notice dated 27.02.2017 is hereby quashed and the first respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's single application for two courses as per the instructions issued by the first respondent. Further, the first respondent is directed to make a composite inspection of the petitioner institution within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such inspection, the first respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders based on the inspection report within a period of two weeks thereof.
5. The first respondent is a nodal agency/expert body, which is responsible for fixing the standards and administration of Teacher Training Institutions including approval of the Teacher Training Institution/Colleges. The act of first respondent in not abiding by its own instructions has to be condemned and accordingly deprecated. For not acting according to its own instructions and having driven the petitioner to the Court, though heavy costs has to be imposed on the first respondent, this Court, taking a lenient view, is not imposing any cost.
6. Insofar as the relief sought by the petitioner is concerned, the writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. However, for dealing
N.KIRUBAKARAN.J,
asi/nv with the general issue raised by this Court, by order dated 10.03.2017, the writ petition is kept pending.
03.08.2017 asi/nv To
1. The Regional Director, Southern Regional Committee, National Council for Teacher Education, Jnanabarathy Campus Road, Opp to National Law School, Nagarabhavi, Bangaluru – 560 072.
2. The Director, National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi.
3. The Secretary, Higher Education Department, Fort St.George, Chennai.
4. Tamil Nadu Teacher Education University, Chennai.
5. The Director, Employment and Training, Alandur Road, Thiru-Vi-Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 32.
W.P.No.5784 of 2017 and W.M.P.Nos.6185 to 6187 of 2017