Maharishi Dayanand University Vs. M.L.R.Saraswati College of Education  INSC 478 (13 September 2000)
JAGANNADHA RAO J. & DORAISWAMY RAJU J.M.JAGANNADHA RAO,J.
This appeal has been preferred by the Maharishi Dayanand University against the
judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court dated 16.8.99 in CWP No.9452 of
1999 allowing the writ petition filed by the 1st respondent College. The said
College is a B.Ed. College affiliated to the appellant University.
point in issue in this appeal is as to whether the 1st respondent College is
right in adding to the Faculty, eight ad hoc Lecturers w.e.f. 1.5.99 recruited
by a selection Committee not consisting of the representatives of the
University and of the Director of Higher Education and whether the College
could claim, on that basis, admission of 80 additional students.
following are the facts:
NCTE is a statutory body established under the National Council of Teacher Education
Act, 1993. As per the general instructions issued by NCTE on 1.5.97, in regard
to B.Ed. Colleges, the student-teacher ratio ought to be 1:10.
1st respondent College admitted 60 students after recruiting 6 members in its
faculty as regular Lecturers.
six lecturers were selected in accordance with the procedure required. Later
on, the NCTE allowed, in its general instructions, the Principal/Physical
Instructor of the College to be treated as a faculty member. On account of this
directive, ten more students could be admitted. In view of the above, the authorised
number of admissions of the respondent College stood at 70 students.
respondent College wanted to increase the number of its students but this
required appointment of more lecturers. It then approached the High Court of
Punjab & Haryana in CWp 16061/98 to permit intake of students upto 200
contending that the NCTE could not require it to obtain 'No Objection
Certificates' from the State Government or the admission agency. In the said
writ petition, the College did not implead the University or the State of Haryana. The High Court, by an order dated
5.11.98, directed NCTE to treat the said CWP as a representation and to
consider the questions relating to dispensing with the requirement of NOC.
earlier, on 13.6.97, the NCTE wrote to the State Government seeking its views
on ad hoc appointments. It felt that some times, Lecturers posts fell vacant in
some Colleges and it became necessary for making adhoc appointments to fill up
those vacancies. It, therefore, sought the views of the Haryana State. There is no evidence as to the response of the State or of
the University for this proposal. But, the respondent-College appears to have
gone ahead on the assumption that the above proposal had been accepted by the
State and the University.
appears to be some correspondence between the College and NCTE, particularly a
letter dated 20.4.99 of the NCTE, Regional Director, Jaipur to the College on
the subject of 'adhoc lecturer's appointment' and we only have a reply by the
College to the said officer of NCTE, quoting the said letter and stating that
interviews will take place on 1.5.99 for 'adhoc' appointments of Lecturers. On
the assumption that the letter dated 13.6.97 of the NCTE, which contained only
proposals, implied permission for extra adhoc appointments, the College appears
to have unilaterally selected 10 lecturers on an 'adhoc basis' on 1.5.99.
the representative of the University nor the representative of the Director of
Higher Education were present at the said selection on 1.5.99. The proceedings
of the Selection Committee show only the presence of Mr. Ram Kishan Gupta, Ex.
MP, the Principal of the College, 2 Members nominated by the Governing body,
and one nominee by the Principal. No representative of the University or of the
Director of Higher Education were called or were present. The College sent up
the list of lecturers to the NCTE, including those selected on an adhoc basis
College took advantage of the order of the High Court dated 5.11.98 that the
NCTE should consider the request of the College. As already stated, the
University was not a party to that Writ petition.
rather surprising that the NCTE, though it had earlier insisted in its letter
dated 13.6.97 (referred to in the order of the High Court dated 5.11.98) that
the NOC from the State and University were necessary, it permitted 80 more
students on the basis of the additional 8 ad hoc lecturers selection.
NCTE wrote to the appellant University on 11.6.99, giving a list of the
Colleges and the number of seats approved. The respondent College was at serial
No.10 and the number of seats permitted was shown as 150 rather than 70, thus
permitting 80 more students proportionate to the eight adhoc lecturers
University was taken by surprise and its Dean immediately wrote to NCTE on
25.6.99 that it (the University) was religiously following the guidelines of
the NCTE earlier issued (i.e. on 1.5.97) and that additional seats could not
have been permitted by NCTE "without reference to the University". On
30.7.99 the NCTE sent the list of teachers as given by the College to the
said list included the 10 additional adhoc lecturers recruited on 1.5.99. By
another letter dated 30.7.99, the NCTE informed the University that the
permission for additional students was on the basis of the list of ad hoc
lecturers sent up by the College.
on 6.7.99, the College wrote to the University that the NCTE had 'sanctioned'
150 students (70 plus extra 80) for the B.Ed. course for the 1999- 2000
session. The College requested the University to permit admission of 150
students. The University felt that this was not permissible according to its
statutes/rules because the student strength could not be increased on account
of addition of adhoc lecturers. It did not therefore grant permission for the
extra 80 students.
University stood as an obstacle, the College approached the High Court by way
of a fresh Writ petition, CWP 9452/99. This time it impleaded the University
alone as respondent and not the NCTE. The High Court allowed the writ petition
under the impugned judgment dated 16.8.99.
High Court gave various directions. It was fully conscious that the additional
lecturers were appointed by the College outside the prescribed procedure and
contrary to clause 9 of the University Statutes. At the same time, the High
Court stated that once the NCTE had exercised powers under sections 14, 15 of
the NCTE Act, 1993 and issued orders on 16.8.99 sanctioning 150 students to the
respondent College "there was no justification in the action of the
University in reducing the intake capacity of the College".
therefore issued a direction to the University that it must permit admission of
extra 80 students and not merely for 70 students for the year 1999-2000 and
these extra 80 seats should be allotted within one week subject however to the
condition that the University could satisfy itself if the 10 adhoc teachers had
the required qualification. It was stated:
appointment will not be questioned solely on the ground that those were made
without approach of the University in terms of clause 9 of the statutes of the
University." The High Court also directed the College to make regular
recruitment of Lecturers on or before 31.12.99. The adhoc appointees would also
be entitled to compete for regular selection.
against the judgment that the University had filed this appeal by special
this appeal, we have heard the submission of Mr.
Gupta for the appellant-University and of Mrs.
Aggarwal for the 1st respondent College.
following points arise for consideration:
Whether the proposal contained in the letter of NCTE dated 13.6.97 to the State
Government to permit adhoc appointments of Lecturers without following due
procedure, remained only a proposal or was accepted by the State of Haryana or the appellant-University? (2)
Whether the College could have selected 10 additional Lecturers, 'adhoc', without
the participation of a representative of the University and of the Director of
Higher Education, on 1.5.99? (3) Whether the University could be directed by
the High Court to sanction admission of the extra 80 students on the basis of
the letter of the NCTE? (4) Whether the University could be faulted for not
releasing the results of the examination of these extra 80 students? Whether,
results should be directed to be released? Point 1:
was placed for the College on the letter of the NCTE to the Government dated
13.6.97 wherein it was stated that the procedure for selection of Lecturers was
taking time and proposing adhoc appointments to be made till regular staff was
selected. But, as pointed out earlier, this remained only a proposal. There is no
material to say that any such proposal was accepted by the State or the
appellant-University. The assumption of the College that the letter permitted
ad hoc appointments outside the prescribed procedure, cannot be accepted. Point
1 is decided accordingly.
2 and 3:- According to the 'Norms and Standards for Teacher Education
Institutions Secondary', it is clearly stated in para 2.5:
core teaching staff shall be appointed on full time and regular basis.
academic administrative and technical staff may be appointed on part- time
basis in the beginning. In all cases properly constituted selection Committees
as per UGC/University/Government rules will select the candidates." In para
3.1.0 the UGC notification regarding standards, 1990, it is stated:
direct recruitment to the post of Lecturers, ...... in the Universities and
Colleges shall be made on the basis of merit through all India advertisement and selections by the
duly constituted Selection Committees to be set up under the Statutes/Ordinances
of the concerned University. Such Committees should have a minimum of three
experts, the head of the concerned department and the Principal of the
concerned College (in case of selection of College teachers)." The guideline
3.3.0 also speak of the qualification and minimum requirement of 55%. Para 4.4.1 deals with qualification of Lecturers
including Lecturers in Education.
appellant University has also prescribed qualifications for the posts of
Lecturers in Colleges/Universities. Para
2 deals with lecturers in College of Education.
procedure for appointment of Lecturers appears to be contained in para 9 of the
University Statute as appears from the judgment under appeal.
appellant University had, in fact, issued directions to all Principals of
Colleges on 24.3.99 that vacancies should be duly advertised in two National
Dailies/Newspapers (one in English & one in Hindi) of which one must have
national circulation and other, a regional circulation. The applicants for the
post were to send application to the College with copy to the Dean, College
Development Council, M.D.University, Rohtak. The Committee would consist of
nominee of University/Vice-Chancellor.
must be sanction from the department of Higher Education, Haryana and para 4
date of interview should be fixed after consultation with the
University/Vice-Chancellor's nominee." and para 6 says that:
proceedings of the Selection Committee may be sent to the University
immediately after the interview." Para
no case, appointment letter be issued to the candidates thus selected unless
the proceedings of the Selection Committee are approved by the
University/DHE." Para 9 states that:
sought for appointment have to be accompanied also by the sanction of the
Director of Higher Education, Haryana." In the light of the above
procedure prescribed, the selection dated 1.5.99 must be held to be bad.
also clear to us from the proceedings of the Selection Committee dated 1.5.99
(p.18/n of the Paper Book) that only the Chairman, Principal, two nominees of
the Governing Body and one nominee of the Principal were present at the
selection on 1.5.99. Admittedly, no request was even sought from the University
to send its representative to be on the Selection Committee. The prescribed proforma,
in fact, required presence of the nominee of the University and also a nominee
of the Director of Higher Education and no such nominees were present on
1.5.99. It is not also the case of the College that any advertisement was
published for this interview of 1.5.99 in two newspapers as required. At any
rate, no such material has been filed. Nor were the Committee proceedings and
list of candidates sent to the University after the selection was over, as
fact, the College filed the first WP 16061/98 against NCTE, obtained the first
order on 5.11.98 from the High Court to the NCTE to consider its
representation. In that writ petition the University was not impleaded. In the
present writ petition, it impleaded the University but not the NCTE.
the selection dated 1.5.99 was made - without following procedure - it wrote
directly to the NCTE for permission to increase its strength and ignored the
University altogether. The NCTE, on the basis of the addition of adhoc
lecturers, sanctioned 80 seats extra and sent its decision to the University on
11.6.99. It was only then that the University came to know about the fait
accompli and wrote on 25.6.99 to the NCTE and on 31.8.99 to the College that
the whole selection was contrary to the prescribed procedure.
fact, there is also clear documentary evidence to show that the Principal was pressurised
to collect extra amounts of fees from the students by management, that the
students protested, that the Principal informed higher authorities and for that
reason, she was removed. She went to Court and succeeded in a writ petition and
re-joined the College on 2.9.99.
the University did not grant permission for the admission of the additional 80
students (over and above the sanction number of 70 students), the
respondent-College, which had no choice, tried to get over the problem by
filing a writ petition. The High Court passed the impugned judgment on 16.8.89
directing the University to grant approval for admission of 80 students.
High Court, in our view, was in error in allowing increase in the admission of
80 students by assuming that the adhoc selection of teachers dated 1.5.99 was
sufficient to permit increase into students. The selection of these adhoc Lecturers
- addition to the existing regular staff - was done, without proper
advertisement, without the candidates sending copies of application to the
University, and without the participation of the nominees of the University and
the Director of Higher Education. No list of such selected staff was sent by
the College to the University as required. If we may say so, it was a selection
in total violation of the procedure. The University was kept in dark till after
permission was obtained from the NCTE for admission of extra 80 students.
College reversed the entire process by first going to the NCTE and then to the
University. The selection of the adhoc lecturers in our view cannot enable the
College to compel the University to permit admission of these 80 students.
NCTE is not before us, we are constrained to observe that the NCTE ought to
have verified from the University whether the University had received
applications of the candidates who had applied for selection on 1.5.99, whether
a date for interviews was fixed in consultation with the University and whether
the nominee of the University or the DHE participated in the selection and
whether the College had informed the University after the selection.
from this the question regarding the satisfaction of the other infrastructural
facilities also appears to have eluded the attention of the NCTE. The NCTE
allowed itself to be misled by the College.
are, therefore, clearly of the view that the selection of adhoc teachers on
1.5.99 was illegal and the College could not seek extra students on basis of
extra adhoc teachers and without satisfying the norms relating to the other
infrastructural facilities too. The High Court's direction is, contrary to the
guidelines of the NCTE, procedure in clause 9 of the University Statute. Points
2 and 3 are decided accordingly.
the pendency of this appeal, the College has sought release of the result of
examination of these 80 students. We are conscious that the students who have
undergone this course are not before us.
Court has laid down in several cases, that the Courts cannot issue directions
contrary to the rules.
1992 SC 1926), while dealing with certain directions issued by the Bombay High
Court, this Court observed:
directions to the appellants to disobey the law in subversive of the rule of
law, a breeding ground for corruption and feeding source for indiscipline. The
High Court, therefore, committed manifest error in law, in exercising its
prerogative power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution, directing
the appellants to permit the students to appear for the examination etc."
SC 595), this Court observed:
High Court or Supreme Court cannot be generous or liberal in issuing such
directions which in substance amount to directing the authorities concerned to
violate their own statutory rules and regulations, in respect of admissions of
students. ....The High Court cannot disturb the balance between the capacity of
the institutions and number of admissions, on 'compassionate ground'.
High Court should be conscious of the fact that in this process they are
affecting the education of the students.....".
often, as pointed in the above judgments, Colleges or schools which violate the
rules, either plead for the students or set up the students to file cases in
the Courts in the belief that the courts can be persuaded to grant orders to
jump over the rules. This tendency has been on the increase. Commercialisation
of education is the reason.
Court has been insisting on discipline and obedience to rules. Where even the
High Courts have been granting orders in favour of the institutions/students,
this Court has been setting aside those orders.
question is whether, on the facts of this case, the results of the examination
can be directed to be released? In the normal course, the answer could only be
that the results cannot be allowed to be released. But there are, in our
opinion, two circumstances which cannot, however, be disregarded. One is that
there was an order of the NCTE - though, as stated above, the NCTE was not
right in giving permission - permitting additional students. Unfortunately, the
NCTE is not a party before us and therefore we are not able to set aside its
orders. Secondly, these extra 80 students have completed the two year course,
and paid the examination fee. The University which is the appellant before us
has accepted the fee from these students and allowed them to take the
examination. Question is whether, in such circumstances, we should permit the
University not to release the results? Though this Court has, almost uniformly
been refusing to show any concession in favour of students or the institutions,
we have felt in the peculiar facts of the case and in view of the circumstances
mentioned above, the results could be directed to be released.
point out that by an order passed on 16.8.2000 this Court restrained the
College from making any extra admission for the year 2000-2001. Counsel invited
our attention to the various subsequent proceedings of the Selection Committee
for regular selection of lecturers. We do not want to go into the said
selection. Learned counsel for the University argued that even the latter
regular selection dated 23.4.2000 was made by the College in haste, without
giving adequate time to the University to send its representative and that the
College sent a letter to the University on 8.4.2000 deliberately fixing
10.4.2000 as the date of selection and that it conveniently went ahead with the
selection without a nominee from the University on the selection Committee. We
do not want to go into the validity of this latter selection.
however direct the College not to admit any extra students beyond 70 unless
there is a proper regular selection of lecturers by a Committee in which the
nominee of the University and of the DHE are present and unless the University
also approves such appointments and grants permission, of course after
verifying about the other infrastructural facilities required to justify any further
increase of the student strength.
as the 80 students of 1999-2000 are concerned, in view of the above
circumstances referred to above, we direct the University that their results be
time that the courts evolve a mechanism for awarding damages to the students
whose careers are seriously jeopardised by unscrupulous management of
colleges/schools which indulge in violation of all rules. This is not the
occasion to go deep into that aspect but one day it has to be done.
these remarks, we allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court,
direct result of the examination in B.Ed. to be released, we restrain the
College from admitting the extra students beyond 70 unless regular selection of
lecturers is made in accordance with prescribed procedure and accepted by the
University and unless the University permits extra students to be admitted. The
Appeal is disposed of accoridngly. No costs.