Shri Morvi Sarvajanik
Kelavni Mandal Sanchalit Mskm B.Ed. College Vs. National Council For Teachers'
Education & Ors.
[Civil Appeal
No.11215 of 2011 Arising out of SLP (C) No.28473 of 2011]
Shri Yogananda
Education and Charitable Trust Vs. National Council For Teachers' Education
& Ors.
[ Appeal No.11216 of
2011 Arising out of SLP (C) No.28528 of 2011]
J U D G M E N T
T.S. THAKUR, J.
1.
Leave
granted.
2.
These
appeals arise out of an order dated 7th October, 2011 passed by the High Court
of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, whereby Special Civil Application No.9485 of 2011 has
been dismissed and order dated 20th July, 2011 as modified by order dated 24th August,
2011 issued by the Western Regional Committee under Section 17 of the National Council
of Teachers' Education (for short `NCTE') Act, 1993 withdrawing the recognition
of the B.Ed. College established by the appellant upheld.
3.
The
appellant-Trust has established a college under the name and style Shri Morvi Sarvajanik
Kelavni Mandal Sanchalit MSKM B.Ed. College, Rajkot. The college had the benefit
of recognition granted in its favour in terms of an order dated 29th May, 2007
under Section 14 (3)(a) of the NCTE Act for offering a B.Ed. with an annual
intake of 100 students. Shortly after the grant of the said recognition, the NCTE
issued a notice dated 27th July, 2008 to the appellant to show cause why the
recognition should not be withdrawn in terms of Section 17 of the Act in view
of the deficiencies pointed out in the notice like inadequacy of built-up area available
to the institution, the land underlying the structure not being in the name of
the appellant-Trust and the college being run in a building that is used by two
other institutions.
4.
The
recognition was finally withdrawn by the NCTE on 29th November, 2008 primarily because
the appellant had failed to respond to the show cause notice within the period stipulated
for the purpose. The withdrawal order was, however, successfully challenged
before the High Court by the appellant with the High Court issuing certain
directions including a direction to the appellant-college to remove the defects
pointed out by the NCTE and to offer the institution for a fresh inspection by the
NCTE. The High Court also directed that while admissions for the current year
shall not be affected by the withdrawal of recognition, in the event of 3 non-compliance
with the requirements of the Regulations, the institution shall not be
permitted to admit any student for the next year. The NCTE was given liberty to
have a fresh inspection conducted and pass appropriate orders in accordance
with law after issuing a notice to the institution.
5.
In
compliance with the directions of the High Court, the appellant by its letter dated
20th December, 2010 intimated to the NCTE that the deficiencies in question had
been removed and invited the NCTE to depute a team for a fresh inspection of the
college. An inspection was accordingly conducted that culminated in the issue of
a fresh notice to the appellant again pointing out several deficiencies in the
institution including inadequacy of space, staff and the fact that the college had
no land in its own name and that the institution was being run in a building which
was being used by two other colleges.
The appellant appears
to have sent a reply to the said show-cause notice but before a final decision
could be taken on the same, the appellant filed Special Civil Appeal No.6507 of
2011 before the High Court for a mandamus to the University to allot students to
the appellant-college. By an order dated 14th June, 2011, the High Court
directed the University to allot the students to the appellant-college for the academic
session 2011-2012.
In the meantime, the Western
Regional Committee issued an order on 20th July, 2011 withdrawing the recognition
granted to the appellant-college in exercise of its powers under Section 17 of
NCTE Act. The order contained as many as nine different grounds for the said withdrawal.
Aggrieved, the appellant filed Special Civil Application No.9485 of 2011 before
the High Court, inter alia, contending that the withdrawal of recognition was on
grounds that went beyond the show-cause notice issued to the institution. It
was also contended that pursuant to the directions of the High Court the University
had allotted 60 students to the college who were on its rolls and whose future was
likely to be adversely affected by the withdrawal order.
6.
While
the writ petition filed by the appellant was still pending, Western Regional Committee
issued a modified withdrawal order dated 24th August, 2011 relying upon the visiting
team report which found the following deficiencies:
i.
The
Institution neither had land on the date of submission of application as per Clause
7(D) of the NCTE regulations 2002, nor does it have the land even today.
ii.
The
Institution is running in a flat of Multi Storied Residential Building.
iii.
Registered
lease deed of the flat was executed on 18.03.2011 that is beyond the time limit
of 31.12.2010 as prescribed by the Hon'ble High Court.
iv.
One
of the lecturers was not qualified as on the date of appointment.
7.
The
High Court was not happy with the above order as is evident from an interim order
dated 30th August, 2011 whereby the Regional Director, Western Regional Committee,
National Council for Teacher Education, Bhopal, was directed to send a new team
to inspect the institution and submit a fresh report regarding the defects and deficiencies
in the infrastructure provided by the college. An inspection committee was
accordingly deputed by the NCTE who filed a report before the High Court in a
sealed cover. The report, inter alia, stated:
"The team had done
the inspection of infrastructure, institutional facilities etc. The C.D. is enclosed.
The videography had been in a continuous manner. The four corners of land and four
corners of the buildings are prominently picturised. The photography of land, building,
instructional facilities, staff is also done. (C.D. and album enclosed). The Hon'ble
High Court has directed to do the inspection with regards to the defects shown in
the withdrawal order. The inspection is done accordingly following the orders of
the Hon'ble High Court. The observations of the visiting team regarding the defects/deficiencies
are noted below:
i.
It
is true that the institution does not have the registered land document and is occupying
the land belonging to Shri Uma Education Trust.
ii.
It
is true that the institution has submitted the building plan of Shri Uma
Education Trust. This building plan was approved by Sarpanch, Vajdi (Virda). The
approval of Rajkot Urban Development Authority is still not obtained by the Uma
Education Trust.
iii.
It
is true that the land use certificate submitted by the Institution is about the
land of Uma Education Trust.
iv.
It
is true that the Institution does not have its own land and building. The institution
is running on the premises of the Uma Education Trust.
v.
The
teaching staff profile is approved by In-charge Vibhagiya Officer, Saurashtra University
on 18.02.2009 on 11.05.2011 and 13.05.2011. Four lecturers have no M.Ed. qualifications.
One common observed that all lists were approved by in-charge, Vibhagiya Officer
of the Unversity.
vi.
Uma
B.Ed. college and Jalaram B.Ed. College are being run on the same premises.
vii.
It
is true that the institution has submitted the building plan of Shri Uma Education
Trust. This building plan was approved by the Sarpanch, Vajdi (Virda). The approval
of Rajkot Urban Development Authority is still not obtained by the Uma
Education Trust.
viii.
Morvi
Sarvajanik Kelevani Mandal and Jalaram Education Trust are unilaterally merged with
Uma Education Trust without due authorisation of the competent authority and also
without the approval of the WRC. The matter is still under correspondence.
ix.
The
institution/Morvi Sarvajanik Kelavani Mandal did not possess adequate land or
govt. land acquired on long terms lease basis or on ownership."
8.
The
High Court upon a consideration of the relevant records including the inspection
report placed before it, dismissed the writ petition relying upon the decisions
of this Court in Chairman, Bhartia Education Society and Anr. v. State of
Himachal Pradesh and Ors. (2011) 4 SCC 527, N.M. Nageshwaramma v. State of Andhra
Pradesh and Anr. (1986) Supp. SCC 166, Students of Dattatraya Adhyapak Vidyalya
v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. SLP (C) No.2067 of 1991, decided on 19.2.1991,
Andhra Kesari Educational Society v. Director of School Education (1989) 1 SCC 392
and a few others. The High Court held that the 8 appellant was not entitled to any
relief in the writ proceedings filed on its behalf and accordingly dismissed the
writ petition. Hence the present appeals, assail the said judgment and order.
9.
We
have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
10.
Mushroom
growth of ill-equipped, under-staffed and un-recognised educational institutions
was noticed by this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale and
Ors. (1992) 4 SCC 435. This Court observed that the field of education had become
a fertile, perennial and profitable business with the least capital outlay in some
States and those Societies and individuals were establishing such institutions without
complying with the statutory requirements. The unfortunate part is that despite
repeated pronouncements of this Court over the past two decades deprecating the
setting up of such institutions. The mushrooming of the colleges continues all over
the country at times in complicity with the statutory authorities, who fail to check
this process by effectively enforcing the provisions of the NCTE Act and the Regulations
framed thereunder.
11.
The
present is one such case where the institution established by the appellant has
been inspected more than once and several deficiencies that seriously affect its
capacity to impart quality education and training to future teachers
specifically pointed out. Inadequacy of space and staff, apart from other requirements
stipulated under the provisions of the Act and the Regulations, is something which
disqualifies any institution from seeking recognition. Such deficiencies have
not been disputed before us nor can the same be disputed in the light of the
reports submitted by the inspecting teams from time to time, including the report
submitted on the basis of the latest inspection that was conducted pursuant to the
directions issued by the High Court.
It is difficult to
appreciate how the institution could have reported compliance with the requirements
of the regulations and complete removal of the deficiencies 10 after the order passed
by the High Court when the institution had neither the land standing in its
name nor the building constructed in which it could conduct the training programme.
The fact that the institution was being run in a building which was shared by
two other colleges was itself sufficient to justify withdrawal of the
recognition granted in its favour. It was also noted by the inspecting team
that four lecturers employed by the appellant did not have the requisite M.Ed. qualification.
Suffice it to say that the institution was lacking in essential infrastructural
facilities which clearly justified withdrawal of the recognition earlier granted
to it.
12.
Confronted
with the above position, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the
students admitted to the college for the academic session 2011-2012 could be allowed
to appear in the examination to avoid prejudice to them and to save their
careers. A similar contention urged before the High Court has been rejected by
it relying upon the decisions of this Court in which decisions this Court has not
favoured grant of such relief to students admitted to unrecognised institution on
consideration of misplaced sympathy.
The High Court has
also noted that the students had been transferred to other recognised colleges
and that in any case students admitted for the academic session 2011-2012 could
not be allowed to continue in an institution which did not have the requisite infrastructure
prescribed under the NCTE Regulations and norms. It was argued on behalf of the
appellants that the High Court was not right in observing that students had been
transferred to other institutions. At any rate the order withdrawing recognition
could not, according to the learned counsel, affect students admitted to the
institution for the academic session 2011-2012 as the withdrawal order could only
be prospective in nature and having been passed in August, 2011 was relevant only
for the academic session 2012-2013.
We do not think so,
firstly, because the recognition of the institution stood withdrawn on 20th July,
2011 which meant that while it had no effect qua admissions for the academic
session 2010-2011 it was certainly operative qua admissions made for the
academic session 2011-12 which commenced from 1st August, 2011 onwards. The fact
that there was a modification of the said order of withdrawal on 24th August,
2011 did not obliterate the earlier order dated 20th July, 2011. The modifying order
would in our opinion relate back and be effective from 20th July, 2011 when the
recognition was first withdrawn. Such being the position admissions made for
the academic session 2011-2012 were not protected under the statute.
13.
Secondly,
because this Court has in a long line of decisions rendered from time to time disapproved
of students being allowed to continue in unrecognised institutions only on sympathetic
considerations. In N.M. Nageshwaramma (supra) this Court while dealing with the
prayer for grant of permission to the students admitted to unrecognised
institution observed: "3. xxxxxx We are unable to accede to these requests.
These institutions were established and the students were admitted into these institutes
despite a series of press notes issued by the Government.
If by a fiat of the
court we direct the Government to permit them to appear at the examination we will
practically be encouraging and condoning the establishment of unauthorised institutions.
It is not appropriate that the jurisdiction of the court either under Article
32 of the Constitution or Article 226 should be frittered away for such a purpose.
The Teachers Training
Institutes are meant to teach children of impressionable age and we cannot let loose
on the innocent and unwary children, teachers who have not received proper and adequate
training. True they will be required to pass the examination but that may not be
enough. Training for a certain minimum period in a properly organised and equipped
Training Institute is probably essential before a teacher may be duly launched.
We have no hesitation in dismissing the writ petitions with costs." (emphasis
supplied)
14.
To
the same effect is the decision of this Court in Managing Committee of Bhagwan Budh
Primary Teachers Training College and another v. State of Bihar & Ors. (1990)
Supp. SCC 722, where this Court observed: "2. It is not possible to grant any
such permission as prayed for because the granting of such permission would be clearly
violating the provisions of the Education Act (see the judgments in S.L.P. No.
12014 of 1987 decided on November 25, 1987 and the A.P. Christians Medical Educational
Society v. Government of A.P.)....".
15.
In
State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. v. St. Joseph Teachers Training Institute and Anr.
(1991) 3 SCC 87, this Court once again found fault with the grant of relief to students
admitted to unrecognised institutions on humanitarian grounds. This Court said:
"6. The practice of admitting students by unauthorised educational institutions
and then seeking permission for permitting the students to appear at the
examination has been looked with disfavour by this Court. ............ In A.P. 14
Christians Medical Educational Society v. Government of A.P (1986) 2 SCC 667, a
similar request made on behalf of the institution and the students for permitting
them to appear at the examination even though affiliation had not been granted,
was rejected by this Court.
The court observed that
any direction of the nature sought for permitting the students to appear at the
examination without the institution being affiliated or recognised would be in clear
transgression of the provision of the Act and the regulations. The court cannot
be a party to direct the students to disobey the statute as that would be destructive
of the rule of law. The Full Bench noted these decisions and observations and
yet it granted relief to the students on humanitarian grounds.
Courts cannot grant relief
to a party on humanitarian grounds contrary to law. Since the students of
unrecognised institutions were legally not entitled to appear at the examination
held by the Education Department of the government, the High Court acted in violation
of law in granting permission to such students for appearing at the public examination.
The directions issued by the Full Bench are destructive of the rule of law.
Since the Division Bench issued the impugned orders following the judgment of the
Full Bench, the impugned orders are not sustainable in law." (emphasis
supplied)
16.
Reference
may also be made to State of Maharashtra v. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale and Ors. (supra)
and Chairman, Bhartia Education Society v. Himachal Pradesh & Ors. (supra).
In the latter case this Court observed :
"15. The practice
of admitting students by unrecognised institutions and then seeking permission
for the students to appear for the examinations has been repeatedly disapproved
by this Court (see N.M. Nageshwaramma v. State of A.P, A.P. Christian Medical Educational
Society v. Govt. of A.P. and State of Maharashtra v. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale4).
We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the decision of the High Court rejecting
the prayer of the students admitted in 1999 to regularise their admissions by directing
the Board to permit them to appear for the JBT examination conducted by it. The
two appeals (CAs Nos. 1228 and 1229 of 2011) filed by the Society/Institute and
the students in regard to the 1999 admissions are therefore liable to be
dismissed."
17.
There
is no distinguishing feature between the cases mentioned above and the case at hand
for us to strike a discordant note. The institution established by the
appellant is not equipped with the infrastructure required under the NCTE Act and
the Regulations. It is not in a position to impart quality education, no matter
admissions for the session 2011-2012 were made pursuant to the interim directions
issued by the High Court. We have, therefore, no hesitation in rejecting the prayer
for permitting the students to continue in the unrecognised institution of the appellant
or directing that they may be permitted to appear in the examination.
We, however, make it clear
that this order will not prevent the respondent-University from examining the feasibility
of reallocating the students who were admitted through the University process of
selection and counselling to other recognised colleges to prevent any prejudice
to such students. Such re-allocation for the next session may not remedy the
situation fully qua the students 16 who may have to start the course afresh but
it would ensure that if such admissions/reallocation is indeed feasible, the students
may complete their studies in a recognised college instead of wasting their
time in a college which does not enjoy recognition by the NCTE.
We, however, leave
this aspect entirely for the consideration of the University at the appropriate
level, having regard to its Rules and Regulations and subject to availability of
seats for such adjustment to be made as also the terms and conditions on which the
same could be made. This order shall also not prevent the affected students from
seeking such reliefs against the appellant college as may be legally permissible
including relief by way of refund of the fee recovered from them.
18.
With
the above observations, these appeals fail and are hereby dismissed with costs
assessed at Rs.20,000/-.
.....................................J.
(Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)
.....................................J.
(T.S. THAKUR)
New
Delhi
December
16, 2011.
Back
