LPA/1571/2005 1/35 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 1571 of 2005 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 22148 of 2005 With LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 1572 of 2005 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 22150 of 2005 With LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 1568 of 2005 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 22151 of 2005 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH AND HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SHARAD D.DAVE ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= SHARDABEN KANTILAL PATEL P.T.C. COLLEGE - Appellant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 3 - Respondent(s) ======================================================== Appearance : MS MAMTA R VYAS for Appellant(s) : 1, GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 1 - 3. None for Respondent(s) : 4, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SHARAD D.DAVE LPA/1571/2005 2/35 JUDGMENT Date : 30/11/2005 COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH) These appeals are a classic example indicating how failure / inability of the system to provide for a mechanism to resolve differences between two public authorities over an issue of vital public importance (and reluctance on part of the Courts in playing the role of a catalyst by timely and positive judicial intervention at a critical juncture) can result not only into avoidable multiplicity of litigation but also criminal waste of precious national resources. The wastage of manpower and infrastructure, if allowed, would have further delayed achievement of the goal embodied in Article 21A and 45 of the Constitution for providing free and compulsory education to all the children in the age group of 6 to 14 years. 2. These three appeals arise from the common order dated 14.11.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the petitions of the appellant institutions and thereby rejecting the prayer of the institutions to direct the State Government and the Director of Primary Education to allot the students for admission to PTC Course for the year 2005 – 2006. F A C T S 3. The appellant institutions in the first two appeals have already been running B.Ed. Colleges. The appellant in Letters Patent Appeal No.1571 of 2005 (Smt.Shardaben Kantilal Patel PTC College) is running a college imparting instructions in B.Ed. (Bachelor of LPA/1571/2005 3/35 JUDGMENT Education) Course for last 35 years and the other appellant is also running a college imparting instructions in B.Ed. Course for the last two years. It is also undisputed that both the institutions have recognition from the Western India Regional Committee of the National Council for Teachers Education (the NCTE for brevity) for running B.Ed. Colleges. The controversy in the present appeals is not about the recognition or provisional recognition granted to the appellants by the NCTE on 26.9.2005 for running PTC Colleges for the academic year 2005-06, but about refusal to make allotment of students by the Director of Primary Education of the State Government for the last three months on the ground that according to the State Government authorities, the State does not need any more PTC Colleges which view is not acceptable to the NCTE. 4. The appellant institutions had applied for recognition for opening the new PTC College in December, 2004 for the academic year 2005 – 2006 onwards. The institutions, which are recognized by the NCTE for B.Ed. Colleges, are not required to obtain NOC from the State Government for establishing a new PTC College vide NCTE (Form of application for recognition, the time limit of submission of application, determination of norms and standards for recognition of teacher education programmes and permission to start new course or training) Regulations, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “the Regulations”). Particularly as per sub-clause (iv) of Regulation 6 of the said Regulations as amended in 2003, requirement of NOC shall not apply to an institution which is already recognized by the NCTE for running a B.Ed. College. It appears that the NCTE inspection team LPA/1571/2005 4/35 JUDGMENT inspected the appellant institutions in July, 2005, but the decision to grant recognition was taken at the meeting held on 24.9.2005. Dr Nalin Pandit, representative of the Gujarat Council of Educational Research and Training (GCERT) a Government of Gujarat organization, was also present at the said meeting in his capacity as a member of the Western India Regional Committee of NCTE. By their separate communications addressed to the Director of Primary Education, Gujarat State, dated 26.9.2005, the NCTE granted recognition of Elementary level Teacher Training Institution (popularly known in the State of Gujarat as Primary Teacher's Certificate (PTC) College) to the appellants in the following terms:- “Please find the following institution recognized by Western Regional Committee (NCTE) in its CONTINUED 77th meeting held on September, 24-25, 2005 with the new unit of 50 students for the PTC Course for the academic session 2005-2006, subject to the condition that the college will submit the list of staff/ faculty duly approved by the Director, SCERT/ competent authority before commencement of the academic session and before starting the course the institution should seek prior permission of the competent authority for conducting the exam and approval of the curriculum that they are going to adopt for the course. Institution if starts the training programme without prior approval/ permission of competent authority/examining body regarding the curriculum they have adopted and conduct of examination for award of Diploma/ Certificate the recognition of such institution shall stand withdrawn. The formal order of recognition will be issued only after the receipt of this list in NRC, NCTE, Bhopal. You are requested to allow all the institutions to admit LPA/1571/2005 5/35 JUDGMENT students only upto the approved intake for which recognition has been granted. _________________________________________________________ APP.No. NCTE Name and Course Approved Academic Code Address of Unit of Session The Institution APR 14 32219 Smt.Shardaben PTC 50 2005-06 89 Kantilal Patel PTC College, At Post Darmali, Taluka Idar, Darmali, S.E. Gujarat. Also, instruct the institution to adhere to the norms prescribed by the NCTE referring to eligibility criteria for admission; infrastructure; staff and curriculum transaction; etc to the standards laid down by the NCTE and continuous maintenance of these norms and standards is mandatory and binding on the institution. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Regional Director. Copy to : 1. The Member Secretary, National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi-110 002. 2. The Director, Gujarat State, Council of Educational Research & Training, Sector-12, Vidya Bhavan, Gandhinagar. 3. The Principal, Smt.Shardaben Kantilal Patel PTC College, at Post Darmali, Taluka Idar, Darmali, Sabarkantha, Gujarat. The institution is directed that the list of faculty member are sent to this office duly signed by the Director, Primary Education, Government of Gujarat, Gandhinagar within one month. The formal order of recognition will be issued only after the receipt of this list in WRC, NCTE, Bhopal.” Similar communications dated 26.9.2005 were sent in LPA/1571/2005 6/35 JUDGMENT case of the other two institutions also. In view of the above communications, a copy whereof was also sent to the appellant institutions, the appellant institutions approached the Director of Primary Education on 29.9.2005 with the list of faculty members. According to the third institution (Letters Patent Appeal No.1568 of 2005) such a list was also sent by it earlier to the Director of Primary Education on 12.9.2005. 5. As per the policy for granting admissions to the Self-financed PTC Colleges in the State of Gujarat, there is a system of Centralized Admissions and candidates desirous of seeking admission to various Self-financed PTC Colleges in the State apply to the Government appointed Centralized Admission Committee which prepares the common merit list of eligible students for allotment of students to various Self-financed PTC Colleges on the basis of marks obtained at the H.Sc. examination. Accordingly, the appellants requested the Director of Primary Education on 29.9.2005 to allot students to the appellant institutions for PTC Course for which recognition was issued in their favour in the aforesaid terms. There is no dispute about the fact that other institutions which are granted recognition by the NCTE in similar terms are allotted students before the formal order of recognition is issued by the NCTE which process takes considerable time and very often such formal order of recognition is issued by the NCTE at the end of the academic year, inter alia, because the Director of Primary Education of the State also takes a few months before sending the report to the NCTE. Though the request of the appellants for account of students were LPA/1571/2005 7/35 JUDGMENT formally turned down by the Director of Primary Education on 7.11.2005, all along the Director was opposed to grant of recognition to new PTC colleges/permission to open additional classes in examining PTC colleges. GENESIS OF CONTROVERSY 6. The State authorities did not make any allotment of students to the institutions granted recognition by NCTE in August/September 2005 and that stand was sought to be justified on the ground that the State Government had informed the NCTE as far as back on 8.2.2005 that looking to the number of PTC Colleges in the State, no new PTC Colleges are required in the State, and, therefore, the NCTE may not grant recognition to any such institution. 6.1 Letter dated 8.2.2005 of the Director of Primary Education to the Regional Director, NCTE, Bhopal was in the following terms:- “To, The Regional Director, National Council for Teacher Education, Manas Bhavan, Shyamala Hills, Bhopal. Sub : Recognition of New PTC Colleges and sanction of additional division Sir, Reference to the subject noted above, I am to state that at present there are 226 PTC colleges running in the State and more than 12,000 trained candidates are available from these colleges. Yearly need of trained teachers in the primary schools of the State is about 6,000. Against the need of 6,000 trained candidates, 12,000 trained LPA/1571/2005 8/35 JUDGMENT candidate are available, hence no new college or additional division in the present colleges is required in the State at present. It is, therefore, requested not to consider any new college for recognition or sanction additional division to the present colleges. No students/candidates will be allotted to the new colleges sanctioned or additional division granted in the present colleges hereafter. Yours faithfully, Sd/- (R.C. Raval) Director of Primary Education, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar. Copy submitted to : The Principal Secretary to the Govt. of Gujarat, Education Department, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar for information. The Director, GCERT Sector No. 12, Gandhinagar.” 6.2 Accordingly, on 3.3.2005 the Director of Primary Education also informed some of the institutions applying for NOC for opening PTC colleges that at present the State has enough number of colleges to train 12000 PTC Teachers per year, but requirement of teachers in primary schools is only 4000 to 5000 per year, and, therefore, the State Government has decided not to give permission to start the new PTC College or to grant permission to open additional class and that in view of this policy decision, it was not necessary to consider the applications for NOC. It was further stated that as and when there will be need for opening the new PTC Colleges in future, an advertisement will be issued for that purpose and then only, the institutions may apply for such NOC. LPA/1571/2005 9/35 JUDGMENT A copy of this letter was also sent to the Principal Secretary, Education Department in continuation of previous correspondence between the State Government and the Director of Primary Education. 6.3 Apprehending that in view of such stand of the State Government the NCTE will reject their applications for recognition, many institutions which had applied for recognition by December 2004, filed petitions before a learned Single Judge of this Court, which came to be allowed by judgment dated 16.3.2005 to the effect that grant and/or refusal of NOC by the State Government is not conclusive or binding and views express by the State Government while rejecting the application of the respective petitioners for NOC and/or while not granting NOC will be considered by the Regional Committee while taking decision on the applications for recognition submitted by the respective petitioners. 7. However, inspite of the aforesaid decision of this Court, even after the NCTE granted the orders of recognition (treated by the authority as an order of provisional recognition) in August/September 2005, the State Government and the Director of Primary Education did not allot students to any of the seven PTC Colleges which were either new PTC Colleges or existing PTC Colleges granted permission to open additional classes. One such institution called “Santokba Ishwarlal Charitable Trust was granted recognition in the similar terms (as quoted in para 4 hereinabove) by the NCTE in August 2005, but was not being allotted students, and, therefore, it preferred Special Civil Application No.18384 of 2005 wherein by order dated 21.9.2005, a LPA/1571/2005 10/35 JUDGMENT learned Single Judge granted interim relief directing the State authorities to allot students to that institution. The learned Single Judge followed the decision of the Apex Court in St.Johns Teachers Training Institute Vs. Regional Director, NCTE, reported in AIR 2003 SC 1533 for holding that the NCTE has to consider the views of the State Government as expressed through the NOC, but the views of the State Government are not binding on the NCTE which is specifically constituted to grant recognition to the institutions offering teachers' training course. Since that order was not being complied with, that institution filed a contempt petition and thereupon the State Government filed Letters Patent Appeal No.1407 of 2005 However, no stay was granted in the said appeal. Hence, on 27.10.2005, the Court taking up contempt matters directed the State authorities to comply with the order of the learned Single Judge, subject to the result of the LPA. Ultimately, when that Letters Patent Appeal was placed for hearing before us on 15.11.2005, the appeal came to be dismissed, as, no affidavit-in-reply was filed by the authority before the learned Single Judge and this Court over-ruled the objection of the State Government that in absence of NOC issued by the State Government, the State Government was justified in not allotting the students to the institution. Students have been recently allotted to that institution on 18th November. 8. In the meantime, after receipt of the order dated 26.9.2005 from the NCTE regarding recognition of their PTC Colleges, when the three appellant institutions herein approached the Director of Primary Education on LPA/1571/2005 11/35 JUDGMENT 29.9.2005, they were informed that since the State Government had not acquiesced into the order dated 21.9.2005 of the learned Single Judge in the case of Santokba Ishwarlal Charitable Trust (SCA No. 18384 of 2004) and the order was being carried in appeal, the appellants should wait till the out-come of the proceedings in the case of Santokba Ishwarlal Charitable Trust. A specific averment to that effect is made in paras 3.4 to 3.6 of the memo of the petitions giving rise to Letters Patent Appeal Nos.1571 and 1572 of 2005. The appellants further stated in the memo of the petition in para 3.5 that since no stay was granted in Letters Patent Appeal filed by the State Government and the Director of Primary Education in the case of Santokba Ishwarlal Charitable Trust, the respondent authorities were going to allot students to the said institution on or about 18.11.2005. These averments are not controverted but the Director of Primary Education by his letter dated 7.11.2005 informed the appellant institutions that the institutions were granted recognition by the NCTE for imparting training in PTC Course for the current year as per the NCTE letter dated 26.9.2005, but students cannot be allotted to the appellant institutions for the following reasons.:- (i) The admission process for PTC Course was closed on 20.9.2005 and the NCTE was also informed accordingly vide letter dated 23.9.2005; (ii) The first term of the academic year 2005–2006 has already been over and the second term was due to commence, and, therefore, if the admissions are granted, the trainees will not be LPA/1571/2005 12/35 JUDGMENT able to complete the term for the academic and practical training as per the norms. The appellants were, therefore, informed that the appellants will be alloted the students from the academic year 2006-2007. 9. The aforesaid communications dated 7.1.2005 came to be challenged by the appellants before the learned Single Judge who dismissed the petitions on the ground that if the State authorities are now directed to allot students, the appellant institutions will not be able to complete 180 days of study and on that ground alone, the petitions came to be dismissed. As regards reliance placed by the appellants on the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Smt. Santokba Ishwarlal Charitable Trust, the learned Single Judge referred to the stand of the State authorities that the authorities were bound to implement the directions of this Court, but similar directions were not required to be issued in case of the appellant institutions. Hence, the present appeals against the aforesaid common order dated 14.11.2005 of the learned Single Judge. 10. Since the recognition is granted by the NCTE to all the three appellants herein for the academic year 2005-06, this Court thought it proper to direct the joinder of Regional Director, NCTE, Bhopal in the present proceedings. In response to the notice issued by this Court to the Regional Director, NCTE at Bhopal, Mr.P.K.Jani, learned counsel has appeared and in response to the specific query of the Court vis-a-vis the stand of the LPA/1571/2005 13/35 JUDGMENT State authority, Mr.Jani has stated that more PTC colleges are required in the State. Under instructions, Mr.Jani has stated that in the 11th Five Year Plan, about one million teachers are required, and, therefore, the NCTE do not agree with the assessment of the State Government that no more PTC colleges are required in the State of Gujarat, and, therefore, recognition was granted to four colleges and permission to start the additional classes was also granted to three existing PTC Colleges; One such recognition was granted in August 2005 and other six institutions were granted such recognition in September, 2005, but the formal order of recognition is to be issued only after receiving the confirmation from the Director of Primary Education about compliance with the norms. The learned counsel is, however, not in a position to controvert the case of the appellants that in all other cases, NCTE issues such letters granting provisional recognition in similar terms (as quoted in para 4 hereinabove) and that immediately thereafter students are being allotted every year as soon as such communications are addressed to the Director of Primary Education and formal orders of recognition are issued subsequently after a few months and almost at the end of the academic year. 11. In view of the above factual back-drop, it is clear that the State authorities are not in a position to point out any short-coming or deficiency on the part of the appellant institutions to justify non-allotment of students to the PTC Colleges of the appellant institutions, except the delay which is attributable only to the authorities. LPA/1571/2005 14/35 JUDGMENT The learned counsel for the two appellants (LPA Nos. 1571 and 1572) states that faculty members were selected by the institutions through the Selection Committee of which a representative of the Director of Primary Education was a member and the selection was made with the approval of the said member and immediately, thereafter the appellants had sent respective lists of faculty members to the Director of Primary Education in December 2004 itself and again forwarded the lists of faculty members to the NCTE earlier on 5.8.2005 and again on 12.9.2005. Copies of the said communications dated 5.8.2005 and 12.9.2005 are produced in the present proceedings along with further affidavit filed on behalf of the appellants. But all along in the first round of petitions, resistance of the State authority was only on the ground that according to the State Government, no new PTC Colleges were required in the State. Thereafter in the second round of petitions, the State Government had been contending that the admissions to PTC colleges were closed on 20.9.2005 and the NCTE was informed accordingly by letter dated 23.9.2005. It is not, however, the case of the State authorities that any such cut off date was communicated by the State authorities to the NCTE in advance. 12. In view of the above, it is clear that the State authorities themselves have delayed allotting students to the appellant institutions even after the appellant institutions were granted provisional recognition by the NCTE on 26.9.2005. Having themselves taken two months time for no fault of the appellants, the State authorities are now refusing to allot the students to the appellants only on the ground that the students to be LPA/1571/2005 15/35 JUDGMENT admitted will not be able to complete the full term of 180 days. Apropos the above objection, the learned counsel for the appellants have pointed out that in the months of October and November 2005, there was Diwali vacation for 21 days and prior to the said vacation also, there were many public holidays, and, therefore, much time has not been lost. It is submitted that in 2004 the examinations were conducted in August. The PTC is a two year course with 180 days in each year, unlike B.Ed which is one year course with 219 days teaching. There will be sufficient time for completion of the terms. It is submitted that the students are required to complete minimum 80% of the term, and, therefore also there will be no difficulty for the students to complete the terms. It is submitted that the aforesaid aspect is also required to be seen in the back-ground of the fact that the State authorities are solely responsible for delay in not allotting the students for the last two months. Our attention is also invited to the fact that the State authorities in the Education Department have allotted students to another PTC college on 18th of this month and have also called candidates for admission to C.P.Ed. Colleges on 28th and 29th of this month. 13. It clearly transpires that the appellant institutions were not at fault for non-allotment of students by the Director of Primary Education for last two months and the appellants have kept their infrastructure ready for the last eleven months and are required to pay salary to their faculty members. The State Government authorities are not going to give the LPA/1571/2005 16/35 JUDGMENT appellants salary grant for the faculty members for the current academic year and in further also the appellants are going to be self-financed institutions. More over, considering the fact that the PTC is a two year course with 180 days training in each year, unlike the one year B.Ed Course with 219 days teaching in a year and that in the past the PTC Examination had also been held in the month of August, 2004, it appears to the Court that subject to appropriate directions being issued and suggestions being made to both the authorities, i.e., NCTE and the State Government authorities for better co- ordination to avoid any such delay in future, it would be just and proper to direct that the Director of Primary Education shall allot students for admission to the three appellant - PTC Colleges in whose favour provisional recognition was granted by the NCTE in September 2005, subject to their adhering to the NCTE norms throughout the currency of the course and subject to other appropriate terms and conditions. Ms Mamta Vyas and Mr NK Majmudar for the appellants have stated that the appellants will abide by all conditions including the condition that all seats will be filled in from students