IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4528 of 2006 S.M.ZAHEER ALAM TEACHERS TRAINING COLLEGE,Bahera through its Secretary S.M.Naiyar Imam S/O late S.M. Zareef, resident of village-Bahera, P.S. Bahera, District Darbhanga. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Director (Research and Training) Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariate, Vikash Bhawan, Patna. 2.National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) through its Member Secretary Hans Bhawan, Wing-II, 1 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg. New Delhi 110002. 3.The Member Secretary, National Council for Teacher Education Hons bhawan, Wing II, 1; Bahadur Sha h Zafar Marg New Delhi-110002. 4.The Eastern Regional Committee, National council for Teacher Education (ERC/NCTE) through its Regional Director, 15 Neel Kanth Nagar, Nayapalli, Bhubneshwar-751012. 5.The Regional Director, Eastern, Regional Committee, 15 Neel Kanth Nagar, Nayapalli, Bhubneshwar, 751012. 6.The Chair person/Member Secretary, Eastern Regional Committee National Council for Teacher Education, 15, Neel Kanth Nagar Nayapalli, Bhubneshwar; 751012. 7.Bihar School Examination Boaqrd through its Secretary, Patna. ----------- 3 14/7/2009 Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.N.Pathak, counsel appearing for National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) and Mr. Parth Sarthi appearing for the Bihar School Examination Board as also counsel for the State. Prayer in this writ application reads as follows:- “(i)That to quash the letter dated 18.12.2006 (Annexure-15) whereby and whereunder prayer for enhancement of intake of the students from 50 to 200 of the petitioner Institution was refused and was advised to apply after completion of three academic sessions of running the course. (ii)That a direction/directions be issued to respondent nos. 2 to 6 to reconsider 2 the matter in the pretext that the petitioner has performed all legal formalities on the direction or assertion of the ERC/NCTE in its meeting. In view of the fact that being established Institution was given offer to apply for E.T.T. Course. (iii)That to direct or prohibit the respondents 2 to 6 not to discriminate the matter in any manner or to enhance the intake of the Institution of their choice unless in accordance with law. (iv)That since the petitioner institution was in the name of an scheme of Central Govt. called „Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan‟ to achieve the target of Universalisation of Elementary education by 2010 under 10th plan period to train huge number of additional Teachers at elementary level and thus the petitioner be suitably compensated. “ Mr. Choudhary with regard to the aforementioned prayer would submit that it was highly improper on the part of NCTE to have rejected prayer of the institution of the petitioner for enhancement of number of intake capacity of the students from 50 to 200 as has been done by the impugned order passed by the Regional Director of NCTE dated 18th February, 2006 (Annexure- 15). In this context he would submit that similarly situated colleges with almost similar facilities have been allowed intake of 100 to 150 students, whereas, in the case of petitioner’s institution number was fixed as 50 in the order granting recognition dated 12.9.2005 and when a request was made by the institution by an application dated 25.12.2005 the same was rejected by taking plea of Clause 8 of National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulation, 2005. Mr. Choudhary further submits that even if reasons given in the 3 impugned order as contained in Annexure 15 is deemed to be correct that the petitioner institution has to wait for three academic sessions, the subsequent communication of the NCTE dated 5th February, 2009 directing the petitioner institution to deposit processing fee of Rs. 40,000/- in terms of NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulation, 2007, is only arbitrary, inasmuch as, earlier sum of Rs. 40,000/- deposited by the petitioner institution for enhancement of number of intake students in the year 2006 could not have been forfeited. He, therefore, is of the view that the amount of Rs.40,000/- should be utilized as processing fee for future consideration of enhancement of intake of number of students for the petitioner institution on completion of three academic sessions. Mr. Pathak while defending the impugned order and the subsequent order dated 5th February, 2009 would submit that the NCTE is bound by its own regulation and no exception could be carved out only in the case of the petitioner. In this context provision of Regulation 8, as quoted in the impugned order has been relied by Mr. Pathak to contend that it is the basic rule and norms followed by the NCTE that a request for enhancement of intake of any institution can be considered only after completion of three academic sessions. Mr. Parth Sarthi, counsel for the Bihar State Examination Board, would submit that the Board is to abide by the decision taken by the NCTE as under the relevant statute itself 4 power of enhancement of intake capacity of the students has been vested in the NCTE. The first and foremost question in this writ application would be as to whether the impugned order refusing to accept the request of the petitioner institution for enhancement of intake number of students on the ground of non completion of three academic sessions by the petitioner institution suffers from any vice of arbitrariness. In view of the fact that the petitioner has not assailed the Regulations framed by the NCTE including its clause 8, it would be difficult for this Court to hold that such conditions, i.e, Regulation 8 (3) of the Teacher’s Education Norms and Procedure is arbitrary. The NCTE is a regulatory body and has every right and power to regulate the matter in the grant of recognition of a institute including a question of enhancement of intake number of students. If for that purpose of judging performance of the institution already granted recognition, a period of three years has been prescribed the same cannot be said to be arbitrary. It is well known that these institutions have to fulfill requirement of financial resources, accommodation, library and qualified staffs and such other conditions which is required for proper functioning of the institution in the course or training for teacher’s education which is being offered by such institution. In the case of the petitioner’s institution when it was inspected in the year 2005 there were a number of short comings noted by the inspecting team and the final remarks of the inspecting committee 5 was as follows: “The PTEC is proposed to be run under umbrella of recognized Zuber Alam B.Ed. College. Arrangements have been made for appointment of teachers but they have not joined as yet. The infrastructure facilities have been created but it needs further expansion as per NCTE norms for the proposed intake. Separate arrangement for PTEC Library is yet to be made. The Laboratries including Psychology Lab. are proposed to be started with B.Ed College. Teaching staff are qualified but 5 of them though M.Ed do not have teaching experience. With existing facilities the institution can be run with intake of 100 easily. The land is in the name of B.Ed. College.” If on the basis of the aforementioned comments of the inspecting committee the NCTE came out with a decision to grant recognition as intake capacity of 50 students, this Court cannot hold the order for grant of recognition dated 12.9.2005 (Annexure- 9) to be bad and/or illegal. It was for the NCTE to look into relevant aspects and if the NCTE found the institution fit for being allowed to function with 50 students the same can never be assailed specially when the collegial lacked both qualified teaching personnel and infrastructure including laboratories and library. A question would therefore arise if such institution is granted recognition and makes an application for enhancement of intake of students is the NCTE bound to enhance intake capacity?. Submission of counsel for the petitioner that other institutions have been allowed intake capacity of 100 or 150 students can hardly be of any relevance in the context that their inspection report is not before the institution nor this Court can make a 6 comparative assessment in absence of those institutions being made party to this writ application. Consequently, Annexure-15 does not suffer from any vice and the order passed by the NCTE refusing to enhance number of intake students is upheld. As with regard to grievance of depositing of Rs.40,000/- , this Court is not aware as to whether processing fee is to be charged only if the NCTE orders for inspection or whether such fee is condition precedent for any institution while making application for recognition or even for the purpose of increase of number of intake students. This aspect of the matter can be gone into if the petitioner approaches the competent authority of NCTE, who will examine the grievance of the petitioner in the light of its rules and regulations and pass a reasoned order with regard to claim of adjustment of Rs.40,000/- deposited by the petitioner institution in the year 2006. The petitioner-institution was granted recognition for 2006-2008 sessions by order dated 12th September, 2005 with a rider of 50 students only. Three academic sessions of the petitioner institution will be of 2006-2008, 2007-2009 and 2008-2010 and therefore on the performance of the petitioner institution if the NCTE as per its regulation is satisfied that the institution has adequate financial resources, accommodation, laboratories and qualified students which is essentially required for proper functioning of the institution, it will consider the case of the petitioner after processing fresh application to be filed by the 7 petitioner institution on the commencement of 2008-2010 sessions so that decision is ultimately taken by the NCTE soon after completion of 2008-2010 session. It will be also open for the NCTE to take its own independent decision but then as the NCTE has been brought into existence by the statute only for proper functioning of these institutions, it must consider the case of all such institutions in fair and reasonable manner so that there would be no complaint of any arbitrariness in the matter of increase of number of intake of students. With the aforementioned observations/directions this application is disposed of. Abhay Kumar (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)