1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.398 OF 2010. AND WRIT PETITION Nos.193, 228,270,402 OF 2010. Kamdhenu Bahuuddeshiya Sevabhavi Sanstha, B.Ed. College, Jatwada, Dist. Aurangabad through itsPresident Shrinivas Ankushrao Darade. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others. .. RESPONDENTS. ... Shri A.M. Karad, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri V.H. Dighe, A.G.P. for State. Shri S.S. Thombre, Advocate for R.No.2. ... AND WRIT PETITION Nos.193 OF 2010. Shri Yogeshwari Shikshan Sanstha’s B.Ed. College, Kari, tq. Dharur, Dist. Beed through its Secretary ...PETITIONER. VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others. .. RESPONDENTS. ... Shri A.M. Karad, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri V.H. Dighe, A.G.P. for State. Shri S.S. Thombre, Advocate for R.No.2. ... AND 2 WRIT PETITION Nos.228 OF 2010. Gurukul B.Ed. College, ...PETITIONER. VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others. .. RESPONDENTS. ... Shri N.P. Bangar, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri V.H. Dighe, A.G.P. for State. ... AND WRIT PETITION Nos.270 OF 2010. Vichardhara Pratishthan Beeds, Rajiv Gandhi B.Ed. College, Bhum ...PETITIONER. VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others. .. RESPONDENTS. ... Shri A.M. Karad, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri V.H. Dighe, A.G.P. for State. ... AND WRIT PETITION Nos.402 OF 2010. Navin Osmanabad Zilla Bal Vikas Samiti, Osmanabad through its President ...PETITIONER. VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others. .. RESPONDENTS. 3 ... Shri A.M. Karad, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri V.H. Dighe, A.G.P. for State. Shri S.S. Thombre, Advocate for R.No.2. ... CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR AND S.S. SHINDE, JJ. RESERVED ON : 3.2.2010. PRONOUNCED ON: 4.2.2010. PER COURT: (Per S.S.Shinde, J) 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Leave to amend. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 2. Rule, returnable forthwith. The learned Counsel for respondents waive notice. By consent of the parties, taken up for hearing. 3. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners have prayed for direction to the respondent Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University to grant affiliation to the petitioner institute to run B.Ed. Course for the academic year, 2009-10 and further to accept the examination forms and fees 4 of the students studying in the petitioner institute in the B.Ed. Course to appear for the examination to be held in the month of April, 2010. 4 The learned Counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to the recognition order issued by the National Council for Teachers Education (N.C.T.E.), at Exh.A and would contend that once recognition order is granted by N.C.T.E., the respondent university is obliged to grant affiliation as held by the Apex Court in case of State of Maharashtra vs. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya & Ors, reported in 2006 AIR SCW 2048, and more particularly, in paragraph 78 of the said judgment. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, relying on paragraph 78 of the said judgment, would submit that as per the scheme of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (for short, the said Act), once recognition has been granted by the N.C.T.E. under Section 14(6) of the said Act, the concerned University (`examining body’) is obliged to grant 5 affiliation to such institution and sections 82 and 83 of the University Act do not apply to such cases. The learned Counsel further submitted that once direction is given by this Court to grant affiliation to the petitioner institute, the petitioners in all the petitions will make representation to the University for accepting the examination forms and fees of the students studying in the petitioner institute for the B.Ed. Course to appear for the examination to be held in the month of April, 2010. The learned Counsel invited our attention to the orders passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.5830 of 2008 to contend that in that case also though affiliation was not granted by the University, this Court held that affiliation is mere formality once the N.C.T.E. has granted recognition order. The Counsel, relying on the said judgment, further submitted that in that case also though the affiliation was not granted by the University, this Court directed to accept the examination forms and fees for the examination of the students admitted by the said college. The learned Counsel for the petitioner 6 further placed reliance on unreported judgment of this Court in case of Navin Osmanabad Zilla Bal Samiti, Osmanabad to contend that once the State Government has granted permission in pursuant to the directions of this Court in the aforesaid writ petition then it is not open for the University to contend that the admission given to the students are not in accord with the Rules and Regulations. The learned Counsel further submitted that in the above writ petitions, the University did not raise any objection even though it was party to the said petitions. It is submitted that the petitioner colleges admitted the students only after order of recognition was passed by N.C.T.E. and the Court directed the State to permit the petitioners to start the colleges. The learned Counsel further submitted that CET list is exhausted and still some seats have remained vacant at the State Level. Moreover, even the seats of some of the petitioner institutes have also remained vacant. Therefore, he would submit that in case the University is directed to grant affiliation, which will relate to the academic year 2009-10, 7 the petitioners will make representation to the university for acceptance of the examination forms and fees and further to allow the students studying in the college run by the petitioner institute to appear for the examination of B.Ed. Course to be held in April, 2010, subject to the students are found eligible as per the norms. 5. The learned Counsel for the respondent university submitted that Condition No.6 of the recognition order granted by the N.C.T.E. in favour of the petitioner stipulates that the institution shall make admission only after it obtains affiliation from the examining body in terms of clause 8(12) of the N.C.T.E (Recognition Norms & Procedure) Regulations, 2007. He further invited our attention to the regulations for the Admission to B.Ed. Course for the academic year, 2009-10 and submitted that so far non government unaided B.Ed. Colleges are concerned, 100% admissions are to be given from CAP or CET conducted by the Association. However, in the instant case, the petitioner colleges on their own have without even being affiliated by the 8 examining body, admitted the students without following the regulations 1.2 of the said regulations and as per the merit list of students prepared for the B.Ed. Admissions. Therefore, the learned Counsel would submit that the writ petitions are devoid of any merits and the same may be dismissed. 6. The learned A.G.P. appearing for the State invited our attention to the Government B.Ed. Centralized Admission Process, 2009-10 and submitted that for the academic year, 2009-10, 71,509 candidates appeared for the B.Ed. C.E.T. The details of the Admission process are: Govt. B.Ed. Centralized Admission Process 2009-10: 1 Candidates appeared for B.Ed. CET 71509. 2 Candidates passed in B.Ed. CET 68046 3 No. of colleges registered for B.Ed. Admission process 2009-10 390 4 Total seats available 36967 5 Total admitted students 32873 6 Vacant seats 4094 9 7 CET passed students not taken admission 35173. 7. We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner at length in all the writ petitions and also the learned Counsel for respondent University and the learned A.G.P. for State. We are of the considered opinion that so far as first prayer of the petitioners regarding direction to the respondent university to grant affiliation to the petitioner institute is concerned, the respondent University is obliged to grant affiliation to the B.Ed. Course run by the petitioner institute in view of para 78 of the judgment of the Apex Court in case of State of Maharashtra vs. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya & Ors (supra), which reads thus: “78. In our opinion, the observations that the provisions of Sections 82 and 83 of the Maharashtra University Act are “null and void” could not be said to be correct. To us, it appears that what the High Court 10 wanted to convey was that the provisions of Section 82 and 83 would not apply to an institution covered by 1993 Act. As per the scheme of the Act, once recognition has been granted by NCTE under Section 14(6) of the Act, every university (`examining body’) is obliged to grant affiliation to such institution and sections 82 and 83 of the University Act do not apply to such cases.” (emphasis supplied). 8. Therefore, in our opinion, once recognition has been granted by the N.C.T.E. Under Section 14(6) of the said Act, concerned university is obliged to grant affiliation to such institute and sections 82 and 83 of the University Act would not apply to such cases. 9. In so far as second prayer of the petitioners is concerned, as stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, they will make representations to the respondent University for accepting the examination forms and fees of the students studying in the B.Ed. Colleges run 11 by petitioner – institute for the academic year, 2009-10. There is force in the contention of the petitioners that CET list for academic year 2009-10 is already exhausted. In that, 35173 CET passed students have not taken admission as a result of which 4094 seats have remained vacant at the State Level. According to the petitioners, pursuant to the directions given by this Court in Writ Petition No.4967 of 2009, the petitioners became entitled to admit the students in the institute of the petitioners. Further, as a consequence of that order the petitioners proceeded with the admission process on their own to which neither the State nor the University took any objection. In somewhat similar situation this Court in Writ Petition No. 5830 of 2008 accepted the stand of the petitioners therein who had admitted students on their own. Be that as it may, since the petitioners have made a statement that they will make representations to the University to accept the fees and examination forms of the said students, we keep all contentions open to be agitated before the University authorities. 12 10. In the light of the above, we direct the respondent University to grant affiliation to the B.Ed. Course run by the petitioner institute forthwith, which affiliation will enure to the petitioner colleges from academic year 2009-10 and operate till the recognition granted by the N.C.T.E. is in force. 11. Further, we grant liberty to the petitioners to make representations to the respondent University for accepting the examination forms and fees of the students studying in the B.Ed. Colleges run by petitioner – institute for the academic year, 2009-10. That be made within one week from today. We keep all contentions and questions open, to be agitated before the authorities of the respondent University. The respondent university shall decide such representations made by the petitioners expeditiously, in accordance with law, and in any case, not later than two weeks from the receipt of the said representations by passing a speaking order and communicate the same 13 to the petitioners within one week from the date of the order. We have fixed the above time frame as the fate of large number of students pursuing the course with the petitioner Colleges is dependent on that decision, who are aspiring to appear for the examination to be held in April, 2010. Petitions allowed, accordingly. Rule is made absolute on the above terms. Authenticated copy of this order may be supplied to the parties. [ S.S. SHINDE, J ] [ A.M. KHANWILKAR, J ] PLK/*