\V©Y ' ^ HISH COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH ^T 3ILASPUR. W.P.ra No. 4061 OF 2009 g?^J PETITIONER Mditri Educational and CyJtura! A§sociation Vs RESPONDENTS Stateof Chhattisgarh and others, t.^. O R D E R ^—^^. POST ON ^ OCTOBER. 2009 Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge 1 /10/2009 ^ ^' ^ HI^H COURT OF CHH4TTIS^ARH ^T BILASPUR W.P.(CyNo.4Q61 OF 2009 !7 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Vs Maitri Educational and Cujtural AssocIatJon^ Bhilai, Throygh Srl K* Sudhakaran, Presjdent,. 090^ -aboyt 70 years, S/o Late shri R, Kesha^an, R/o 11,/31-B, Ispat' Nagor, Kisali, Bh.iJdJ, Dist. &ur9, Chhattisgarh rursning Bhifai Maitri College, RIsali, Sector, Bhilaj- Dyrg (Chhattisgarh) . 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary/ Department of Schooi Education, DKS 8hawan. Mantroiaya Raipur (Chhattisgorh) 2. Pandlt Ravish'ankar Shvkla Vjshwcxvidyalaya/ Through Registrar Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 3. Directar, Sta.te.EcJucation Researc.h' and Trajning Councii, Shankar Nagar, Raipur (C&) 4. National Councii for Teacher Edycation Through The Regional Director Westerrs ftegional Committee, Bhopal (MP) ^ Present: Mr. Jjtendra Pall, Advocate. For the petltioner. Mr. Arun Sao, <&ovt. Advocate with Mr- Shashank Thakur, Panei Lawyer • For the State Mr, .Manindra Shrivastava, Sr, Advocate With Mr. Amrlto -Das, Advocate. » For respondents No- 2 & Mr. Bhaskar Pyasi, Advocate' »« For the respondent No, O R.D ERL (Passed on <\v^ October. 2009) & h 1 rl@nd ra Mis hra^ _ J 01. The petitioner has.filed this petjtion belng aggrieved^ by the order dated 27.7.2009 (Annexure P/l) issued by respondent No.2 -whereby;. the . petitio^er- jnststution has b;een refusecl to .increase annual intake capaclty of students in th!e coliege. . ) 02. Briefly stated/grievonce of the petitioner is that petitioner-institution was granted perm'ission by Nationa! Councll for Teacher ' Education, Western Reglonal Committee- '(In'short "NCTE11) for the academicSession 2008-09 for cors-ducting Bacheior of Education (B.Ed.) degreecourse wsth annual intakeof 100 stucients on 25.5.2007 underSection 14(3)(a) of the Natlonal CounciJ for Teacher Edycation Act, 1993' (in short "NCTE Act. 1993") yide Annexure P/7 dQted 5.5.2008. The petitjoner was Imtially granted recognition for B.Ed of one year for academJc Session 2003-04 wlth an annuai intake of 10Q students. sybject to the aonditlons mentioned in the order of recognition dated 16.12.2004 of -Annexure P/17. 03, The ' petitioner vide applicatlon dated 23.5.2007 (Annexu.re P/18) .appSied for e'nhancing the sec.t in B<Ed. course. NCTE • yide recognitlon order dated 5.5«2008 (Arinexure. P/7) in exerdse of powers under Section 14(3)(a) of the NCTE Act, 1993 granted recognition for conductin-g B.Ed< (Co,Ed,) course of SEC of one year duration with an annua! intake of 100 students -on fulfiiiing the conditions enumerated in ^. •^ •^ the recognition order. The petitioneir-mstitutjon having obtained permission to ^adrpit 200 students, dpplied respondent No.2-University for granting affHlatJon to it yide Annexure P/9 dated 16.6.2008. 04* Aggrieved by the resolutioni of the Executive CounciJ dated 29.5.2008 and order dated 6.6.2008 'm pursuance of the . above • resolution, the petjtioner fiied WP(c) No.4003/08. The High Court vide its order dated 18.8,2008 stayed operation of the.ordler of the University, whereupon the petitioner1 was ailowed to admlt 200 students and' they ^ere further aliowed- to appear in the examination. • Arsother WP(c)No.6591/08 was filed by th@ petitioner and on!y thereafter, the respondent-UnJversity.,: aiSowed the students of academlc Session 2008-09 to appear in the annuo.l examination. The petitioner once again made an .appiicatjon for affiliation for the^current year, 2009-iO- for the addltiona! 100 seats, which were allotted to it for academic Session-.2008-09 by'NCTE after completing necessary formalities, However, the respondent- University took a decision Jn its Standing Committee of the Academic Counci! on .23.7,2008 refuslng increase of 100 seats in the college of the petjtioner- instltution^ The decision was communlcated'to the petitioner vide ietter dated 27*7.2008 'vide Annexure p/1. It has been further averred. that the respondent- University a!!owed other educational colieges to admit students and complete the formalities contained in- Statyte 28 with regard to recruitment ^ ^ / 4 of teaching staff from the date of passjng. of the resoiutlon, However, in the. case of the .petitioner- mstjtution, the jmpugned decision has been taken matafideiy. After receipt of-the impugned decision, the petitioner has already submitted an applicatlon dated 27.7.2009 with an affidavit mentionlng therein that s.t shal! be fulfiSling, the •requjred obligation within 30 days from the !date of passing of the impugned'decislon. 05. Respondent-University in its return has ayerred that after receiving the cppflcation for affiEiation, the UniversEty con$tituted an Inspection Team as per CJause 5 of'Statute 2,7* The Inspectlon Team in its report.pointed out serious lapses in th©petitjoner- Institution, such as the Institution did not ' have 'requisite teaching stoff mandatory under the facuJty norms of NCTE. There are only four re9ular teachers appointed as per provisions contained under Statute 28 and rest of the facutty merpbers were a.11 contractua! appointees, For the purpose of satisfying the conditions of grant of affil.latjon, the petitioner has to compiy with the Statute and Ordinances of the Unjyersity. .Since the petitjoner did not have necessary teaching staff, the Inspection Teo.m submitted its report of Annexure R/2-1- The Academic Council rejected the request o-f affKiatlon of the petitjoner vlde Its resolution dated 23,7.2009 'of Annexure R/2-2. The resolution was p!aced before the Executjye Council arsd the same was accepted in Its meeting dasted 25.7.2009 vide Annexure R/2-3. Action of the r-espondent-UnJversity is in accordance with its St.atutes and Ordinances, which are framed ^" v ^. 06. for the goverhQnce of the Uriiversjty and the Colleges affitlated to it. The petltioner-institute cannot be affiliated contrary to the Statute. The: respondent- Uniiversity never refused to jincrease strength of the petitjoner-Enstltution, but has only refused to granit affiliatlon to the petitioner-jnstitutlon for the aforesaid reason. The order for recognition jdated 5,5.2008 in favour of the petltioner by NCT6 for 100 studants was for one year. In the said order, it has been mentioned that .the IristEtutJon shati^make admisslon onEy.after obtaining affijiation from the Examinsng Body irs terms of Clause 8(12) of the NCET (Recognition Norms & Procedure) ReguSations, 2007 (in short ."Regulations, 2007"}. Thus, it is clear that the University can yerify necessary compliance before granting affjliatjon. ftespondent No.4-NCTE Jn its separate return has averred that the NatEonai Assessm@nt and Accreditation Council (NAAC), which is an autonomous intstitution of the Unjyersity ^rants Commission, have accreditsd the petitioner's cotlege with B+ @rade (institutionaS score was between •75-80%) fora period of five years from 31.3,2007,. NCTE after thoroughly examining the physicaj and instructionai infrastructure of the petjtjoner-instjtution mciuding. qualification and experience of the teaching staff; granted recognltion and permEsslon to conduct B.Ed. course with annual Intake of 200stydlents v$d@ order doted 10.5.2008 (Annexure R-4/3). The Uniyersjty is duty bound to 9rant affJjiotion. to the petitjoner- 14. institution to enable it to conduct B.Ed. (Co..Ed5, M.Ed, courses wlth annual . intake • of 200 and 25 respectsvely. NCTE Is the apex body In the matters of teacher's education institutions. Requirement of University cannot have precedent oyer the norms anc( standards of NCTE. The respondent-Unlversity-has no option ^but to grant affiiiation to the petltioner-Jnstitution. If the University finds the institytron lacklng .in physical and jnstructional infrastructure, NCTE may be informed about the sam;e and if NCTE finds. that the institutjon does not fulfi!! the norms, it may wlthdraw the recognition. 07* 'Respondents No* 1^3 In thejr separate rep!y, have su.bmitted that uniess NCTE grants recognition for the extra 100 seats and the respondent-Uniyersity grants affEllatJon with respect to extra seats, the petitioner-institutiQn , cannot be ' allowed to participate in the counseling process for the extra 100 seats. As soon as the petitioner-lnstltution obtains affjElation -fro^. the respondent-Unlversity for the increased 100 seats, respondent No*3. shal! proceed in accordance With law, 08. Mr. Jitendra Pali, learned counsel for the petitioner/ argued that NCTE has already permitted the petitioner--jnstitutjon to admit .100 dddltlonal students: and the respondent-Unlversity . has no jurisdiction to curtai! it. Recruitment of teaching staff and others wou!d be reguiated by USC reguiextions and not by Statute 28. 09. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon'bSe Supreme Court in the matter of Stcite of Mahetf'ashtrs ¥s. Sant OnyQHcshwQr Shikshan Shcstra MQhayidyQlayei and other^ it was argued that once recognition is granted by NCTE under Section 14(6) of the NCTE Act, 1993, every Uniyersjty (ttexamining body") is obiiged' to grant affiliatipn to such institution and Acts, Ordinances and Regulations of the UnEversity do not app!y to such cases. 10. Further relying upon the judgme'nt of Fu!! Bench-of the Kerata High Court^ in the matter of Yikram S^rabh^Ql Educciflonai Triisf 4 B.€d. Collegc^ Kelpamsngal^m Vs. Uni^crsityQf Caficut S Anr2 it was drgued :that when the central body grants recognition, based on the finding that the Coiiege has necessary irsfrastructural facititjes, the. University •has no power or authority to dectine affiliatjon; on the g.round of lack of snfrastructural facilities. If the inspection reportof the Unjyerslty finds lack of infrastructura! -facilities and recognition ho.s been obtained iJiegally/it may bring the same •to the notlce of • NCTE, so that the Counci! can cancel the recognition under Section 17 of the NCTE Act, 1993* It may aiso chaltenge the recognition granted by fiJing on appea! under Sect.ion 18 of the NCTE Act,. 1993 befor®the NCTE. 11. Mr< Bhaskar Pyasl/ Jearned counsel for the NCTE, submitted that NCTE gronted recognition to the petitioner-institution after getting itseSf satjsfied with the infrastructyra! facilitjes avaiiable l.n the i(2006)9SCCl •iAIR2008Kerala216 Yi' •^./' institutjon jncludirsg standard and adequacy of the teaching staff. The respondent-Universlty has no option but to 9rant affiSiation to the petitioner" inststution< 12» I haye heard learned counsei for the parties, 13. Before dealing with the | riva! .contentions of the parties, it would be appropriate to refer to the statutory provisions. that are relevant in this case. 14. The NCTE Act, 1993 was enacted with a vjew to achieve the planned and coordinated development of the teacher education system throughout the country, .the regujatjon and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the teacher education system and for matter connected therewith. Section 14 deafs with recognition, of Institutions offering cour.se.· or training in teacher education. Section 14(1) deais with submission of application to the Regional Committee of the NCTE for recbgnition. Sectlon 14(3)(a) deais with grant of recognition, which reads as-ynder: "14. Rccognitjon of irsstjtutsons offerlng course or training irs teacher (sducation:- (1) xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx (3) On receipt of an appiicatlon by the Regional Commi'ttee from any Institution under sub-section (1), and after obtainmg from the institution concerned such other particulars as it may consider necessary, it shalj,- ,(a) If it is satisfied that such institution has adequate financial resources, Gccommodation, Eibrary, qualified staff, laboratory and that It (S) •< fulfiis su.ch other conditions, required for proper functsoning of the institution for a course or training En teacher educction, as may be determined by regulations, pass an order granting recognition to such | institution, subject to such condjtions as may be determined by reguiations/' Sub-section (6) of Section 14(4) provldes that once the order of recognition is communicated under Section 14(4), the University is bound to grant affjtiation to the College. Section 14(6), dealing with grant of affiilation by the University, reads as folfows: tt(6) Eyery examining body shail, on receipt of the order under sub-section (a) grant affiilation to the institution, where recognition has been granted; or . ' (b) cance! the affiJiation bf the institution, where recognition has been refused." Section 17 deais with canceljation of the recognjtion granted under Section 14(3)< Section 18 provides for appeals against the orders passed under Section 14 or Section 17* ^ 15, Thus, from the aboye scherpe of the Act, it is manifestiy c!ear that once the Western Regiona! Committee of NCTE granted recognition to the petitjoner-jnstitute, the respondent-University js baund to grant affillatlon to the said coiiege; the same cannot be denied on the pretext that the petitioner-institution do not hav.e sufficient s^umber of teachers as required under Statute,28< .•^. "^ 1 " 10 16« In the r^a^^rofSant^nyciricshwarShiksh^nShastra Mahaylclycijaya in paragraph 80 of its Judgment, th® Hon'bte Supreme Court held thus: if80. In our apini^n/ the observation that the provisions\ of Sectians 82 ancf 83 of the MaharasHtra Universities Act are "null and ^aidtt coulcf nat be said to be correct. To us, it appears that what the High Caurt wQntQd to convey was that the proviswn^ of Sectians 82 and 83 wauld nat apply to an m^tituthn covered by the 1993 Act. As pes" the scheme of the Act, once recagnition ha^ been granted by N€TE under Section 14(6) af the Act, eyery university Cexammmg bacfy") is oblig&d ta grant affiiiation ta such mstitutian and Sections 82 and 83 af the University Act do not apply to such cases." 17. In the instant matter, NCTE accordedl recognition to the petJtioner-instEtutian after thorovghfy examini-n9 the physlcai and JnistructionaJ infrastrycture of Bhilai A^aitri College, inciuding qualificatson and experience of the teaching staff, as is evident from the reply of NCTE. RegulatEon 8 of the ReQuJations, 2007 deals with c.ondjtjons 'for grant of reco.gnitjon.in any case, if the Inspection Team constituted by the respondent-University has found any shortcoming In the teaching staff as per requirement of the Reguiatiohs, 2007 and is of the view that the recognitlon has been obtained iUegally by fraud; it can bring the same to the knowledge of NCTE by forwarding the report and may request for withdrGwal of recognition or J.n the alternative, may challenge the reco9nition so •granted by filjng appeal under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993. ^ 11 From the pleadings of the pefitioner and the documents annexed with the petition, we also find that the petitloner hcs already submi.tted an appUcation before the respondent-University to the effect that the institutioni shal! be making good the shortcomsng^ polnted out | by the Inspection Team within a period of 30 days by recruiting teachers. 18, It is not the case where ^o|faci!ities are provided for the conduct of course. ,If; the inspection report of the Universlty is correct,! certain facitlties may be inadequate1 in accordance with . the NCTE norms, However, this is not a case of no facility or where he recognition has been obtained by fraud, The respondent-University, therefore, cannot be permitted to codaterally attack the recognition granted by the NCTE in this petition. The Universjty has to take recourse to the remedies availdbfe to it under the Statute against grant of recognition by the Western Regionai Committee of NCTE atieg.edly ^ithout the essentlal Infrastructura! facitities. In our view, unless the recognition granted to the petitEoner is stayed or Set aside by a competent authorlty, the University is bound to act under Section 14(6) of the NCTE Act, 1993 and 9rant affiliation to, the petitioner-institute- If there are other requirements to, be satisfled by the petltjoner, like recruitjng re9u!ar teachers,. then the Uniyerslty may ask the petitioner to comply . with such requirements within a time frame. However, the requirements should be in conformity with the provlsions of Sec+ion 14(6) of the NCTE Act, 1993 and Regulation 8 of the fteguiations/2007. /i 12 19, In the resutt, the petition js allowed, Respondents No, 1 & 3 are directed to aitow the petitioner- jnstitute to participate in the counseljng for admitting students in B.Ed, course for 200 students. Respondent No.2/University is atso directed to compty with the mandatory provisions of sub-section (6) of Sectjon 14 In the matters of grant of affiliation to the petitioner-jnstitution and grant affitiation to the petjtjoner-instjtution unless recognition granted to it by NCTE is stayed or set aslde by a competent authority. In view of above, IA Nos.l, 2, 4 <& 5 and the applicatlon dated 7.10.2009 for interim directlons, stand dispdsed. of. r Certified copy today itself. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge ® ¥1