IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2008 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 1884 of 2008(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- REV.FR.PAULOSE THOMAS, CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING TRUSTEE, PADINJARECHALIL CHARITABLE SOCIETY, (PARUMALA MAR GREGORIOUS B.ED. TRAINING COLLEGE, NELLIMATTOM P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 693. BY ADV. SRI.ROY CHACKO RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION, (APPELLATE AUTHORITY), HANS BHAVAN, WING II, 1, BAHADURSHAH ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI-110 002. 2. THE NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION, SOUTHERN REGIONAL COMMITTEE, IST FLOOR, CSD BUILDINGS, HMT POST, BANGALORE-560 031. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KURIAN, SC, SRC-NCTE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/03/2008, THE COURT ON 07/04/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.1884/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT.21.11.2203 IN WPC NO.36896/03. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.F.SRO/NCTE/2006- 07/6860 DT.21.7.06 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE NCTE, SOUTHERN REGIONAL COMMITTEE. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT.22.8.06 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DESIGNATED OFFICER SEEKING CERTAIN QUERIES AS ALSO THE INSPECTION REPORT. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.F.SRO/NCTE/2006- 07/7198 DT.10.8.06 OF THE NCTE, SOUTHERN REGIONAL COMMITTEE. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY OF THE PETITIONER DT.14.8.06. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.F.SRO/NCTE/2006- 07/9612 DT.13.12.2006. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.F.SRO/NCTE/REF/2007- 08/10099 DT.29.8.07 OF THE NCTE, SOUTHERN REGIONAL COMMITTEE. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.F.NO.89-320/2007- APPEAL 73906 DT.8.11.2007. EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.26.11.2007 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION RECEIVED FROM THE DESIGNATED OFFICER OF THE NCTE DT.30.8.07. EXT.P11(a): TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE INSPECTION TEAM. EXT.P12: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ENHANCING THE PROCESS FEE TO RS.40000 WHICH CAME INTO EFFECT ON 6.10.03. EXT.P13: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DT.10.10.2007 SENT BY THE OFFICE OF THE UNION MINISTER FOR HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT TO THE MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT, MUVATTPUZHA. WPC NO.1884/2008 -2- EXT.P14: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DT.22.12.2001 FROM THE REGISTRAR, M.G.UNIVERSITY TO THE PETITIOENR ENCLOSING A COPY OF THE REPORT. EXT.P14(a): TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE INSPECTION COMMISSION DT.8.11.1994. EXT.P15: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.28.12.2002. EXT.P16: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DT.1.1.2004. EXT.P17: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CMP NO.15432/03 IN OP NO.8832/2003. EXTS. OF R2 EXT.R2(a): TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT.29.10.03 IN OP NO.8832 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.R2(b): TRUE COPY FO THE JUDGMENT DT.14.1.2004 IN WPC NO.1396/04 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 1884 OF 2008 Y ==================== Dated this the 7th day of April, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner seeks to quash Exts. P7 and P10 and also prays for a direction requiring the 2nd respondent to grant recognition to the petitioner's institution, based on Ext.P11(a) report of Inspection. 2. The petitioner claims to be the Chairman and Managing Trustee of a Charitable Society which has been set up with the objective of imparting quality education and other objects. Petitioner submits that they have set up all facilities for establishing a B.Ed College named as Parumala Mar Gregorious Training College, which satisfies all requirements laid down under the National Council for Teacher Education Act (NCTE Act) and Regulations framed thereunder. According to them, they own 4.5 acres of land in Kothamangalam Village. Showing all details, petitioner had applied to the NCTE for recognition and as there was delay, writ petition was filed before this court as WP(C) No.36986/03, which was disposed of by Ext.P1 judgment. Thereafter, they were informed by Ext.P2 that a team of experts would be visiting their institution. It is stated that the team visited the institution on 25/7/06 and Ext.P11(a) is the report submitted by the WPC 1884/08 :2 : expert team to the Southern Regional Committee of the NCTE. 3. According to the petitioner, the NCTE thereafter issued Ext.P4 informing that on perusal of the report submitted, the Committee was of the view that certain criteria were to be satisfied by the petitioner. On receipt of Ext.P4, petitioner submitted Ext.P5 reply and thereafter had received Ext.P6 communication from the NCTE proposing to conduct a re- inspection of the College. According to the petitioner, re-inspection was not conducted, but however, Ext.P7 was issued informing that the Committee had come to the conclusion that no recognition need be granted to the institution for the reason that the building facilities were not adequate as per the NCTE norms and that the facilities for sharing the labs and the sports facilities provided could not be ascertained. Aggrieved by Ext.P7, the petitioner filed Ext.P8 appeal before the Appellate Authority and the appeal was rejected by Ext.P10 confirming Ext.P7 order of the NCTE. It is challenging Exts. P7 and P10 and seeking consequential directions , this writ petition is filed. 4. The main contentions that are urged by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner are that once application for recognition is made to the NCTE and an inspection is conducted, there is no enabling provision in WPC 1884/08 :3 : the NCTE Act or Regulations for conducting a second inspection. It is also his contention that even if the Regulations provide for such a second inspection, since there is no enabling provision to that effect in the Act, the provision in the Regulations providing for the second inspection is illegal and is liable to be ignored by this court, even in the absence of a formal challenge against the same. He would also argue that Ext.P11 report shows that the institution in question had satisfied all the requirements of the NCTE and therefore, conclusion of the Regional Committee of the NCTE that inadequacies were to be made good by the petitioner is incorrect and their order rejecting the application for recognition is perverse. 5. On behalf of the NCTE, a detailed counter affidavit has been filed in which they justify their action. According to them, on receipt of the application from the petitioner, an inspection was conducted by a team of experts and on examining the report, infrastructural facilities provided by the petitioner were found to be lacking in several respects. It is stated that after the Committee considered Ext.P11(a) report, Ext.P4 notice was issued to the petitioner pointing out the inadequacies in their institution. It is stated that though the NCTE had freedom to reject the petitioner's WPC 1884/08 :4 : application at that stage itself, it had resolved to conduct a fresh inspection and that was communicated to the petitioner by Ext.P6. Counsel would submit that though a team deputed by the Southern Regional Committee wanted to visit the petitioner's institution, such inspection was not permitted. It is pointed out that even according to the petitioner, the inspection would be of no use and in para 1 of Ext.P8 appeal memorandum it is stated that “hence the Institution informed the Regional Committee as well as the Inspection Team that the Institution is not interested in a second visit since there is no purpose”. It is stated that in the aforesaid circumstances, the NCTE had to decide the matter in the light of Ext.P11(a) inspection report and Exts.P4 and P5. It is stated that in terms of the provisions contained in the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2005, NCTE was entitled a second inspection of the facilities provided by the petitioner. 6. First of all, I shall deal with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no legal sanction for a second inspection by the NCTE. At the outset, I should state that Clause 7(13) of the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2005 provide as follows: WPC 1884/08 :5 : 7(13) In cases where the Regional Committee, after consideration of the report of the Visiting Team, is of the opinion that the institution does not fulfill the requirements for starting/conducting the course, such an institution will be allowed one more opportunity for inspection after removal of the deficiencies. For such inspection the institution concerned shall again deposit a fee of Rs.40,000/- to the Regional Committee concerned through a demand draft from any Nationalized Bank drawn in the favour of the Member Secretary, NCTE payable at the city where the Regional Committee is located. However, no such fee is required if the deficiencies pointed out are minor in nature not involving civil construction or the like and the rectifications are verifiable without physical inspection. Evidently therefore, the NCTE is entitled to have a second inspection and this Regulation is not under challenge. 7. Counsel would argue that section 14 of the NCTE Act does not provide for a second inspection and if that be so, even in the absence of a challenge to Regulation 7(13), if the Regulation is illegal or is opposed to the provisions of the parent statute, Court is bound to ignore the same. Though there is no quarrel with this legal principle, the question is whether, in the facts of this case, the aforesaid principle has any relevance. 8. Section 14 of the NCTE Act provides for recognition of institutions, offering course or training in teacher education. This section provides that every institution offering or intending to offer a course for WPC 1884/08 :6 : training in teacher education should make an application to the Regional Committee for grant of recognition in such form and in such manner as may be determined by the Regulation. 9. Sub-section (3) provides that on receipt of the application by the Regional Committee, and “after obtaining from the institution concerned such other particulars as it may consider necessary”, if it is satisfied that the institution has adequate financial resources, accommodation, library, qualified staff, laboratory and that it fulfills such other conditions required for proper functioning of the institution, the NCTE may pass an order granting recognition to such institution subject to such conditions as may be determined by the regulations. In terms of the proviso before passing any order refusing recognition the Regional Committee shall provide a reasonable opportunity to the concerned institution for making a written representation. A reading of the provision shows that in the process of satisfying itself that the conditions for recognition have been satisfied by the institution concerned, the Regional Committee is entitled to obtain from the institution concerned the particulars that it considers necessary. 10. NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations 2005 WPC 1884/08 :7 : has been framed by the NCTE exercising its power under Section 32 (2) of the Act. Clause 7 of the said Regulation provides for processing of application for recognition. Clause 7(5) provides for inspection and 7(13) provides for a second inspection, which has already been extracted in the earlier part of this judgment. Therefore, in terms of the statutory obligation of the NCTE to consider the application and to satisfy itself that the institution has provided the facilities that are required of it, the NCTE is entitled to conduct an inspection. In so far as the 2nd inspection is concerned, clause 7(13) provides for allowing one more opportunity of inspection to an institution which is already found to be not satisfying the requirements of the Act and the Regulations. This Regulation, namely, 7 (13) is only favourable to the institution concerned and I do not find anything illegal in Regulation 7(13). 11. Petitioner is not objecting to the inspection that was conducted on the first occasion. What is contended is that there is no enabling provision providing for a second inspection. Not only the submission is incorrect, but I am also satisfied that by providing for a second inspection as per clause 7(13) of the Regulations, the NCTE has not travelled beyond the provisions of Section 32 which confers on the WPC 1884/08 :8 : NCTE the power to make Regulations or any other provisions of the Act. It is the settled position of law that a subordinate legislation can be invalid either if it offends the provisions of the parent statute or if it is illegal or unconstitutional for any other reason. In this case, none of these vitiating circumstances can be validly urged against Regulation 7(13) and therefore I do not find any substance in the contention now raised by the counsel for the petitioner. 12. The objection of the learned counsel for the petitioner against Regulation 7(13) is on the basis that Ext. P11(a) inspection report is in favour of the institution and therefore on the strength of Ext. P11 inspection report itself, the institution is liable to be granted recognition. In my view, this assumption made by the petitioner is also without any basis. It is stated in Ext. P11(a) report that currently the institution is functioning in a rented building and that once approval is granted the petitioner will construct its own building. It is also stated that the institution has the approval of St. John's Senior Secondary School, a neighbouring school for utilizing their Science Laboratories, Psychology Lab and Sports facilities. Pointing out these findings in Ext. P11(a) the learned counsel appearing for the NCTE argued that this itself evidences that the WPC 1884/08 :9 : petitioner's institution does not satisfy the requirements of the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations 2005 and the Norms and Standards for Secondary Teacher Education Programme issued by the NCTE. 13. Clause 8(5) and 8(8) of the Regulations is extracted below for reference: “8(5). No institution shall be granted recognition under these regulations unless it is in possession of required land on the date of application. The land free from all encumbrances could be either on ownership basis or on lease for a period of not less than 30 years. In cases where under relevant State/ UT laws the maximum permissible lease period is less than 30 years, the State Government/ UT Administration law shall prevail. 8(8). At the time of inspection, the building of the institution shall be complete in the form of a permanent structure on the land possessed by the institution in terms of Regulation 8 (5), equipped with all necessary amenities and fulfilling all such requirements as prescribed in the norms and standards.” In Clause 5.2 providing for instructional standards specified in the Norms and Standards referred to above it is provided in (c) and (d) as follows: “(c). There shall be a science laboratory. The laboratory shall have multiple sets of science apparatus required to perform and demonstrate the experiments prescribed in the syllabus for secondary/senior secondary classes. Chemicals, etc. should be provided WPC 1884/08 :10 : in the required quantity. (d) There shall be Psychology Laboratory with apparatus for simple experiments related to educational psychology.” From the above it can be seen that the institution should have its own building and also it should have a science laboratory and a psychology laboratory, meeting the standards as specified. In this case, even going by Ext. P11(a) inspection report relied on by the petitioner itself, it can be seen that at the time of inspection these infra-structural facilities were not provided by the petitioner. If that be so, there is nothing irregular in the decision of the respondents in declining to grant recognition to the petitioner based on Ext. P11 and to conduct a second inspection. 14. I do not find any illegality in the decision of the 2nd respondent, warranting interference with Exts. P7 and P10. The writ petition is only to be dismissed and I do so. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Rp