HI6H COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BIL4.SPUR WRIT PETITION N0.6351/2006 1 p • 4:bx WRIT PETITION Fcl N0.3271/2007 WRIT PETITION fc1 N0.5096/2007 WRIT PETITION fcl N0.5095/2007 WRIT PETITION [cl N0.4057/2007 WRIT PETITION [cl N0.3326/2007 POST FCft OR&ER ON ©"I'^'APRIL,20)8 PETITIONER Association of Private Professional Unaided Colleges of Chhattisgarh. Vs RESPON&ENTS State of ChhaTTisgarh and others PETITIONER Konark Shiksha Mahavidhyalay, Koksa. Vs RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh &. others PETITIONERS Roopresh & others Vs RESPON&ENTS State of Chhattisgarh & others PETITIONERS Ku. Madhubala <& others Vs RESPONbENTS State of Chhattisgarh & others PETITIONERS Yo9esh Chand M'tahra & others Vs RESPONbENTS l?uru Shasidas Univer-sity, Bilaspur & others PETITIONERS Yogesh Kumar Sharma & others Vs RESPONDENTS 6uru Shasidas University, Bilaspur <& others "~t n .-. ^bi. HI©HCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER WRIT PETITION N0.6351/2006 Association of Private Professional Unaided Colleges of Chhattisgarh Through its Seneral Secretary, M. Tahir Khan, S/o. Late 5hri Ismail Khan, aged about 57 years, R/o Rungta College of Engineering <& Technology, Kohka, Kurud Road, Bhiali, District Durg (C.6.) Vs RESPONDENTS PETITIONER 1. State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Schooi Education Department, &.K.S. Bhavan, Mantraloya, Raipur (,C.G.) 2. Director, State Education Research and Training Council, Shankar Nagar, Raipur (C.6.) 3. Pt. Ravishankar- Shukla University, Raipur through its Registrar, Raipur (C.6.). WRIT PETITION [cl N0.3271/2007 Konark Shiksha Mahavidyalay at Koksa Tah. Janjgir, Distt. Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh, A Private Unaided Co\lege, represented by its Secretary (Kamal Singh, aged about 31 years, son of Shri Karan Singh) Vs RESPONDENTS ^.,, PETITIONERS 1. 5tate of Chhattisgarh through- the Secretary, Oepartment School Education, Mantralay, t)au Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur. 2. OirecTor, State EducaTion Research and Training Councif, Shankar Nagar, Raipur (C.6.) 3. (5uru ©hasidasUniversity, Bilaspur through its Registrar, ©uru ©hasidas University, Koni, Bilaspur (C.6.). 4. National Council for Teacher Education, A Statutory Body of fiovernment of India, Western Region Committee, Through its Regional Director, Manas Bhavan, Shyamla Hills, Bhopal (MP) WRIT PETITION tel N0.5096/2007 1. Roopresh, 5/o Badri Prasad Saini, aged about 22 years, R/o Thamawali, Post Sakat, Tahsil Rajgarh, Oistt. Mwac- (Rajasthan) — Vs RESPONOENTS ^- 2S;, -• u PETITIONERS 2. Hernant Kumar Singh, 5/o Ashok Kumar Singh, aged about 24 years, R/o Janjgir- Champa (C6). 3. Vishambar Dayal, S/o Hett-am, aged about 38 years, R/o Bijawar Chouhan, Tahsil Mundawar, Distt. Alwar (Rcjasthan). 4. Sanjay Kumar Saini, S/o Dataram Saini, aged about 23 years, ft/o Bijawar Chouhan, Tahsil Mundawar, bistt. Atwar (ftajasthan). 1. State of Chhattisgarh through the 5ecretary, Department of School Education, Mantralay, &.K.S. Bhawan, Roipur (C6) 2. Director, State Education Research and Training Council, Shankar Nagar, Raipur (C.6.) 3. Quru ©hasidasUniversity, Bilaspur through its Registrar, Guru ©hasidas University, Koni, Bilaspur (C.6.). 4. National Council for Teacher Education- A statutory body of Sovernment of India, Wes+ern Region Committee, Through its Regional Director, Manas Bhavan, Shyamla Hills, Bhopal (MP). 5. Konark Shiksha Mahavidyalay at Koksa Tah. Janjgir, Distt. Janjgir-Champa, ChhatTisgarh, A PrivaTe Unaided College, represented by its Secretary (Kamal Singh, aged about 31 years, son of 5hri Karan Singh). WRIT PETITION tc1 N0.5095/2007 1. Ku. Madhubala, d/o Shri ©eetam Singh, aged about 21 years, R/o Nagala Bayana, Bharatpur, Distt. Bharatpur (Rajasthan) 2. Yougesh Kumar, S/o Karan Singh Yadav, aged abouT 22 years, R/o ^illage Sopalpura, Tahsil Laxman 6arh, E>istt. Alwar (Rajasthan). 3. Tejprakash Verma, S/o Shri Lalaram Verma, a9ed about 24 years, R/o 2/250 Kalakuan, ^lwar, Distt. A\war (Rajasthan). Vs RESPON&ENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh thr-ough the SecreTary, DepartmenT of School Education,b.KS. Bhawan, Raipur (C6) 2.The birector. State Education Research ,1 p . '-: b -t PETITIONERS *-• and Training Councit, Shankar Nagar, Raipur (C.6.) 3. Quru Shasidas University, Bilaspur through its Registrar, Suru Shasidas University, Koni Bilaspur (C.6-). 4. National Education for Teacher Education- A statutory body of Sovernment of India, Western Region Committee, Through its Re9ional birector, Manas Bhayan, Shyamla Hills, Bhopal (MP). 5. Konark Shiksha Mahavidyalay at Koksa Tah. Janjgir, Distt. Janj9ir-Champa, Chhattisgarh, A Private Unaided College, represented by its Secretary (Kamal Singh.aged about 31 years, son of Shri Karan Singh). WRIT PETITION [cl N0.4057/2007 1. Yogesh Chand Mishra, 5/o Shri Vinod Kumar, aged about 25 years, R/o 784, Sector-3, Balko Nagar, Korba, bistrict Korba (C.6.) 2. Renu Dubey, D/o Shri Triveni Shankar, aged about 24 years, R/o Balko Nagar, Korba, District Korba (C.6.) 3. Jyotna Dadekar, S/o Shri Sumegh S. badekar, aged about 35 years, R/o, Korba, (C.6.) 4. Beena Kumar Yadav, S/o Shri Birbal Yadav, aged about 32 years, R/o Jhomar, Rajastha. 5. Rabia Khan, S/o Shri Md. Rahjada, aged about 37 years, R/o. Janjgir-Champa (CG) 6. Ku. Tripti Sharma, t5/o Shri Anil Kumar, aged about 32 years, R/o Saragaon, District Janjgir-Champa (C6) 7. Ku. Deepati Tiwari, W/o Umashankar Tiwari, aged about 24 years, R/o Janjgir Champa (C6) 8. Hansraj Singh, 5/o. Shri Ramnarayan, aged about 34 years, R/o Janjgir-Champa (C6) 9. Ramesh Kumar, S/o Hetram, aged about 23 years, R/o. Jodhpur, Rajasthan. 10. Dharamraj Meena, S/o Shri Chhotu Lal Meena, aged about 29 years, R/o. Ajmer, Rajasthan. 11.Ku. Sangeeta, D/o Shri Rajendra, aged about 22 years, R/o Jhumanu. Rajasthan. rr Vs RESPON&ENTS PETITIONERS ?c 12. Ku. Sumeeta, &/o Shri Dari Singh, aged about 24 years, R/o Jhumanu, Rajasthan 13. Ku. Suman, t>/o Shri Purshottam, aged about 26 years, R/o Jhumanu, Rajasthan 14. Ku. Anita, D/o Bhagirathi Singh, aged about 21 years, R/o Jhumanu, Rajosthan. 15. Naresh Kumar, S/o Shri Subhash Chander, aged about 24 years, R/o Jhumanu, Rajaathan. 1. ©uru fihasidas University, through its Registrar, Bilaspur (C.6.). 2. State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, School Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralay, Raipur (C6) 3. Director, State Education Research and Training Councit, Shankar Nagar, Raipur (C.6.) 4. Lal Bahadur Shashtri B.Ed. Cotlege, Balod, &istrict Janjgir-Champa, (C6). & WRIT PETITION [cl N0.3326/2007 1. Yogesh Kumar Sharma, S/o Shri Ramkishore Sharma, aged about 24 years, R/o village Shree Rampura, Tehsit Lalsot, District Dausa (Rajasthan). 2. Saroj Jain, D/o Rajmol Jain, aged about 29 years, R/o. 17, Palm Mandir Colony, Bajaria, Swai Madhopur (Rajasthan) 3. Meenakshi 6upta, &/o 5hri Kanhaiyalal, aged about 31 years, R/o Basant Bihar, Bangali Cotony, Joshpur (C.6.) 4. Pradeep Kumar Pandey, S/o Ravinath Pandey, a9ed about 30 years, R/o Mahalpara, Post Baikunth, District Korea (C.6.) Vs RESPON&ENTS 1. ©uru Shasidas University, through its Registrar, Bilaspur (C.6.). 2. State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, School Education Department, &.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralay, Raipur (C6) 3. College of Educdtion Meduka, Pendra Rond, Bilaspur (C.6.) .•£?.• (. o p '--• '-'bu Present: OR D E R (Passed on 3^'April. 2008) Eshirendra Mishra. J. 1. The petitioner in W.P. No.6351/06 claiming itself to be an association of private professional unaided colleges of Chhattisgarh and the petitioner in W.P. {c} No.3271/07, a private unaided college, have filed the above petitions against the respondent-State, Director, State Education Research and ' Training Councit, Raipur (for brevity 'SERTC') and universities i.e. Pt. Ravi Shankar Shukla University, Raipur & Guru fihasidas University, Bilaspur and prayed for direction to respondent- Director to allow the private unaided B.Ed. cofleges to give admissions in the vacant seats for B.Ed. course to those students who have qualified the Pre-B.Ed. examination and in case sufficient numbers of students are not avoilabte from amongst qualified B.Ed. examination candidates, then they may be permitted to admit students according to the guidelines and norms of the National Council for Teacher Education (for brevity 'NCTE'). The petitioner college in W.P. [c] No.3271/07 has also prayed for altowing the students admitted in the institution to appear in the examination conducted by the Mr. Sunil Otwani, Advocata For the petitioners in WP. No. 6351/06, W.P. [c] No.3236/07 & WP [c] No.4057/07. Mr. Adit Minhaj, Advocate For the petitioners in W.P.[c] No.5095/07 & 5096/07. Mr. Ambuj Agarwal, Advocate For the petitioner in W.P. [c] No.3271/07. Mr. V.V.S. Murthy, Deputy Advocate Seneral. For The respondent-State of Chhattjsgarh. Mr. P.K. Verma, Senior Advocate with fAr. Sumit Verma, Advocate. For respondent-6uru ©hasidas Universi+y, Bilaspur. Mra. Renu Kochar, Advocate For respondent- National Ectucation for Teacher Education AAr. Jitendra Pali, Advocate For respondent-Pt. Ravi Shankar Sjiykla UnJversrtY'_ftaiPMr^ c -3.'.b , J^ respondent university and direct the respondent university to conduct examination of the papers in which the students of the petitioner institution were restrained from appearing. 2. Whereas, other writ petitions i.e. WP [c] Nos.4057/07, 3326/07,5095/07 & 5096/07 have been filed by the students, who are pursuing their studies in B.Ed. course in the various educational colleges of the State and who have been denied from appearing in the examination by the respondent university concerned on the ground that they have not been admitted as per the guideiines and directions issued by the SCERT after* counseting they have also prayed for similar reliefs. 3. Briefly stated the case of the petitioners is that the member colle9es of the petitioner association are unaided co\\eges which are runnin9 B.Ed. course and they are reco9nized from the NCTE and are also affiiiated from the concerned university, The State for the purpose of admission in B.Ed. course enacted the C.6. B.Ed. Admission Rules, 2006 (for brevity 'Rules, 2006) (Annexure P-3) which extends to the government and private colleges which run B.Ed. course. As per Rules, 2006 entrance examination was conducted by the State Sovernment for the academic session 2006 and merit !ist was prepared for the students who qualified in the entrance examination. First counseting was held on 16.9.2006; second phase of counseling was held on 29.9.2006 and third phase of counseling wois held from l6+ to 18+ October, 2006. Despite convening three counseling avaitable seats in various colleges of the State could not be filted in and in these circumstances the petitioners have filed this petition for the above reiiefs. 4. The petitioner in W.P. (c) No.3271/2007, a private unaided college, admitted the students without counseling, submitted the iist of admitted students with the respondent university, who in turn, accepted the list of admitted students in the college and atso dccepted the exaininatiorL fee from the 7 .> ^bo college and permitted the students to appear in the practical examination without any protest or objection. However, all of a sudden the respondent university disallowed the students, so admitted, to appear in the examination vide order of Annexure p-1. 5. The other writ petitions are by the students who have been admitted in various educational colleges of the State and they have been disallowed to appear in the exomination by the respondent university on the ground that their admission is without hoiding appropriate counseling by the SERTC though some of them were permitted to appear in the practical examination conducted by the respondent university. 6. From perusal of the record it appears that in W.P. No.6351/06 member colleges of the petitioner association admitted the students for B.Ed. course during pendency of their representation dated 26.10.2006, continued their studies and this Court vide order dated 13.4.2007 permitted them to appear in the examination making it clear that appearing in the said examination woutd not create any right in favour of the students and the students were also required to furnish undertaking to the effect that they would not claim any right on the ground that they have appeared in the examination. 7. The only question for consideration in these writ petitions is that whether educationat colleges of the State can be permitted to admit such students in the B.Ed. course, who have not participated in the counselin9 conducted after Pre-B.Ed. examination of the academic year 2006. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehementiy argued that the seats of the educational colleges could not be filled even after third counseling, the petitioners submitted their representation to the State Sovernment as also to the SCERT •'t r -'. //c.} for permitting them to admit such students who have qualified Pre-B.Ed. examination and in case, number of such students are not sufficient to fitl in the vacancy, to admit other students according to the guidelines and norms of the NCTE. However, when their representation was not decided by the concerned authorities for sufficiently long time, the member colleges admitted the students against the vacancies. Member colteges of the petitioner association have been started by the private parties, they are not seeking any aid from the government, they are running the institution not for any 9ain, the object of the private unaided colleges is charitable in nature, however", in ordep to run their coileges they need reasonable revenue, which may be generated only by running the institution after filling its vacancies to its capacity. In these circumstances, adequate numbers of students who participated in the counseling conducted by the 5CERT was not availabte and therefore, the unaided colleges have been !eft with no alternative but to fill in the vacancies of their colleges by such students who were quatified in Pre-B.Ed examination or who satisfy the norms fixed for in this regard by the NCTE. 9. AAr. Ambuj Agarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner-Konar-k Shiksha Mahavidhaylay, Koksa argued that the list of admitted students by the cotlege was duly forwarded to the respondent University, who after accepting the list accepted the necessary admission fee as also examination fee for practical examination of the students to be conducted by the university. 10. Whereas, Mr. Adilt Minhaj <S Mr. Sunil Otwani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the students argued that the students were admitted by the colleges in B.Ed. course because after counseling sufficient number of students to fill in the vacancies in the colleges were not availabte. List of students, so admitted, was forwarded to the respondent-university and 9 the university accepted the list and also accepted the deposit of examination fee for practica! examination without any protest. Therefore, on the principte of equity the petitioners are entitled to pursue their studies and their admission cannot be canceted at the fag end of academic session, as the equity lies in favour of the petitioners. Reliance is placed on in the matter of State of Maharasthra Vs. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya & Ors . 11.0n the other hand, Mr. P.K. Verma, Sr. Advocate appearing for respondent-6uru ©hasidas University, Bilaspur and Mr. Pali, Advocate appearing for respondent-Pt. Ravi Shankar Shukla University, Raipur vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that the petitioners-institutions admitted the students and the students obtained the admission in educational colleges after the period of counseling was over. It is not in dispute that the students were admitted without counseling in contravention of the binding rules framed in this regard by the ©overnmentof Chhattsi9arh i.e. Rules, 2006. The students were permitted to appear in the practical examination due to interim order passed by this Court in W.P. No.6351/06 and from perusai of the interim order itself it would be clear thatundertaking was required to be obtained from such students who were permitted to appear in the practical examination to the effect that they shalt not ctaim any right on the ground that they were permitted to appear in the practical examination. From the averments in the petition it is evident that the institutions admitted the students without following the binding rules i.e. Rules, 2006 framed by the State Sovernment in this r-egard and thus, the petitioners do not have any legal right to seek the relief which they are claiming through these petitions and the direction cannot be issued for permitting the colleges to admit students and also ' 2006 AIR SCW 2048 10 -) -^ .-. ^ / ^ permit them to appear in the examination in violation of the statutory rules i.e. Rules, 2006. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the pnrties. 13. The State Sover-nment vide notification dated 20t April 2006 notified the Rules, 2006. The said Rules, 2006 extend to a!l the government and private colleges of the State which run B.Ed. course. Rule 3 clearly provides that the admission to B.Ed. course will be given only through counseling conducted on the basis of merit list of Pre-B.Ed. Examination and not otherwise. Rule 6 provides that a Pre-B.Ed. examination will be organized every year for admission to B.Ed. course by an agency appointed by the State ©overnment. Rule 7 envisages that separate merit list shall be prepared on the basis of marks obtained in Pre-B.Ed. examination for Scheduted Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Other Backward Classes category and unreserved category. Rute 8 provides for counseling which envisages that counseling would be done for giving admission in the institutions after publication of the merit list and the procedure to be adopted during counseling has been elaborately detailed. Rule 9 provides that when enough candidates for admission of reserved ciasses are not availabls, these seats will be converted into unreserved ctass seats in the same category. Rule 10 provides for a situation where enough candidates of reseryed class are not available. It further provides manner of admission when enough candidates of reserved category are not available. Rule 11 deals with a situation where enough candidates who are bonafide residents of Chhattisgarh are not available. 14. In exercise of powers conferred under Section 32 sub- section (2) of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (73 of 1993) the NCTE framed regulatsons called 'National Council For Teacher Education (Recognition Norms & Procedure) (Amendment) Regulations. 2006 (for brevity 11 /' 7 ',' ^l' 'Regulations, 2006'). The NCTE has fixed the norms and standards for secondary teacher education programme leading to Bachefor of Education de9ree (B.Ed. degree). Regufation 3 of Regulations, 2006 deals with intake, eligibility and admission procedure. Regulation 3.3 provides for admission procedure and prescribes that admission shalt be made on merit on the basis of marks obtained in the quatifying examination and/or in the entrance examination or any other selection process as per the poficy of the State ©overnment/Union Territory Administration and the University. 15. Thus,from perusal of the Regulations, 2006 it is evident that the admission to B.Ed. course is to be made strictly in accordance with the regulations notified by the NCTE as per policy of the State Sovernment. 16. In the instant matters it is not in dispute that the students have been admitted in the various educational colleges of the State without foltowing the procedure prescribed in Rules, 2006. Students we.re admitted in various colleges' de-hors of the above Rules even after writ petition was filed by the association and the same was pending before this Court. 17.In the matter of State of Punjab and others Vs. Renuka Singla and others the Hon'ble Apex Court held thus;- The High Courts or the Supreme Court cannot be generous or liberat in issuing such directions which in substance amount to directing the authorities concerned to violate their own statutory rules and regulations, in respect of admissions of students. Technical education, inctuding medical education, requires infrastructure to cope with the requirement of gjving proper education to the students, who are admitted. Taking into consideration the infrastructure, equipment, staff, the (1994) 1 SCC 175 12 Q -, •••. i. / ^, limit of the number of admissions is fixed either by the Medical Council of India or Dental Council of India. The 1-ligh Court cannot disturb that balance between the capacity of the institution and number of admissions, on "compassionate ground". The High Court should be conscious of the fact that in this process they are affecting the education of the students who have already been admitted, against the fixed seats, after a very tough competitive examination. According to us, there does not appear to be any justification on the part of the High Court, in the present case, to direct admission of respondent 1 on "compassionate ground" and to issue a fiat to create an additiona! seat which amounts to a direction to violate Section 10-A and Section 10-B(3) of the Dentists Act." 18. In the matter of State of Maharastra Vs. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale and others while considering admission to B.Ed. course on direction of the High Court, it has been held that admission to B.Ed. Course in unrecognized educational institution on the basis of writ petition filed by the students '>-for direction of High Court to State Sovernment to per-mit them to appear in the examination and to allocate the passed candidates in a recognized institution to prosecute their further courses was wrongly allowed being a direction to disobey the law. 19. In the matter of Sant bnyaneshwar the State of Maharashtra had taken a policy decision not to grant 'no objection certificate' to any institution for starting new B.Ed college for academic year 2005-06. The NCTE was apprised about the above decision and asked not to directly consider any application for grant of permission to start B.Ed college. (1992)45cc435 1 3 i ‘ J 1 ‘ \ » n H a w e v e r , 1 ' h e ‘ N C T E g r u n f e d p e r m i s s i o n f 0 f h e p a i f i o n e r i n s f i f u ‘ r i o n . T h e S T a i ' e c h a l l e n g e d f h e s a i d n c f i o n b y f i l i n g a w r i f p e ‘ r i f i o n c o n ‘ f e n d i n g f h a ‘ l ’ 1 ' h e d e c i s i o n o f f h e N C T E i s n o 1 ’ i n c o n s o n a n c e w i f h + h e I u w a s f h e s a m e h a s b e e n o n e i g n o r i n g i h e p o l i c y d e c i s i o n o f ‘ r h e 5 + a + e G o v e r n m e n t T h e H o n ’ b l e A p e x C o u r ' l d i s m i s s i n g f h e a p p e a l o f f h e S ‘ m ‘ f e o f M a h a r a s f h r a h e l d f h u l N C T E i s f i n a l a u ‘ l ’ h o r i f y + 0 g r a n ' r / r e f u s e p e r m i s s i o n ' l ' o s f a r f n e w B . E d . c o l l e g e a n d f h e S f o f e G o v e r n m e n f c a n n o f r e f u s e p e r m i s s i o n o n T h e p o l i c y c o n s i d e r o f i o n a n d i n T h e s e c i r c u m s f a n c e s f h e r e s p o n d e n f C o l l e g e s w e r e p e r - m i f f e d T o a d m i t s f u d e n f s a n d i f w a s d i r e c t e d t h o ? f h e o r d e r - p a s s e d b y f h e N C T E w o u l d o p e r