HI6H COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(C) No.5142 OF 2009 PETITIONERS 1. Vikas Agrawal, aged 33 years, S/o Shri P.S. Agrawal RESPONbENTS 2. Vs Smt. Meera Agrawal, aged 60 years, W/o Shri P.S. Agrawal Both R/o 36/4, East Bhilai, Distt. Durg (C6) 1. The State Council of Educational Research and Training, Through: The Director, State Council of Educational Research and Training, Shankar Nagar; Raipur (C6) 2. The National Council for Teacher Education, Through: (A) The Secretary, The National Council for Teacher Education, Hans Bhawan, Wing-II, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, Near RTO, New Delhi. (B) The Secretary, Western Regional Committee, Manas Bhawan, Shyamla Hills: Bhopal, MP. 3. The State of Chhattisgarh, Through; The Secretary to the Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Education Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur, C6. 4. Bhilai College of Information Technology, Through: the Principal, Bhilai College of Information Technology; 39/4, Nehr-u Nagar (East): Bhilai, C6. -?• y.' ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(C) No.5142 OF 2009 PETITIONERS Vikas Agrawal and another Vs RESPONDENTS The State Council of Educational Research and Training and others POST FOR ORDER ON 5-12-2009 Sd/- DhirendraMishra Judge y 'f/f^.,''\. &' I S """s'sy^. g Present; O R D ER (Passed on '^•'^ December, 2009) bhirendra Mishra. J 01. Heard on IA No.02, application for taking document on record by the petitioners; I/\ No.03, application for permission to file substituted return by respondent No.4; IA No.04, application for taking document on record by the petitioners; and IA No.05, application for taking document on record by respondent No.4. 02. Not opposed by the other side. 03. The above applications are, accordingly, allowed. 04. With the consent of the parties, the matter was heard finally. 05. The petitioners have filed the instant petition and prayed for direction to respondent No.l to withdraw its permission to participate in the counseling for B.Ed. course granted to respondent No.4 and not to permit admission in the said institution/College. The petitioners have also prayed for direction to respondent No.l to make suitable arrangements to Mr. Anurag bayal Shrivastava, Advocate. For the petitioners. Mr. Sumesh Bajaj, £ovt. Advocate. For the State Mr. Bhaskar Pyasi, Advocate. For respondent No. 2. &r. N.K. Shukla, Sr. Advocate with Mr. A.K. Yadav, Advocate. For the respondent No. 4. ..•'^r:'"^:3!^-. '<<»s;3:ia %>--.. /:. allocate/allot other colleges to those students, who have opted for admission in respondent No.4/college. 06. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that respondent No.4/College is conducting B.Ed. course under the recognition granted by the National Council for Teachers' Education (in short "NCTE") vide its order dated 9.8.2005 (Annexure P/5). The petitioners lodged various complaints against the malpractice and illegal conduct of the said College before the authorities. On the basis of complaints, enquiry was conducted and report dated 13.6.2008 (Annexure P/6) was submitted before respondent No.l/State Council of Educational Research and Training (in short "SCERT"). By the said report, the Enquiry Committee considered the assurances of respondent No.4 and recommended that if the Management Committee of respondent No.4/College files an affidavit that they shall transfer the institution in their own building or any building taken for- 30 years' lease as per norms of the NCTE within a period of one year and revive its affiliation with the University, in that event, grant of an opportunity of one more year, appears to be appropriate. Respondent No.l vide its Memo dated 25.6.2009 (Annexure P/8) intimated NCTE regarding violation of the norms by the said College. However, again by its Memo dated 20.7.2009 (Annexure P/9), respondent No.l directed the College management to furnish affidavit to comply with the norms of NCTE within one year so that the College may be permitted to participate in the counseling. 07. It is further submitted that respondent No.2, on the basis of complaint of the petitioners and recommendations of respondent No.l in its 121st Meeting, issued show cause notice to respondent No.4 for violation of the norms of Clause 8(7) of the Regulations, 2007 of the NCTE Act, 1993. Respondent No.4 submitted its representation to the Western Regional Committee (in short "WRC") of the NCTE. WRC in its 124th Meeting, after considering the representation of respondent No.4, decided to withdraw recognition for conducting B.Ed. course of respondent No.4 under Section 17(1) of the NCTE Act, 1993 (Annexure P/l). Consequently, the order of withdrawal of recognition was issued vide order dated Z5th/31st August, 2009 (Annexure P/2). However, respondent No.l has permitted respondent No.4/College to participate in the counseling, despite recognition of respondent No.4 has been withdrawn by NCTE. 08. Mr. A.K. Yadav, learned counsel for respondent No.4/College, submitted that petitioner No.2 is the landlord of the house/building, in which respondent No.4-institution is located. Petitioner No.2 has also filed a civil suit for eviction of respondent No.4 from its house in the Court of 8th Civil Judge, Class-II, Durg. There are other civil litigations pending between the petitioners and respondent No.4 on the same subject matter. The petitioners have no locus standi to file the instant petition as the petitioners are neither students nor- guardians of such students, who have been admitted in respondent No.4/College. NCTE, WRC, recognized respondent No.4/College with •y- i '' 09. an annual intake of 100 students for conducting B.Ed. course for the academic Session 2005-06 vide Annexure R-4/11. Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University granted affiliation to respondent N.4 for imparting B.Ed. course for 2005-06 vide Annexure R-4/12. On the basis of complaint of the petitioners, Vice Chancellor of the University constituted a Committee to enquire into the complaint and informed respondent No.4 vide its Memo dated 6.6.2008 (Annexure R-4/18) that its affiliation is cancelled for academic Session 2008-09. However, the above decision was amended vide order dated 28.7.2008 (Annexure R-4/16) and affiliation was revived on the condition that the College will have its own building within a period of one year. The Director of respondent No.l at the behest of the petitioners, vide its Memo dated 25.6.2009 (Annexure R-4/25) recommended to NCTE, WRC, for cancellation of recognition. However, respondent No.4 was allowed by respondent No.l to participate in the counseling and respondent No.4 admitted 100 students, who were assigned to it in the third round of counseling, vide Annexure R-4/31 and R-4/32. Mr. Bhaskar Pyasi, learnedcounsel for respondent No.Z/NCTE, supporting the case of the petitioners, submitted that the institution was recognized by WRC under Section 14 of the NCTE Act, 1993 read with NCTE Regulations, 2002 to start the B.Ed. course in the temporary rented accommodation for the maximum period of 3 years from the academic Session 2005-06. Clause 7(d) of Appendix 7 to NCTE Regulations, 2002 (Annexure R-2/1) permits grant of y7^-;~ ,/'^"--* ':^ ^'SSVS^Si' fi, I;' "•VSSSiS!f. y Y^ ^ 'vfv. •ffi- •^. t^-'" temporary recognition, and recognition may be granted temporarily or a maximum period of three years, before expiry of which the institution should shift to its permanent building. Respondent No.4 was required to comply with the condition to shift its permanent location before commencement of academic Session 2008-09. The Director, SCERT, Raipur, uvho is the State Representative of the State of Chhattisgarh and Member of WRC at Bhopal, informed WRC, vide its Memo dated 25.6.2009 (Annexure P/8), that the institution had not complied with the conditions and was still running in the temporary rented premises and the landlord of that premises has started litigation in the Court of law for eviction of the institution from the rented premises. It is further submitted that the matter of withdrawal of recognition to conduct B.Ed. course of respondent No.4 was taken up for consideration by WRC in its 121st Meeting held on 8th <& 9th July, 2009, in which the State Representative also participated and a decision to issue show cause notice to the institution was taken as to why its recognition to conduct B.Ed. course may not be withdrawn in exercise of powers under Section 17 of the NCTE Act, 1993. Another show cause notice dated 24.7.2009 was also served upon the institution. The matter of withdrawal of recognition was again taken up for consideration by WRC in its 124th Meeting held on 20th & Zlst August, 2009 and it was decided to withdraw recognition to conduct B.Ed. course granted to respondent No.4 on the ground that the /' ^^1 respondent No.4/College is still conducting B.Ed. course in the temporary rented premises and did not shift to its own premises on its own land. The electronic communication of the decision was sent to all concerned and hard copy of the order of withdrawal was communicated to the institution and SCERT vide order dated 25th August, 2009, dispatched on 31st August, 2009. SCERT was aware from 8th/9th July, 2009 that WRC had initiated proceedings for withdrawal of recognition and the recognition was actually withdrawn by WRC in its 124th Meeting on 20th/21st August, 2009. In these circumstances, SCERT ought not to have allowed the institution to take part in B.Ed. counseling for the academic Session 2009-2010, which was to commence from 3 September, 2009. Since the date of communication of the order withdrawing recognition is 31s August, 2009 when academic Session 2008-09 was not over as the academic Session 2009-2010 was to commence after admission of students through counseling scheduled on 3r September, 2009, the order withdrawing recognition would take effect from the end of academic Session 2008-09. Therefore, the institution is not entitled to conduct B.Ed. course in the academic Session 2009-2010. 10. No return has been filed on behalf of r-espondents No. 1 & 3. 11. Dr. N.K. Shukla, learned Sr. Advocate on behalf of respondent No.4, also submitted that respondent No.4 has filed copy of the Memo of Appeal before ^n\ the National Council for Teachers Education under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 along with covering memo dated 22.10.2009 addressed to the Member Secretary, NCET, New Delhi, against the order of withdrawal of recognition, uvith an application for taking documents on record. There is no affidavit with the appeal preferred by respondent No.4 or the document showing that the same has been entertained or any interim order has been passed by the appellate authority. The petitioners have also filed additional documents (Annexure P/14) be\ng the Memo dated 9.9.2009 issued by Director, SCERT, to the Principal of respondent No.4/College, informing that the College shall be allowed to participate in the counseling as academic Session 2009-2010 has already commenced, and cancelled the earlier Memo dated 7.9.2009. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and gone through the material available on record. 13. Indisputably, WRC of NCTE accorded conditional recognition to respondent No.4/College vide its order dated 9th August, 2005 (Annexure R-4/11). Since respondent No.4 failed to comply with Condition 7(d) of the NCTE Regulations, 2002, SCERT vide its Memo dated 25.6.2009 addressed to NCTE, WRC, Bhopal, requested for canceling the recognition granted to respondent No.4 and accordingly, the recognition was cancelled by respondent No.2 after issuing show cause notice to respondent No.4 and after considering its representation in its 124th Meeting f%. '%. I ~^'^// to.."^' 14. held on 20th/21st August, 2009 and the same was communicated to the institution and SCERT vide order dated 25th/31st August, 2009. The decision to issue show cause notice was taken in the presence of State Representative of the State of Chhattisgarh and the decision of withdrawal of the recognition was taken in its 124th Meeting and the same was communicated to all concerned vide order dated 25th/31st August, 2009. I find force in the submission of Shri Bhaskar Pyasi, learned counsel for respondent No.2/NCTE, that NCTE, WRC, in exercise of powers under Section 17 of the NCTE Act, 1993 has withdrawn recognition from the end of academic Session next to the following date of this withdrawal order vide its order dated 25th/31st Au9ust, 2009. We find force in his argument that counseling for admission to the next session was commenced only on 3 September, 2009 and therefore, the end of academic Session next to the following date of the withdrawal order passed by NCTE would be Session 2008-09. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, it is held that SCERT was not justified in allowing respondent No.4/College to participate in the counseling proceedings for admission to B.Ed. course held in the month of September, 2009 and to allot students for admission to the said College. However, since counseling for admission to B.Ed. course for the Session 2009-2010 has already taken place and respondent No.4 has been permitted to take part in that counseling and further that the students have been allotted to respondent No.4/College for admission vide Annexure R-4/31 and R-4/32 ^y-. 10 y'/ •a^y respectively by respondent No.l, the relief claimed by the petitioners in Clause 10.2 <& 10.3 in the petition, seeking direction against respondent No.l to withdraw its permission to participate in the counseling and not to permit admission in respondent No.4/College, hasbecome infructuous. 15. So far as the relief claimed in Clause 10.4 i.e. to direct respondent No.l to make suitable arrangements to allocate/allot other colleges to those students, who have opted for the respondent No.4/College in the counseling, is concerned, this issue cannot be adjudicated upon at the instance of the petitioners in this petition, in the absence of aggrieved parties i.e. the students, who have opted for admission in the College of respondent No.4. 16. With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed of. Khan Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge