IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5909 of 2010 1. MITHILA HANUMANT NATIONAL COLLEGE OF HEALTH AND PHYSICAL EDUCATION, INDIRA NAGAR, GOI MISHRA LAGMA, GHANSHYAMPUR, DISTRICT- DARBHANGA, THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL-CUM- DIRECTOR. 2. PROF. KULANAND JHA, S/O LATE PANDIT UMA KANT JHA, PRINCIPAL-CUM-DIRECTOR OF THE COLLEGE, R/O VILLAGE-BIRSAIR, P.S.-SAKRI, DISTRICT-MADHUBANI. ………………PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ART, CULTURE AND YOUTH AFFAIRS, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, VIKAS BHAWAN, PATNA. 3. THE NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION, HANS BHAWAN, WING-2, BAHADURSHAH ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI THROUGH ITS MEMBER SECRETARY. 4. THE EASTERN REGIONAL COMMITTEE, NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION, 15 NEELKANTH NAGAR, NAYA PALLI, BHUBANESHWAR, ORISSA THROUGH ITS REGIONAL DIRECTOR. 5. DR.K.C.BASTIA, SON OF NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, RETIRED PRINCIPAL, B.ED. COLLEGE CAMPUR, P.O.-THAKURPATNA, P.S.-KENDRAPARA, ORISSA CUM MEMBER INSPECTING TEAM OF THE COLLEGE. 6. DR.MEETA BANERJEE, W/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, AT PRESENT READER, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, UNIVERSITY OF KOLKATA AT PRESENT RESIDING AT 154, BAKUL BAGAN ROAD, KOLKATA, WEST BENGAL CUM MEMBER INSPECTING TEAM OF THE COLLEGE. …………………RESPONDENTS. with CWJC No.1285 of 2007 PROF.KULANAND JHA, S/O LATE PANDIT UMAKANT JHA, R/O VILLAGE-BIRSAIR, P.S.-SAKRI, DISTRICT-MADHUBANI, AT PRESENT DIRECTOR, MITHILA HANUMANT NATIONAL COLLEGE OF PHYSICAL EDUCATION, INDIRA NAGAR, GOI MISHRA LAGMA GHANSHYAMPUR, DISTRICT-DARBHANGA. ………………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY ART CULTURE AND YOUTH DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2 2. THE JOINT SECRETARY, ART CULTURE AND YOUTH DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, ART CULTURE AND YOUTH DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE DIRECTOR, ART CULTURE AND YOUTH DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. …………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr.Kripa Nand Jha, Adv. For the N.C.T.E. : Mr.S.N.Pathak, Adv. For the State : Mr.Sanjeev Kumar Singh, AC to SC 21 (in CWJC No.5909/10) For the State : Mr.Ashok Kumar Mishra, AC to SC 16 (in CWJC No.1285/07) ------------ 2 07.12.2010 The matter of recognition of the petitioner-Institution has been rejected by the Regional Committee of National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) by Annexure-10 of the first case. Its appeal was also dismissed by order contained in Annexure-14 of the first case by the Council. These two orders are under challenge in this writ application. From the impugned order of the Regional Director, as contained in the said Annexure-10, it appears that the Regional Committee had constituted a ‘Visiting Team’ to inspect the Institution. The Team held inspection and pointed out 10 deficiencies as noticed in the said impugned order (Annexure- 10). In view of said 10 deficiencies the 3 application of the petitioner-Institution for recognition has been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioners, who are the Institution in the first case and its Director in the second case, submits that the Institution is not having the deficiencies pointed out in the report except deficiency no. 10 i.e. website of the Institution had not been launched till then. He submits that the same is in process and is likely to be launched very soon. So far as other deficiencies are concerned the stand of the petitioners is that the ‘Visiting Team’ did not hold the inspection properly. Learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that the manner in which the ‘Visiting Team’ visited the Institution and held the inspection was reported to the authorities of the Regional Committee, vide Annexure-7 of the first case, which shows that the ‘Visiting Team’ performed the formality of visiting the Institution for only 15 minutes. Learned counsel also submits that the ‘Visiting Team’ was not properly constituted by the Regional Committee and the members of the ‘Visiting Team’ were not qualified to 4 hold the inspection of a technical institution like that of the petitioner. He submits that the petitioners had furnished sufficient documentary proof in support of status of the Institution before the Regional Committee and the Council, but they were not considered and, basing their consideration only on the report of the ‘Visiting Team,’ application of the petitioner-Institution for recognition has been rejected. He also submits that the grounds for rejection of the application for recognition of the Institution are not covered under Appendix 10 of the NCTE Act and, therefore, are not relevant for consideration of the matter for recognition of the Institution. After the National Council for Teachers Education was set up under an Act of the Parliament, this Council is the Apex Body to grant recognition to the Institutions imparting teachers education. The Act and the Rules prescribe a definite procedure for grant of recognition and any Institution which is set up for imparting teachers education has to go through the procedure laid down under the Act and Rules for grant 5 of recognition by the Council. The moment an Institution applies for recognition the process as laid down in the Act and Rules starts under which the Council has to constitute a team for inspection of the Institution and to find out as to whether the norms laid down for running of such an Institution is fulfilled or not. The ‘Visiting Team’ visits the Institution, inspects the facilities and infrastructure of the College and submits a report. If the report is in favour of the Institution then the application is allowed and the recognition is granted. However, if the team submits a report pointing out certain deficiencies in the infrastructure and facilities in the Institution, the Institution has two courses open. Either it can request for time to remove the deficiencies and thereafter applies afresh for re-inspection and consideration of its case for recognition afresh. The second course open to the Institution is that, if it disputes the findings of the ‘Visiting Team’ and asserts that the Institution does not have any deficiency as per the norms laid 6 down for running of such an Institution, it can always apply to the Council challenging the said findings and request the Council to constitute a fresh ‘Visiting Team’ for getting fresh inspection held after fulfilling the requirements of deposit of fee etc. as may be required. It appears that the petitioner Institution is disputing the findings of the ‘Visiting Team’ as contained in Annexure-7. The functionaries of the Institution were not satisfied with the inspection held by the ‘Visiting Team’ and according to their case the deficiencies pointed out by the Team were not actually discovered by the ‘Visiting Team’ and are only imaginary and invented by the Team itself. It is also the case of the petitioner-Institution that the Team was constituted of persons who were not adequately equipped or qualified to hold inspection of a technical institution like petitioner-Institution which imparts physical education. Since the existence of infrastructure in the Institution and its facilities and equipments to impart physical teaching is a 7 question of fact, this Court cannot sit over in appeal over the findings of the Team and hold that the deficiencies in the petitioner Institution do not, in fact, exist. In view of this dispute of fact the only remedy available to petitioner-Institution is to submit an application before the Regional Committee disputing the findings of the Team and requesting for constitution of fresh team with qualified persons for inspection of the Institution afresh. For this purpose, if in law some fee has to be deposited the Institution has to deposit the same also. In the circumstances, if the petitioner-Institution submits such an application for re-inspection of the Institution, it will be advisable to the Regional Committee to constitute a team of qualified and experienced persons in relation to the type of course the petitioner institution is conducting, and direct the team to visit the Institution and submit a report. It is also expected that the team shall visit the Institution with an open mind and shall physically inspect each and every infrastructure of the Institution and shall 8 examine the documents also as may be placed before it by the functionaries of the Institution itself, and if necessary shall also verify the existence of the facilities and infrastructures vis-à-vis the documents produced by the functionaries of the College and thereafter shall prepare a report and submit the same to the Regional Committee. On submission of such report the Regional Committee shall consider the same in accordance with law and examine whether the application of the petitioner-Institution for recognition is fit to be granted or not. Accordingly, both the writ applications are disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Arvind/ ( J. N. Singh, J.)