IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2010 / 26TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 33636 of 2009(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- THE REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, CALICUT UNIVERSITY POST, THENHIPPALAM, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, CALICUT UTY. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY, WING II, HANS BHAVAN, 1 BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI - 110 002. 2. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION, SOUTHERN REGIONAL COMMITTEE, IST FLOOR CSD BUILDING, HMT POST, BANGALORE - 560 031. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KURIAN, SC, SRC-NCTE FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/08/2010, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 35215 OF 2009 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 APPENDIX (WPC 33626/2009) PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE VATAKARA MUNICIPAL COUNCIL DATED 19.6.1998 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE SYNDICATE DATED 31.7.1998 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED DEED DATED 29.3.2000 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED BY THE VATAKARA MUNICIPALITY EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLETION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY ENGINEER EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE RECOGNITION ORDER ISSUED BY THE NCTE TO THE INSTITUTION. EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 3.4.2009 EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE UNIVERSITY TO THE NCTE EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE NCTE DATED 26.6.2009 EXT.P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE NCTE DATED 6.11.2009 EXT.P11 THE PHOTOGRAPH EVIDENCING SPACE AND FACILITIES IN THE OLD BUILDING AND EXISTING BUILDING. EXT.P11(a) THE PHOTOGRAPH EVIDENCING SPACE AND FACILITIES IN THE OLD; BUILDING AND EXISTING BUILDING. EXT.P11(b) THE PHOTOGRAPH EVIDENCING SPACE AND FACILITIES IN THE OLD BUILDING AND EXISTING BUILDING. EXT.P12 THE DETAILS REGARDING THE STOCK REGISTER OF THE CENTRE. EXT.P13 TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF THE OBJECTION TAKEN BY THE NCTE FOR WITHDRAWING THE RECOGNITION IN THE FORM OF A CHART. EXT.P14 TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS REGARDING THE AMOUNT EXPENDED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF PERMANENT ;BUILDING FOR UTEC DURING 2006-07 TO 2010-11 (UPTO AUGUST, 2010) IN THE FORM OF A CHART. EXT.P15 TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF THE AMOUNT SPENT FOR PURCHASING BOOKS, JOURNALS, LAB EQUIPMENT AND FURNITURE FOR THE YEARS 2006-09 AND THE AMOUNT EARMARKED FOR 2010-11 IN THE FORM OF A CHART. EXT.P16 TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF THE EXISTING BUILDING WITH THE PLINTH AREA AVAILABLE AND THE NATURE OF THE LAND AND BUILDING IN THE FORM OF A CHART. EXT.P17 TRUE COPY OF THEBUDGET ESTIMATE FOR THE YEAR 2010-11. EXT.P18 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF TEACHERS WORKING IN THE UNIVERSITY TEACHERS EDUCATION CENTRE. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, & P.S. GOPINATHAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------- W.P.C. Nos. 33636, 35215,33976, 34403, 34404, 34218, 34110, 33725, 34402, 34216, 34217, 35167, 32447, 34625, 34760, 34761, 35098,35103, 35126, & 35188 of 2009 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. The issue raised in all these 20 Writ Petitions, ten filed by the Calicut University and remaining ten filed by the Kerala University, is one and the same because the challenge is against orders issued by the National Council for Teacher Education confirming the orders of the Regional Committees recalling the recognition granted to Teacher Education Centres run by the Universities running B.Ed. course. We have heard standing counsel appearing for both the Universities, and standing counsel appearing for the National Council for Teacher Education. 2. Admittedly all these 20 centres under the control of both the Universities were running B.Ed. courses in different subjects for the last over 10 years. The various University centres on inspection were 2 found to be inadequate in facilities for the grant of recognition. At some time or the other, recognition has been granted to all these centres by the NCTE. Of course some of the orders granting recognition are with condition for the Universities to make up for the deficiency in infra-structure facility, instruction facility, etc. During inspection held in the beginning of 2009 for considering recognition for 2009-2010, NCTE noticed various deficiencies and they found that continued deficiencies do not entitle the University centres to continue to enjoy recognition granted by them. Consequently, the Regional Committees after issuing notice to the Universities and after hearing their objections issued orders recalling the recognition for the academic year 2009-2010. Separate appeals filed by the Universities against those orders of the Regional Committees before the National Council were turned down. These Writ Petitions are filed challenging those orders. When the Writ Petitions came up for admission/hearing, during the beginning of academic year 2009-2010, this Court held that orders of NCTE recalling recognition cannot apply to academic year 2009- 2010, but will apply only for the succeeding year, that is, 2010-2011. On this basis, this Court passed an interim order permitting the 3 Universities to admit students and run B.Ed. courses in various subjects at all the centres in terms of earlier approval for the academic year 2009-2010. The time for admission and commencement of course for 2010-11 is already up and the Universities have moved this Court for early hearing of these WPCs. Both the Universities have produced various materials including photographs of the buildings and infra- structure facilities they have set up in the course of time, some of which are completed even after completion of inspection by NCTE during the beginning of last year and their contention is that at least as of now all the centres are entitled to continued recognition for the B.Ed. course in various subjects. 3. We have made specific reference to the facts of the case in WPC 33636of 2009 filed by the Calicut University which pertains to University B.Ed. centre at Vatakara. Photographs produced by the University along with WPC show that they have built very modern building and the centre has library, study room, etc., which according to the University conforms to the norms prescribed by the NCTE. On seeing photographs we feel impressive building is constructed and on the face of it, it is more than sufficient to accommodate the students 4 who are only 115 now. The first objection raised by the NCTE in Ext.P9 order is that built-up space for the Education Centre of the University at Vatakara is 3320 sq.ft. However, the specific case of the University is that built-up area is as much as 19206.60 sq.ft. that is nearly four times the built-up area measured by the NCTE on the inspection day. Photographs of the building show the name of the Centre written very conspicously in the first floor of the building. Photographs also show that it is a massive building which on the face of it appears to be of the plinth area stated by the University and in any case prima facie more than the area reported by NCTE and so much so there is mistake in the measurement taken by the NCTE and recorded in their order. The first reason stated for recalling recognition is inadequate space for accommodating 115 students which prima facie stands demolished with the material produced by the University. The second objection raised is that University is running M.A. (Folklore) course in the ground floor of the said building. The specific case of the University is that M.A. (folklore) run in the ground floor is already shifted to University campus and therefore this objection is no longer relevant. The third objection raised is that there is shortage of lab 5 equipments in the Science, and Psychology departments. However, University has produced stock register and according to them sufficient equipments are available. Even though it is not possible for us to examine as to whether the stock details furnished by the University are inadequate to meet the requirements of educational needs of the students, we feel Ext.P9 issued by the NCTE is also not sustainable because they have not stated what is wanting and without NCTE pointing out the same to the University, they will not be able to rectify the defect. Another objection raised by the NCTE is that there is shortage of furniture. Here again, there is nothing to indicate in the order whether the furniture pertains to seating for students and if so whether it is in the library or whether in the lab or whether any such inadequacy in furniture facility affects the teaching faculty. Another objection rasied by the NCTE is that there is violation of accounting pattern with regard to retention of deposit by the University. The last objection raised is that teachers appointed by the University are not permanent employees, but are engaged on contract basis. However, NCTE has referred to the explanation offered by the University that without permission from the Government to create permanent teaching 6 post, University cannot appoint permanent teaching staff. 4. Even though the grounds for recalling recognition granted to all the Universities' centres are not exactly same, objections stated are essentially want of infra-structure facilities of the kind stated above. Standing counsel appearing for the NCTE submitted that specific norms are provided in the regulation for grant of approval to B.Ed. course in the Centres and Council has only applied those norms to the University centres and wherever deficiency is there, the same is pointed out to the Universities and on their failure to rectify the same, recognition was recalled. 5. After hearing both sides, we feel the work done by the NCTE is not in conformity with what is provided in the Act, namely, the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 under which Council is constituted. Sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the Act which provides for inspection states as follows: 13. Inspection..... ........................... (3) The Council shall communicate to the said institution, it's views in regard to results of any such inspection and 7 may, after ascertaining the opinion of that institution, recommend to that institution the action to be taken as a result of such inspection. ............... What is clear from the above provision is that during inspection Council has to note the deficiencies or short-comings pertaining to infra-structure and other facilities in the educational institution. Thereafter it is for them to point out those deficiencies to the institution and grant reasonable time to make up for the same. We find from Ext.P9 that besides stating shortages in regard to space, lab equipments, etc., NCTE has not stated as to what is the requirement for the University centre which has 115 students, and what is shortage for them to make up. So far as plinth area of the building is concerned, there appears to be a patent mistake on the part of NCTE because the University's contention is that built-up area is four times the area found by the NCTE. On going through the photographs produced by the University, we are prima facie of the view that there is prima facie mistke on the part of NCTE The position is the same with regard to shortage of furniture, lab equipments, etc., pointed out by the NCTE, inasmuch as they have not pointed out where exactly and what is 8 shortage for the University to make good the shortage. Universities have a specific case that they have made up all the deficiencies in the course of over a year and so much so they should be permitted to run the B.Ed. course in all their centres which have been running with recognition for the last 10 years. We do not want to deal with facts and figures pertaining to each and every case based on the orders issued by the NCTE which are impugned in these Writ Petitions, because on the face of it, and after going through Ext.P9, we find that NCTE has not followed statutory norms for requirements in regard to their finding in the impugned orders. It is also seen that NCTE has questioned the nature of title of the land on which centre is constructed because the land originally belonged to the Municipality which gave it to the University for opening University centre for running B.Ed. course. On the whole, we are of the view that NCTE's decisions are vitiated by irrelevant considerations because much of the objections raised by them are neither relevant nor factually correct. What is required of NCTE is to verify that infra-structure facilities are available in the institution along with teaching and other instructional facilities for the students to complete their course successfully. It is immaterial as to 9 how the University got the land for construction of University centres. In other words, if land and building are available, in our view, the title and nature of holding has no relevance. In any case, since orders are issued based on inspection conducted over one and a half years back, and in view of the further constructions, improvements and acquisition made by the University as claimed in their WPCs., details of which including photographs are produced by the University, we feel the matter requires reconsideration by the NCTE with the materials furnished by the University. Accordingly we dispose of all these WPCs. with direction to the NCTE to go through the claim of the Universities in respect of each and every centre with the materials furnished by them, compare the same with the deficiencies noted by them during inspection, and reappraise whether there is any shortcoming that needs to be rectified by the University for continuance of recognition of the Centre. So far as nature of appointments of teachers is concerned, we are of the view that NCTE should take a realistic stand in the matter because in the course of time, it is not known as to how many B.Ed. centres will function because there is already drop in the number of students 10 seeking admission to B.Ed. course in various colleges in the State. Therefore Government cannot be expected to approve creation of teaching staff in the University Centres on a permanent basis without detailed study. Therefore temporary appointment of qualified hands by the University should be accepted as sufficient compliance for the time being. Similarly we feel that if University has constructed building on land obtained by them and if they are in possession and enjoyment of the same, there is no need for the NCTE to reject recognition on the ground that the land is not purchased or acquired by the University but is obtained from local authority or the Government on licence or lease. In other words, NCTE should adopt a realistic approach in the whole matter and if the centres have facilities like infra-structure, lab, library, teaching staff, and other facilities, they should not decline recognition for the reason of defect in title of the land or a few sq. metres of shortage in the building, which does not stand in the way of course being run. In view of the prima facie case established by the University that those facilities are available which are brought on record in these WPCs. and since University has been running B.Ed. courses in all the centres for the last 10 years, and since there is rush of students for 11 admission in University centres in preference to private and other colleges, we direct the NCTE to treat the University centres as approved centres for the current year 2010-11 also leaving freedom to the NCTE to recall approval if any centre does not make up facilities pointed out by NCTE in terms of revised orders to be issued in terms of the direction issued above for next academic year (2011-12) onwards. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (P.S. GOPINATHAN) Judge. kk 12