1 AMENDED PETITION IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ICHHATTISGARH) W.P.lCi No.6461 Of 2010 PETITIONER Agrasen Mahavidyalaya, through its Director Dr.V.K. Agrawal, Jaitusao Math Parisar, Purani Basti, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 49200 1. Versus RESPONDENTS :1) Regional Director, National Council for Teacher Education, Western Regional Committee, Manas Bhawan, Shyamla Hills, Bhopal (M.P.) :2 National Council for Teacher ‘ Education, through its "' Member Secretary, New Delhi ‘ h I W \ \ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE ' 1 l ‘ W a ) V HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETlTlON (C) NO.6461 OF 201 0 PR ETITIONE Agrasen Mahavidyalaya ‘ Versus egional irector, National Counci for Teacher Education & Another RESPONDENTS Post for p G ‘ ronouncement of the orders on the / 8 {ay of .luly, 2011 l Sdl- l atish K. Agnihotri’ i Judge l R D l l S H IGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) NO.6461 OF 2010 PR ETITIONE Ag rasen’ Mahavidyalaya Vrsus e v RESPONDEN egional Directof, National ouncil or eacher cton & noe Writ petitions under Articie 2260f the Constitution of india * Single Bench :Honble Shriatish . gnihotr, J resent:- Shri H.B. Agrawai, Sr. Advocate with Ms Sareena Kha ' Advocate for te petitioner. Shri Bhaskar Pyasi, Advocate for the respondents. Delivered on this M+Ida of July, 201 1 ( y ) C e hallenge in this petition is’to the order dated 15-9—2010 (Annexur p y, d ppeal preferre —-'P/14)' assed b the responent No.2_in an a d ainst the order‘ated 18-5—2010 (Annexure: 12 passe y ag d P/) d b theraresponde‘nt "No.1 Withdrawing recognition grante to-vt d he p t B’ h n etitioner to. conduc .Ed. course‘for te academic sessio 20101 l d : -1 on the folowing grouns . Approved building plan not ute and ,area is only 3360 sq.'ft.; which is inadequate s er theNCTE norms. The facts, in brief, as projeced by the petitioner, are that t, ;, t he etitioner institute was granted recognition for the academic ession 20051-06 by Ordet dated 9-8-2005’1(Annexure — P/1) fo pproved intake of 100 seats underthe provisions of section 14 o v a f he Natioal ounci or c ucan ct, 1993 or r ‘t t n Cl f Teaher Edtio A (f shot he -N h d h Pdit CTElAct, 1993’). Te affiliation thereon was grante by te an TS R C' f T Eduai Athr ( ) , ‘ S K Ai . P n, h 1 sbmitd. L a p p s r . G ‘Rav: Shankar Shukla UniverSIty, Ralpur on 2-3 2006 (Annexure — P/2) The said recognltlon continued till the Withdrawal order dated .. 18 5—2010 was passed by the respondent No 1 Shri Agrawal, learned senior counsel appearing with Ms. Khan, , 'learnediAdvocate for the petitioner, would submit that a‘show. cause’ notice dated 25-3-2010 (Annexure — P/4) wasissued to the r petitioner institute pointing out following defects : 1. The institution is running B.Com, B.C.A., PGDCA & V B.Ed. in thesame building. 2 Approved bUIlding plan not submitted 3.' ’ The land area Is only 3360 . sqft as per theregistered r land 'dee‘d which is inadeqUate’ as per the NCTE norms. Shri Agrawal would further submit that the petitioner institute ' :1; submitted its reply on 23-4 2010 (Annexure — P/5) stating that B.Ed. course was conducted in two buildings, one constructed in the‘society’s own land‘ and the Second‘building' Constructed by the sométy on a long leased land obtained from Jaitusao Mandir The i agreement of sale is Annexure — P/6 Thereafter, havmg conSidered the response of the petitioner the recognition was Withdrawn by order dated 18 5-2010 Thereagainst an appeal was I preferred before the respondent No 2 The same was dismissed by ' ‘ .the impugned order dated 15-9-2010 ;Shri Agrawal would next submit that the respondent No 1 had not. understood the documents properly There was also another rent note dated 10-6 1999 (Annexure — P/8)fwherein it was shown that ‘ the land admeasurin'g 9300 Sq.ft. was also available; ‘ The v v recognition co‘uld have been continUed as under clause 1'1 repeal ’ clauseof'the National'Council for Teacher Education. (Recognition Norms & Procedure) Regulations, v2005>(for short “the Regulations, 2005"), the reCognition granted earlier would continue,'as the 1 repeal Of the aforesaid regulations will not affect previous operation of any regulations so repealed or anything duly done thereunder. \Shri, Agrawal would also submit that there is no grievanc’eor" , ,complaint of the students and teachers against running of the B.Ed. I course In the institution for the last 5 years The withdrawal of recognition on the ground that several courses are berng runnrng In the same budding is not sustainable as the same is operated in ‘ ‘ other institutions also The authorities have completely ignored the ' prOViSions of law as speCification of bwlding or requirement of infrastructure is not for the old institute but for recognition of new institutes only.- On‘ the other hand, Shri Pyasi, learned-:counsel appearing for the respondents, would submit, that the petition deserVes to be dismissed at the threshold on the ground that the original order z dated 18 5-2010 was not challenged only the order passed in appeal has been challenged Even if the appellate order is set e a3ide, the original order would continue. ,On merits; Shri Pyasi Would submit that the NCTE Regulations ’ ' 2002 was framed wherein the recognition was granted. Thereafter repeal clause under the Regulations 2005 is only to the effect that r .the recognition granted earlier would not be cancelled but the ' ‘ reqwrement of infrastructure, budding, staff, etc. is a pre—requiSite » for continuation of recognition as If the same Is not satisfied t tandard of the educatlon could not be maintained S hd hrl Pyas: would further submit that the petitioner institute a ommited breach of olause" 8.11 of the Regulations, 2005 as te . hereupon bUIlt up area consisting of class rooms etc shall not b ' pace m each instructional room shall b O sq ft per student On inspection conducted by the respondnt o 1 on 26-2 in p a how cause notice was issued and after considering the reply w e ess than 1500 sq mt -210 it was found that the petitioner institute was no ossession of the required land and burlt up area Accordingly ubmitted by the petitioner the Withdrawal order was assed 8-5-20 l ‘ Sh of ' ri PyaSi would next submit that the petitioner is in possessmn 3 q 360 s ft land of khasra No 1817 in Raipur Cit under th egisered sale deed dated 0- 19 d u 1 19 and 9300 sq ft land d e unregistered rent agreement dated 0— -00 ossesSIon of land under the uhregistered rent agreement is no ermisi 0 sq o land as against the requirement of 26900 sqft 250 q mts ave heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner perus he pleadings and the documents appended theret 4 211 (Annexur 0 e ‘ / (ure 9 in 99 & 2700 sq ft lan nder the unregistered agreement dated 19 1 ln fact, the petitioner is in possession of only 336 t o he petitioner has filed two sale deeds datd 29- — P19) and 29~4—2011 Annex — 120) allegedly executed he _ s ct h l s S e 1 e , N 0 t s s p on 110 L y e rt 6 1 75 uner > th 16- 21. The p t psble. ft f (0 s ) I l h ed T e faVourof the petitioner institute and further mutation in revenue records lt appears that these documents were not available when ' the inspection was done or the Withdrawal of recognition order was _ ‘ passed.- Thus, no fault can be‘ found With the respondents, when the 'withdrawal order and thereafter, the impugned order was r passed in appeal The contention of Shn PyaSl learned counsel appearing for the ; ' respondents With regard to maintainability of the writ petition is V i frivolous as it is well settled law that the order appealed against ‘ merges With the order passed in appeal, if the appellate order affirms or contirms,_both the orders would stand or fail together. , a ”Since the first order has merged with the appellate order, itis not necessary to challenge the first order, which gave rise ,to filing of r ‘ appeal. Only in review cases, if the main order is not under c'hallengegthe order passed in- reviewban‘not question the main gorder ‘ The reqUirement as prescribed and stated by the respondents in the preceding paras has nét been denied by the petitioner ‘ 15.‘ for grant of recognition Sub clauses (1) (5) (8) & (1 1) of clause 8 '11; ’ of the Regulatuons 2005 read as under 8 Conditions for grant of recoqnltlon (1) An mstltutlon must fulfnll all the prescrlbed condmons related to normsv and standards as prescribed by the NCTE for conducting the course ‘or ‘ training rin- teacher reducationx These norms, iinterr alia, Vcover oonditions relating to , financial ‘ resources, accommodation, library, laboratory, other ,13. Clause 8 of the Regulations 2005 Inter aha deals With conditions ph ruc S oea _ l gra reula r l he r l e oul e o 1ea " f n yea or a penod of ot Iess than 3O rs In .cae rva- Se u mse 'l‘ , t 30 r a r w s th u hall o of rma strc b n en p h r me prescribed inlthe norms and stanads ' ‘ , , ii V i dr 'r . “‘ ( r a t d f e cour n r e re ‘ nr tel > a h ate . ' e , ti caeic scri . , 16; After cOsiing ll the aspects bf the mtr i the order dted . nder a ate n a . i ' 15 9-2010 the respondent No 2 held as under AND WHEREAS the Councn noted that the institution was granted conditional recognition for D Ed courseV A for the academic seSSion 2005 06 only i subject to the college submitting the list i' of staff/faculty duly approved by th I Registrar of the affiliating univerSit before c0mmencement of the academic seSSIon Vide WRC letter dated 09 08 2005 The said letter also indicated tha formal order of recognition would b issued only after the receipt of-the list of gtst ysical Infrastture quallfred taff Includrng teaching and nn-tchmg personnel etc (5) No Instrtutron shal be nted recognrtron under these gtlons I ’ unless It rs In possession of equrred and on the date of application T land fee from al encumbrancs cd be ’ eithr on wnership basrs or on se ss where under elent tat/UT laws the maximm perisibl easev period Is less ‘han‘ yeas the Stte m I Government/UT Administation la hall ‘ ‘I ' ‘ ii a prevail (8) At the time of inspection e building of the instittion s be complete in the frm a penent uture on the land possessed y the ‘ ’ istitution in terms of Rgulatio 8 (5) equiped Wit all necessay anities a l l rents nd fufilling al such equirem as 11) Whenever there ae chnges in he norms and standars or th se a or training in teacher educatio the a. institution shall comply With the f i eqUirements laid down in th Vised r . I. - - i 5% oms and standards Immediay but not later thn te d of t \ l ‘ , H session commncement subjeCt to‘condio‘ns of‘the next prebed adm" inthe revised norms v e y 4 t e u approved faCultylstaff In WRC No formal recognition order was Issued b the WRC but the Institutlon continued to run the BEd. course after obtalnln affiliating from the affiliating universit namely‘ Pandit Ravi$hankar Shukla Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur. aln the 129t meeting of-the WRC held on Decembe 22 23 2009 the WRC decrded to ge Inspectlon of the recognlzed Institution Inciuding the Agrasen Mahavrdyalaya Raipur under Sectlon 17 of the NCT Act, vwhi‘ch provided. that where. the Regionai Committee was, on its‘ own motion or --«On .'-,,any, representation ’ receivedffrom’any person, satisfied that (a recognized institution had contravened any of the provisions of the Act, or the. ‘Rules, 'Reguiations Orders made or issued thereunder or any condition subject to which recognition was granted t > might withdraw the ecognition of such recognized institution for reasons to be recorded in riting The VT report dated 26 02 2010 w ' as negative and it interalia indicate that the bUIiding used for running the course was purely on rent basis the ownership could not be established due to back of supporting documents, the w d nstitution was running four more course other than B.Ed., at‘different timings, the institution was not having, qualified Head/Principal for B.Ed. course and the Management/Society was~ not clear whetherv .they' would continue 'B.Ed. course inthe same premises or would shift to, some other place fro which they» were having resources The Counci also noted‘that the claim made by the institution that it, was permitted t conduct B.Ed. course in two buildings a two plots i.e one plot of 3360 Sq.ft. with a buiit-up area‘ of 6500 'Sq.ft. and another plot of 21941 Sq ft With a bwlt up area of 1003 Sq ft was not correc inasmuch asialongWIth its application It submitted a sale deed dated 01 10-75 i respect of land of 3360 Sq'ft in Sy No 1817 and the legal opinion obtained by i ' the WRC at that time also Indicated that , he CounCIl was therefore of the Vie t w that the institution was not functioning in y gl' y r h r t s E .. ,u r o l t — n t ‘acCordance wit e NC norms and ' thus there was no ground to accept the appeal AND WHEREAS after perusal of c‘iocmumenits, ‘memorandum of‘ appeal, affidavit and“ after considering oral arguments advanced during hearing, th Council reached the conclusion that there was no ground to accept the appealand hence it should be rejected. Accordingly, the appeal was rejected and WRCs order dated 18 05 10 was confirmed The Supreme Court, ‘in Chairman, han‘ia Education ociey Another ‘ State imanchal Pradesh ’& Othersl, observed as nen ud 4., “11. Section 14 of the‘Nationa Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 ('NCTE Act' for short) relates to recognition of institutions offering course r training in ' teacher education Sub-section (1) thereof prowdes that every instttution offering or intending to offer a course or training in teacher education on' or after the appointed day may, forjgrant of recognition under the Act, make an application to the Regional Committee concerned in such form and in such manner as ma‘y bet determined by regulations. NCTE Act carn’e‘ int " force on 1.7;1995 and the‘appointed da und‘er the” séid ’Act‘ is stated to be 17.8.1995. A combined reading o sections 14(1) and (5), 15, 16, and 17(3) . and (4) of~NCTE Act make it ciear that after the appointed day, no institution can commence or offer a course or training in teacher. education with0ut recognitibn v byr the NCTE and consequently, no student could be admittedto such course or training no could be permitted to appear in an examination relating to such course or training > .- \ \‘d\2011) 4 scc .527 \ \ h th TE e x B St & v. of H l o , o ’ y f ' r y 1. V Section 16 of NCTE Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time beingin force; no examining body shall grant affiliation whether provisional or otherwise; 'to’ any institution, or hold examination fOr a course or trainin conducted by a' recognized institution nless the‘institution concerned ha obtained recognition from the Regiona Committee of NCTE undersection 14 ‘o permission for a c‘ourse‘ or’training unde t Section 15 ofthe Ac.“ ’ " ' ranting recognition to conduct 'aCademic; course is within the tatutory jurisdiction ‘of respondents‘ as provided under the provisions of the NCTE ACt,r1.993 read with the Regulationsr.2005, his ¢ourt cannot examine the facts and disputes in the instan ase. The facts haveibeen disputed only on the ground of certai ocuments, which were procured by the'petitioner institute after the irst order’of withdrawalofrecognition Waspassed on 18-5-201. f 0 he High Court in exercise of itszjurisdiction under Articl‘226 f the; T e o Constitution of India cainno'tfsub’stitute the View taken by the expert n objective consideration. Thus, there is no merit in this petition. s an upshot, the writ petition, being bereft of merit, is liable to be ndiis accordingly diSmissed. However, it is open to the petitione nstitute'to approach the authorities again, if the institute complie ‘ ith all the requirements for grant 'of reconition, in accordanc t xi d There Shall be no order astocost s o A a r i s " w g e wih aw,if so advise. an Satish K. Agnihotr Judge 2 . g , u s r l r G s . T t ”c n d s. i