1 CWP No.11968/2008 (11.11.2008) CWP No.11981/2008 (11.11.2008) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER (1) S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.11968/2008 S.S.Jain Subodh Mahila Shikshak Prashikshan Maha. Versus The State of Rajasthan and others (2) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.11981/2008 S.S.Jain Subodh Mahila Shikshak Prashikshan Maha. Versus The State of Rajasthan and others Date of order ::: November 11,2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PREM SHANKER ASOPA Mr.Vinod Gupta, for the petitioners Mr.J.M.Saxena, Addl. AG for the State Mr.Prithvi Raj Singh for the Coordinator, PTET,JN Vyas University, Jodhpur. BY THE COURT (1) In the aforesaid two writ petitions, ad interim orders for consideration of cases of grant of 'No Objection' within seven days, were passed on 24.10.2008, considering the fact that 31.10.2008 was the last date of counselling. Subsequently, bunch of identical writ petitions – Anuradha Mahila Shikshak V. State and others (SBCWP No.11879/2008) and other connected cases, was disposed of on 5.11.2008 after hearing both the parties with the direction of similar nature considering the fact that the counselling had been notified on 1.11.2008 and will be over on 12.11.2008 and the students have been asked to 2 CWP No.11968/2008 (11.11.2008) CWP No.11981/2008 (11.11.2008) report for admission on 14.11.2008. (2) Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the respondents have first delayed the disposal of the applications for 'No Objection' and thereafter, caused further delay by not complying with the order dated 24.10.2008 and in case the writ petitions are not heard and decided today,then the same would become infructuous after 14.11.2008. Apart from the aforesaid reason, since similar writ petitions have been disposed of on 5.11.2008 after hearing both the parties, therefore, I deem it proper to decide these writ petitions also finally. (3) In both the instant writ petitions, the interim directions were issued against the respondents on 24.10.2008 for consideration of the cases of the petitioners for 'No Objection' within the specified time but the respondents have not passed any order within the said specified period without submitting any explanation for the delay. The interim orders were made subject to the decision of the writ petitions. In the alleged compliance of the aforesaid order dated 24.10.2008, the respondents have passed the orders dated 4.11.2008 in both the writ petitions whereby the claim of the petitioner institutions for the 3 CWP No.11968/2008 (11.11.2008) CWP No.11981/2008 (11.11.2008) academic year 2008-2009 has been rejected with the further observation that the same would be considered for the academic year 2009-2010. The copies of the consequential orders dated 4.11.2008 have been filed in both the writ petitions. (4) The interim directions dated 24.10.2008 were subject to the decision of these writ petitions and the orders dated 4.11.2008 have been passed in the alleged compliance of the aforesaid interim order dated 24.10.2008, therefore, the same will also be subject to the decision of these writ petitions and the validity of the same can be examined in these writ petitions. (5) Considering urgency and decision in the similar writ petitions, I have granted opportunity to the counsel for the parties on 10.11.2008 to make submissions on the aforesaid issue. On the request of the counsel for the parties, further opportunity for making the submissions was granted on 11.11.2008. (6) Submission of counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners have been granted 'No Objection' by the N.C.T.E. in the last week of September, 2008 for M.Ed./B.Ed. after satisfying with the infrastructure and employment of the 4 CWP No.11968/2008 (11.11.2008) CWP No.11981/2008 (11.11.2008) staff in which huge amount has been invested. Counsel further submits that soon after the grant of 'No Objection' by the N.C.T.E. the petitioners have submitted applications before the State Government in the beginning of October, 2008 but the same were kept pending by the State Government with the ulterior motive to render their claim infructuous for the academic year 2008-2009. The said 'No Objection' was granted by the N.C.T.E. keeping in view the growing need of M.Ed./B.Ed. Education for the current academic session 2008-2009. Even after the interim direction dated 24.10.2008, the same was not considered within the specified period and no explanation for delay has been given. The orders dated 4.11.2008 are couched in the same language without considering the cases independently on merit whereby the petitioners have not been allowed to participate in the on- line counselling on untenable ground that the on-line counselling is going on, therefore, it is not possible to allow them to participate in the counselling for the academic year 2008-2009 and further untenable grounds of non- availability of the students, quality of education, non-completion of 180 days etc. have been taken. Lastly,counsel for the petitioners 5 CWP No.11968/2008 (11.11.2008) CWP No.11981/2008 (11.11.2008) has strongly contended that the applications of the petitioners have not been rejected on the ground of lack of any essential condition for 'No Objection'. (7) Counsel for the petitioners referred the judgment of this Court dated 5.11.2008 in Anuradha Mahila Shikshak V. State and others (SBCWP No.11879/2008 and other connected cases) wherein similar directions have been issued by this Court while disposing of the writ petitions. (8) Counsel for the State has defended the orders dated 4.11.2008 on the grounds mentioned therein and further submitted that it is not possible to allow the petitioner institutions to participate in the counselling for the academic year 2008-2009 but could not substantiate the same. (9) Counsel for the petitioners submits in rejoinder that the students in the present on- line counselling are much more in number than the presently available seats for which the counselling is going on and they have been asked to report for admission on 14.11.2008 on the last day of the current week, then how in case the students which are now to be admitted in the petitioner institutions in the next week 6 CWP No.11968/2008 (11.11.2008) CWP No.11981/2008 (11.11.2008) will not complete 180 academic days. Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the respondents were not able to substantiate the fact that why the applications of the petitioners were kept pending before initiation of the last counselling process on 1.11.2008 despite interim direction of this Court dated 24.10.2008 according to which the applications were to be disposed of by 31.10.2008. The said inaction on the part of the State Government has resulted in the present situation for which the petitioners cannot be allowed to suffer. The State Government has failed to keep in mind the considerations of the growing need of the M.Ed./B.Ed. Courses for which the seats were increased, which prevailed with the N.C.T.E. while granting 'No Objection' for the academic year 2008-2009 to the petitioner institutions. (10) I have gone through record of the writ petitions and further considered rival submissions of counsel for the parties. (11) Before proceeding further, I would like to refer paras 10 to 13 of the judgment dated 5.11.2008 in Anuradha Mahila Shikshak V. State and others (supra), which are as follows: “(10)In my view, the State Government ought to have passed appropriate orders on the application before the aforesaid 7 CWP No.11968/2008 (11.11.2008) CWP No.11981/2008 (11.11.2008) notification dated 1.11.2008 but on account of the inaction, it is not clear whether the petitioners fulfilled all the aforesaid requirements or not and are further entitled to admit students for the session 2008-09 or not. (11) Accordingly, I direct the State Government to examine the application of each of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders by 10.11.2008 and on the same day, copies will be made available to the petitioner Institutions. On submission of the same to the University, appropriate orders will be passed by the University by 11.11.2008. The Coordinator, PTET is directed to act as per the orders passed by the State Government and the University and will further complete all the formalities on 12.11.2008 and allot the students accordingly. (12) It is also observed that in case of difficulty, it will be permissible for the State Government to co-ordinate with the other respondents and reasonably extend any of the dates for completion of the formalities for counselling. (13) The writ petitions are disposed of, as indicated above. (12) In the instant cases, I am of the view that the respondents are responsible for the delay in disposal of the applications of the petitioners for consideration of the grant of 'No Objection' before initiation of the counselling process on 1.11.2008 despite interim directions dated 24.10.2008 to decide the applications by 31.10.2008, therefore, they cannot be allowed to 8 CWP No.11968/2008 (11.11.2008) CWP No.11981/2008 (11.11.2008) contend that it is not possible to allow the petitioners to participate in the counselling for the academic year 2008-2009. As regards the ground of non-availability of the students and non-completion of 180 academic days for rejection of the applications of the petitioner institutions is not tenable for the reason that when the students of the present counselling who will report for admission on the last day of the current week i.e. on 14.11.2008 will complete 180 academic days then how in case the students admitted in the next week by way of on-going counselling will not complete 180 academic days. The ground of State interest taken by the respondents in the orders dated 4.11.2008 is also of no consequence as the applications were submitted by the petitioner institutions soon after the grant of 'No Objection' by the N.C.T.E. which granted `No Objection' in the interest of the students and had also considered the aforesaid grounds of completion of 180 academic days. The applications of the petitioner institutions have also not been rejected on the ground of lack of any essential conditions for the grant of 'No Objection'. Therefore, the aforesaid grounds are also not tenable. The respondents ought to have 9 CWP No.11968/2008 (11.11.2008) CWP No.11981/2008 (11.11.2008) considered the date of filing the applications relevant for the purpose of disposal of the same, which has not been considered as for any delay in disposal of the applications on the part of the State Government the petitioners cannot be allowed to suffer for the present academic session 2008-2009. (13) In view of the above, both the orders dated 4.11.2008 are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to pass fresh orders on the applications of the petitioners on or before 14.11.2008. (14)It is also observed that in case of difficulty, it will be permissible for the State Government to co-ordinate with the other respondents and reasonably extend any of the dates for completion of the formalities for counselling. (15) In normal course, when the writ petition is decided, then the contempt proceedings are not initiated for non-compliance of the interim order. However, keeping in view the exceptional circumstance of disobedience of the interim order dated 24.10.2008 by not deciding the applications of the petitioner institutions up to 31.10.2008 as directed by this Court, before notifying the counselling on 1.11.2008, I am of 10 CWP No.11968/2008 (11.11.2008) CWP No.11981/2008 (11.11.2008) the prima facie view that the respondents have delayed the disposal of the applications submitted by the petitioner institutions for grant of 'No Objection' and thereafter passed the orders dated 4.11.2008 with ulterior motive to render the applications infructuous for the academic year 2008-2009. (16) Since,the respondents have not submitted any explanation even after query raised by the Court to explain the delay in complying with the interim orders passed by this Court, I suo motu initiate contempt proceedings against them for not deciding the applications of the petitioners within the specified time i.e. 31.10.2008 by issuing separate show cause notices why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against - (i) Mr.Sudhir Bhargava, Principal Secretary to Govt. Education Department; (ii)Mr. Om Prakash, Director of Secondary Education; (iii)Mr.R.S.Meena, Dy. Secretary-I, Education Department, and (iv) Mr.Subhash Vijay, Dy. Director of Education. (17) Accordingly, the orders dated 4.11.2008 are quashed and set aside in both the writ 11 CWP No.11968/2008 (11.11.2008) CWP No.11981/2008 (11.11.2008) petitions. (18) Both the writ petitions are partly allowed as indicated above. (PREM SHANKER ASOPA) J. गोpa ल