IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No. 4678 of 2009 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION : MAY 29, 2009 MANGAL RAM AND ORS. ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY, KURUKSHETRA & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. PS Hundal, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Abhishek Sethi, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Dr. Balram Gupta, Sr. Advocate, with Ms.Kanika Negi, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. VS Bhardwaj, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Mr. PK Mutneja, Advocate, for respondent No.3. AJAI LAMBA, J. CM 9532 of 2009 The application is allowed. Written statement on behalf of respondent No.3 is taken on record. Civil Writ Petition No. 4678 of 2009 (O&M) 2 Civil Writ Petition No. 4678 of 2009 The petitioners, 100 in number, have filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing order dated 13.2.2009 (Annexure P-1), vide which admission of the petitioners to B.Ed. Course has been cancelled. Further prayer made in the petition is for issuance of directions to the respondents to allow the petitioners to continue their studies in the respondent-College. The impugned order (Annexure P-1) has been issued by the Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra (respondent No.1) and is addressed to the Principal, United College of Education, Kaul, Tehsil and District Kaithal (respondent No.3), wherein the following has been stated:- “I am to inform you that your college have allotted the 100 seats in the B.Ed. Course vide letter No. CG-II/07/9990 dated 05-10-2008. At the time of checking the Registration return it has been found that you have admitted 200 students against the sanctioned seats of 100. As such you have admitted 100 students in excess of the sanction seats. It is a serious lapse on your part. In view of the above, admission of the excess 100 students is hereby cancelled as per list attached. Civil Writ Petition No. 4678 of 2009 (O&M) 3 You are requested, to send the intimation of the cancellation of the admission to this office within 3 days from the issue of this letter.” Learned counsel for the petitioners has stressed on news item dated 12.9.2008 (Annexure P-6) and Information given on the internet on the University site, dated 26.9.2008 (Annexure P-7) to contend that they made it evident that the respondent-College had the legal sanction to give admission to 200 students. Therefore, no fault can be found in the conduct of the petitioners to have applied for admission. The attention of the court has further been drawn towards Annexure R-3/5, appended with the reply of the respondent-College, which indicates that the respondent- University had issued registration numbers to all the 200 students admitted in the respondent-College. It was, thus, a clear case wherein the respondent-University accepted the petitioners also as their registered students and, therefore, at this juncture, impugned order (Annexure P-1) could not have been issued. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the respondent-College gave admission to the petitioners. The petitioners deposited their fees, which fact is not in dispute. The respondent-College already had a sanctioned strength of 100 students. The respondent- College applied for addition of 100 seats to the B.Ed. Course. The required application was made to respondent No.2-National Council for Teacher Education (for short 'the NCTE'). It was for the NCTE to inspect the respondent-College within one month of the deposit and completion of formalities. Civil Writ Petition No. 4678 of 2009 (O&M) 4 The respondent-University had already caused inspection of the respondent-College while also considering the norms laid down by the NCTE, as also State Government and the respondent-University, as is evident from letter dated 7.7.2008 (Annexure P-5). Learned counsel for the respondent-College has supported the cause of the petitioners. It has been pleaded that the respondent-College had an intake capacity of 100 students in B.Ed. Course since the year 2007. The respondent-College applied for 100 additional seats and completed all the formalities in June, 2008 with the NCTE. The respondent-University inspected the premises. The para-meters adopted by the respondent-University were also those of the NCTE. The news item and the information given on the internet make it evident that the respondent-University had allowed the intake of additional 100 students. The argument on behalf of the respondent-College further is that the admission forms were submitted to the respondent-University on 11.12.2008. The respondent-University had raised certain objections in regard to certain students, as is evident from letter (Annexure R-3/6) and, therefore, the respondent-College was under a bona fide belief that the respondent-University had granted affiliation to the intake of additional 100 students. The attention of the court has been drawn towards letter dated 7.7.2008 (Annexure R-3/4) to say that because the respondent- University had constituted an Inspection Committee to inspect the respondent-College for granting provisional affiliation for increased intake from 100 to 200 seats, as per norms laid down by the NCTE, State Government and the respondent-University, the respondent-College Civil Writ Petition No. 4678 of 2009 (O&M) 5 understood that affiliation had been granted. While narrating the above circumstances, the only defence brought out on behalf of the respondent-College is that it was a mistake to admit 100 additional students, i.e. the petitioners, however, it was on account of bona fide belief arising out of the conduct of the respondent- University. CM 9932 of 2009, along with Annexure R-3/9, has been filed by the respondent-College after the case had been heard and the judgment reserved, to bring on record an additional fact viz. the NCTE has taken a decision to constitute a team to inspect the College, however, subject to certain conditions. The exact portion from Annexure R-3/9 reads as under:- “The original file of the institution, reply of LOI for inspection letter and all other related documents, Act of NCTE, 1993 Regulations and Guidelines of NCTE published from time to time were considered by the committee and the Committee decides to constitute the VT subject to submission of resolution of Gram Panchayat regarding approval of Building Plan. Further, the Institution is directed to obtain CLU as per clarification to be given by State Government of Haryana and recognition will be decided accordingly.” Civil Writ Petition No. 4678 of 2009 (O&M) 6 Learned counsel for the respondent-University contends that the news item (Annexure P-6) originated at Kaithal and, therefore, no credence can be attached to it. A perusal of the news item in vernacular indicates that only the last four lines placed under inverted comas could, at best, be attributed to an official of the University viz. Dr. V.K. Gupta. The said lines refer to the University internet site for information. It has further been contended that the contents of Annexure P-7 i.e. information on the internet, were sourced by the respondent- College, as is clear from its recital to the effect “available vacant position as informed by participating college of education located in Haryana is given in this table”. In this regard, reference has been made to Annexure R-1/2 i.e. document furnished by the College on the basis of which the information was given on the internet. It has been impressed on the court that on account of paucity of time, information given by the College could not be verified. The respondent-College gave the University to understand that 180 seats were vacant and, therefore, the the same information was made available on the internet. So far as the registration numbers are concerned, in the context of Annexure R-3/5, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the respondent-University that the College itself is the author of the document as Principal of the College has affixed his seal at the bottom of Annexure R-3/5. Learned counsel for the respondent-University has drawn the attention of the court towards the contents of report dated 19.8.2008 furnished by the Inspecting Team of the University in which the Civil Writ Petition No. 4678 of 2009 (O&M) 7 infirmities found in the College have been detailed. The details of the infirmities found have been given in para-11 of the written statement filed on behalf of respondent No.1 and are to the following effect:- “1. The College has yet to appoint complete faculty for additional 100 seats ....... 2. Books in the Library need to be replaced by quality books as suggested by the Inspecting Team. 3. Provisional affiliation cannot be granted till the receipt of NCTE order for additional seats.” Learned counsel for the respondent-University states that a show cause notice has already been issued to the respondent-College on 1.4.2009 as to why disaffiliation proceedings, including withdrawal of provisional affiliation to the College, be not initiated in view of its conduct. On a pointed query of the court, learned counsel for the respondent-College admits that, indeed, the College is author of Annexure R-3/5, as at the bottom Principal, United College of Education, Kaul (Kaithal) has affixed his seal and, therefore, the issuance of registration numbers cannot be ascribed to the University. No other argument has been raised from either side. I have considered the arguments and the issue involved. Before proceeding further, relevant and related provisions of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (for short 'the Act') Civil Writ Petition No. 4678 of 2009 (O&M) 8 are required to be considered, which are given hereunder:- “2. DEFINITIONS In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires:- xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx (i) "recognised institution" means an institution recognised by the Council under section 14; xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx “12. FUNCTIONS OF THE COUNCIL. It shall be the duty of the Council to take all such steps as it may think fit for ensuring planned and coordinated development of teacher education and for the determination and maintenance of standards for teacher education and for the purposes of performing its functions under this Act, the Council may- xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx (d) lay down guidelines in respect of minimum qualifications for a person to be employed as a teacher in schools or in recognised institutions; (e) lay down norms for any specified Civil Writ Petition No. 4678 of 2009 (O&M) 9 category of courses or trainings in teacher education, including the minimum eligibility criteria for admission thereof, and the method of selection of candidates, duration of the course, course contents and mode of curriculum; (f) lay down guidelines for compliance by recognised institutions, for starting new courses or training, and for providing physical and instructional facilities, staffing pattern and staff qualifications; (g) lay down standards in respect of examinations leading to teacher education qualifications, criteria for admission to such examinations and schemes of courses or training; xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx (k) evolve suitable performance appraisal systems, norms and mechanisms for enforcing accountability on recognised institutions; xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx (m) take all necessary steps to prevent commercialisation of teacher education; Civil Writ Petition No. 4678 of 2009 (O&M) 10 and xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx 14. RECOGNITION OF INSTITUTIONS OFFERING COURSE OR TRAINING IN TEACHER EDUCATION. (1) Every institution offering or intending to offer a course or training in teacher education on or after the appointed day, may, for grant of recognition under this Act, make an application to the Regional Committee concerned in such form and in such manner as may be determined by regulations: Provided that an institution offering a course or training in teacher education immediately before the appointed day, shall be entitled to continue such course or training for a period of six months, if it has made an application for recognition within the said period and until the disposal of the application by the Regional Committee. (2) The fee to be paid along with the application under sub-section (1) shall be such as may be prescribed. (3) On receipt of an application by the Civil Writ Petition No. 4678 of 2009 (O&M) 11 Regional Committee from any institution under sub-section (1), and after obtaining from the institution concerned such other particulars as it may consider necessary, it shall,- (a) if it is satisfied that such institution has adequate financial resources, accommodation, library, qualified staff, laboratory and that it fulfils such other conditions required for proper functioning of the institution for a course or training in teacher education, as may be determined by regulations, pass an order granting recognition to such institution, subject to such conditions as may be determined by regulations; or (b) if it is of the opinion that such institution does not fulfil the requirements laid down in sub-clause (a), pass an order refusing recognition to such institution for reasons to be recorded in writing: Provided that before passing an order under sub-clause (b), the Regional Committee shall provide a reasonable Civil Writ Petition No. 4678 of 2009 (O&M) 12 opportunity to the concerned institution for making a written representation. (4) Every order granting or refusing recognition to an institution for a course or training in teacher education under sub-section (3) shall be published in the Official Gazette and communicated in writing for appropriate action to such institution and to the concerned examining body, the local authority or the State Government and the Central Government. (5) Every institution, in respect of which recognition has been refused shall discontinue the course or training in teacher education from the end of the academic session next following the date of receipt of the order refusing recognition passed under clause (b) of sub-section (3). (6) Every examining body shall, on receipt of the order under sub-section (4),- (a) grant affiliation, to the institution, where recognition has been granted; or Civil Writ Petition No. 4678 of 2009 (O&M) 13 (b) cancel the affiliation of the institution, where recognition has been refused.” “16.AFFILIATING BODY TO GRANT AFFILIATION AFTER RECOGNITION OR PERMISSION BY THE COUNCIL. Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no examining body shall, on or after the appointed day,- (a) grant affiliation, whether provisional or otherwise, to any institution; or (b) hold examination, whether provisional or otherwise, for a course or training conducted by a recognised institution, Unless the institution concerned has obtained recognition from the Regional Committee concerned, under section 14 or permission for a course or training under section 15.” “17.CONTRAVENTION OF PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND CONSEQUENCES THEREOF. xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx (4) If an institution offers any course Civil Writ Petition No. 4678 of 2009 (O&M) 14 or training in teacher education after the coming into force of the order withdrawing recognition under sub-section (1) or where an institution offering a course or training in teacher education immediately before the appointed day fails or neglects to obtain recognition or permission under this Act, the qualification in teacher education obtained pursuant to such course or training or after undertaking a course or training in such institution, shall not be treated as a valid qualification for purposes of employment under the Central Government, any State Government or University or in any school, college or other educational body aided by the Central Government or any State Government.” Learned counsel for the petitioners as also for the respondent- College have admitted that there is neither any material nor any document, which would indicate that the NCTE granted recognition to the respondent-College for intake of additional 100 students for B.Ed. Course. It is further the admitted case of the petitioners as also the respondent- College that the NCTE has not issued any document that would indicate that the respondent-College was a “recognised institution” under Section Civil Writ Petition No. 4678 of 2009 (O&M) 15 14 of the Act. It is further the admitted case that there is no material or document issued by the University granting affiliation, provisional or otherwise, to the respondent-College for intake of additional 100 students. The petitioners seem to have applied for admission on the basis of the news report (Annexure P-6) and the information on the internet (Annexure P-7). The respondent-College accepted their admission and fees paid by them and the petitioners were allowed to attend classes till the issuance of the impugned order on 13.2.2009. No interim order was passed in favour of the petitioners which would allow them to continue to attend classes. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent- University in regard to news item (Annexure P-6) that it has been sourced in Kaithal where the respondent-College is located and, therefore, no credence can be attached to it, is plausible and is accepted. So far as Annexure P-7 is concerned, it was the respondent-College that gave misleading information to the University to the effect that 180 seats were available and, therefore, again it is only on account of the deceitful information furnished by the respondent-College that the information on the internet came to be issued. Mere inspection by the team of the University to check the infrastructure of the respondent-College on the para meters set by the authorities, including the NCTE, could not give the respondent-College any reason to believe that it had been accorded affiliation for intake of additional 100 students. Very conveniently, however, the respondent- College has not made a mention of the infirmities found by the Inspection Civil Writ Petition No. 4678 of 2009 (O&M) 16 Team of the University on 19.8.2008, which have been extracted in earlier part of judgment from para-11 of written statement of the University. Annexure R-3/6 only details the roll numbers of certain students for removal of discrepancies and the document could not have been construed as an affiliation by the University to the respondent- College. A perusal of the provisions of the Act, extracted above, indicates that it is a Central Act provided with a view to achieving planned and coordinated development of the teacher education system throughout the country and for regulation and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the teacher education system. Only “recognised institutions” can offer a course or training in teacher education. Every institution offering or intending to offer a course is required to make an application. After obtaining the application from the institution concerned, various aspects of the institution, such as adequate financial resources, accommodation, library, qualified staff, laboratory and such other conditions required for proper functioning of the institution for a course or training in teacher education, are required to be verified. The affiliating body i.e. the University, can grant affiliation only after recognition or permission is given by the Council under the Act, as is clear from the provisions of Section 16, reproduced hereinabove. Under sub-section (4) of Section 17 of the Act, if an institution offers any course or training in teacher education without obtaining recognition or permission under the Act, “the qualification in teacher education obtained pursuant to such course or training or after undertaking a Civil Writ Petition No. 4678 of 2009 (O&M) 17 course or training in such institution, shall not be treated as a valid qualification for purposes of employment under the Central Government, any State Government or University or in any school, college or other educational body aided by the Central Government or any State Government”. In view of the above, it is clear that the respondent-College could not have given admission to any student beyond the sanctioned and affiliated strength of 100 students. Even if the course is completed, under sub-section (4) of Section 17 of the Act, such a person would not be entitled to take any job. In my considered opinion, there being no document issued by the NCTE, the respondent-College had no reason to believe that sanction for additional 100 seats had been granted to it under the provisions of the Act. Likewise, there being no letter or order issued by the respondent- University granting affiliation to the respondent-College for intake of additional 100 students, the respondent-College could not have had any reason to believe that it was affiliated with the University. I am of the considered opinion that the respondent-College knew all through that they were not recognised for intake of additional 100 seats under the Act. They further were aware that the University had not granted any affiliation, either provisional or otherwise, for the intake of additional 100 students. There is a bar under Section 16 of the Act which provides that a College can be considered for affiliation only after recognition is given to the College under the Act. My above opinion is fortified because the respondent-College Civil Writ Petition No. 4678 of 2009 (O&M) 18 is running since 2007. The College administration very well knew about the procedure to be adopted; firstly, for recognition under the Act and, thereafter, for affiliation with the University. It was not for the first time that the College had ventured in the area of offering the course or training in teacher education. By no stretch of imagination, the material placed on record and facts and circumstances, could make the respondent-College believe that it had the required recognition under the Act or affiliation from the respondent-University. The grounds are only being created to usurp the fees already accepted from the innocent students, who applied for admission. It was for the respondent-College not to have accepted the request for admission of the students beyond the sanctioned strength of 100 students. It being the admitted position that no document had been received by the respondent-College, either giving recognition by the NCTE under the Act, provisional or otherwise, or affiliation, either provisional or otherwise, by the University, I am of the considered view that the respondent-College for greed of money, admitted 100 students without any legal sanction. It was not a mistake and there was no reason or material for the respondent-College to formulate the belief. The argument addressed on behalf of the respondent-College, accordingly, is rejected. Annexure R-3/9, appended with CM 9932 of 2009, portion whereof has been extracted above, while noticing the facts, in fact, unveils the misconduct of the respondent-College. The document indicates that the case of the College was at infancy stage of consideration before the Civil Writ Petition No. 4678 of 2009 (O&M) 19 NCTE. The resolution from the Gram Panchayat has been called for and it has been said that only after its receipt, the inspection would be carried out. The institution has also been directed to get permission to Change Land Use (CLU) from the Government of Haryana and recognition would be decided accordingly. The date of publication of the material on internet by the NCTE or when its knowledge was gained by the respondent-College has not been given out. Be that as it may, it is evident beyond doubt that the College has maliciously proceeded to admit students without sanction of law and for greed and not on account of bona fide belief. Without the College having been inspected by the team of Inspectors of the NCTE, the College could not have formulated a belief that it had sanction from NCTE. The judgment cited on behalf of the petitioners i.e. State of Andhra Pradesh v. Dar-U-Salam Education Trust and others, 1990 (Supp) Supreme Court Cases 3, does not advance the case of the petitioners as it is clearly distinguishable. The students therein had been given admission under the directions of the court. In the case in hand, there is no order favouring the petitioners. In the cited case, the rules, regulations or provisions of any Act have not been considered. The fact that the court permitted the College to admit 100 students after taking into consideration the report given by the Medical Council and the performance of the students already admitted in the University examinations, weighed with the court. A Full Bench of this Court in Desh Bhagat Dental College Civil Writ Petition No. 4678 of 2009 (O&M) 20 and Hospital, Muktsar and others v. State of