^\^ ^ !4? T J' o Viora Arts, Commerce d Phvsicai Education Coilege, Raipur (C.S.) State of Chhattisoarh cnd others » IIUT <ur i I trf'B~s> 'i./»•» l.rf'in * •» *BI» i Tt *»•irf t •<B <»«?• V f^ SV't^ft fas )~^ f lin •W'W ^ Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge ::, ';'%?^'®s ;IT Vs Vipra Arts, Commerce & Physicai Education Coiiege, through-Principcii, near Pt. R.S. vniySPSiTy^ UOrTiuP iGiuu, r<ulpur ^.£?.^ 1. State of Chhattisqarh throuah the Secretary, School Education, u.K.S. DL.-,..-- n^.:.-,.>- //•• .& '>, SnuV'afi, KuipuT ^i/.^y.^ Registrar. Pt. Ravi Shankar UniversiTy, Raipur- UisTncT Kaipur (.(-.to.j (Affiliatiny University) 3. The Director, Vi/estern Reqioncd Committee, Nationai Councii for Teachers iducation, (N.C.T.e.) AAanas Bhavan, Shyamia Hiiis, Bhopai (M.P.) 4. AAember Secretary cum Appeiiute Authority, Nctiondl Council for Teacher Education (N.C.T.E.) i-ians Bhavan, near Tilak Br'idge. Bahadur Shah Jafar Mara, New Deihi. '. The Oirector, State Council for Educational Research and TrGJning, (5.C.E.R.T.), Shankar Nagar, Raipur (C.-S.) i-resent; i's?<d J. 1. The oetitioner has flled the instant petition undei* Article 226 of the Constitution of India and prayed for quashina of the ords" datsd 19th/22"d Juiy, 2009 (Anr;2xurs P-1) whereby the aDoeal oreferred bv the Detitioner aqainst the order of A.nnexLirs P-2 dated 9th/lQ'l'h June, 50Q9 pesssd by ths respondent No.3, refusing recognition for conductina B.Ed. Course. has been further dismissed. iiA ?* P C i/^«kt* A/Jt,^..-^,+^ i*)i'*-U SiAy, iv\ i , r «h/. j<y .3 11 y , ^ u v i/ ^-<ui i c^ ¥vi i i i i~y\ i . Amiyakant Tiwari, Advoccte. For ths Getitiorser. AAr. Arun Sao. fioyernment Advocate f-'or "esDondents No.l & 0. Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, Advoco.tz For respondent No.2. Mr. Bhaskar Pyusl, Advocuts 1 : For respondents No.3 A 4. ^L /^^'^?-?^ ^^^!^ssw: y' 2. Co.se of the Detitioner, in brief, is that the oetitioner is cn educational institution run by a registered societv. The. oetitioner institution is running various courses includino B.Ed. Course since last two years. The Detitioner institution aoolied for grant of recognition to the Regional Committee of National Council for" Teacher Education fpor short 'NCTE'). The State, Council for Educational & Research Trainino (for shor" 'SCERT') yids its memo dated 28.12.2005 (Annexure P-6) oave no objection cer'tificate to the oetitioner for oDenina B.Ed. ,-niii.co Thp N/"TF vi-lp i+c nr.r'pr ^n+o^ Qth/1?t" Jiinc ?nn7 fAnnexure P-6)oranted recoonJtion/Dermission for' one unit of 100 students as oer Reguiiation 7 (11) of the Nationcl Counci; for Teacher Education fRecognition Norms cnd Procedure'i Reaulations, 2005 ffor short 'Retsuiations, 2005'). Recoqi'iitiOi'i was qranted after" scrutiny and insoection by the Visitinq Teorfl as the oetitioner institution fuSfilIed the norrns for recoqnition. Ressondent No.2 qranted affiliation in r'esoect of 3.Ed. course with an intake of 100 students yide memo datec 21.7.2007 fAnnexure P-7). On the basis of affi!iation orantec; bv resoondent No.2 and recoanition bv resDondent No.3. students were admitted in the B.Ed. Course. As per requirements of Annexure P-6, the petitioner took necessarv steos and intimated resoondent Nos. 3 & 4 reaar'dina the steos taken by jt in resoect of cDOointment of the PrinciDai arsd teachina & non-teachinq staff etc. Firs" information was Droyided within the Drescribed oeriod of 30 davs on 5.7.2007 and th.e resoondents were aiso QDDrised abou" the fulfillment of conditions as oer Annexure P-6. Ths oetitioner was also oermit+ed to undertoike B.Ed. Course for the academic sessions 2007-08 & 2008-09 by the respondent Universitv and the SCERT. However, for the academic session 2009-10. resoondents No.3 & 4 issued order' of Annexure P-2 communicatina refusa! for arant of recoQnition to the /f:r S®%te•.>.-. .x^ ^ ; ^^i^S^, i" ^/ 'lf'1)' £V"-'; oetitioner institution. The netitioner's writ oetition bearinc, W.P. (c) No.2550/09 was disposed of on 15.5.2009 and thereafter resoondent No.3 oassed a modified order of Anne.YilF-p P-? rin+oi-1 Qth/in*h Jlinp 9000 <~n+onn r-i<-n 1 lu c+n+inn V w ) ) -</ that since the repl.y was not submitted within the stipulatsd time, the Western Reaionai Committee refused to Qrcnt recoanition to the oetitioner institution. The oetitione"'s appeal was further dismissed by the appel'ate authority by the order of Annexure P-1. 3. Mr. P.S. Koshy with ffi.r. Amiyakant Tiwar'i, learned counse appearing for the petitioner submits that the order ot Annexure P-2 has been passed without affor'dinq cnv oDDor'tunitv of hearinq to the oetitioner. The oetiticne" institution wns functional for the oast two Years. The oetitioner had faithfuily comoiied with the reguisite reauirements/ conditions envisaged under Annexure P-6. Respondents had accorded recognition to the petitioner for M.Ed. Course (Annexure P-16). Respondents did not offord any ODDortunitv to the oetitioner to remove the defects and shortcomings in the institution. The appointment and selection of teachino staff and the Principal could not be completed within the stiDulated time as resoondent No.2 -Uniyersity tooK considemble time for the aoQointment cnd selection of the teachina staff. Bv the tims the imDuqned order was oassed, the petitioner had already fuifilled the requisite conditions and was h.aving sufficient numbers of teochers. Respondents ouaht to have allowed the oetitioner sufficien-r time fo" remoyinq the shortcominq, if any, as was done in the case o one Bhilai Mahila Mahavidvalaya, Shilci, who was ollowed 15 davs time bv the aDDeilate authoritv to remove the defects after restoring the recoanition. 4. On the other hand. AAr. Pvasi, iearned counsel apDear-inq for reSDondents No.3 4. woutd submit thdt conditional ^. ^<y^n"ni'i'|rtn rt^f^esy <-lrt+£>.-l QTn/t^Tn Tiiy"i<? ?007/F 4 nn^vi i r>?> P-A^ u^f"; issued under the Regulation 7 of the Regulations, 2005 Order specificaily msntions that the Westerrs Rsaionai /"rt wn in i++c'o i^/^e rlo/* t (^io/4 ayi i^'o O^ yn£sffi'*''iyin •¥^ nr'rtyt'^ /Tt?^ ^ E+i^yii ^W lin—^ilii^I»/ ^l-AIil WWilUifI^-lll^. recognition / permissior! to the petitioner institution for one unit of 100 students as per Requlstion 7 (11) of the Requlations. 2005, subject to fulfiiiment of conditions mentioned in the order of Annexure P-6. The order soecificaiiy ciarified that the compiiance is to be made within 30 days from the date of receiot of the order and it was further' made clear" that the inst'tution shali make admissions onlv after it obtains unconditional recoanition ietter- from the V.''estern Reaional Committee, Bhooai and affiliation from the examination bodv. which are conditions Dfecedent GS oer' Requiation 8 (10) of the Requlations, 2005. The petitioner was aware obout the conditional recoonition order and that the conditlons were to be fulfiileci within a oeriod of 30 davs of issuance of the orde" cf Anr.exure P-6. The petitioner could not fulfi!! the conditions wi+hin the stiDuia+ed oeriod which wouid be evident from the. advertisement of Annexure P-8 issued OR 27.3.2008 inyitir'q appiications for appointment on different posts inciudino the oost of PrinciDal and document of Annexure P-11 datec 23.12.2008 being approval for the appointment of the Principai bv the resDondent university. Oocument of Annexure P-18 dated 5.7.2007 is an afterthouqht. The contention of the petitioner that order of Annexure P-6 is a recoQnition or-der is belied by their own memo dated 26.12.2008 (Annexure P-l°) wherebv c reauest has been made for issuance of unconditionai letter of recognition cfter accepting the fulfillment of conditions. The petitioner could not have started the B.Ed. Course and (idmitted the students for th.e academic sessiori 2007-08 as bv that time Princinal and teachers we.re not .•S^A-A "^ ^ appointed. The petitioner has also not submitted arfidavit from every individuai facuity member/staff appointed by it a"cs individual profile of faculty member'/staff and in these. circumstances, the recoanition has been riahtlv reiected. Reiyinq upon the decision of the Hon'ble Suore.me Cour't in the matter of Union of Indie & others Vs. Shah Soverdhan L Kobra Teachers* College reoorted in (20021 8 SCC 228, !t wcs arqued that the NCTE is an exoert bodv entrusted bv the Parliament with the duty to maintain the standards of education in relation to teacher education and decision of such expert body shouid not be liahtiv jnterfered bv a court of iaw. 5. A'\r. Ashish Shrivastava, leoirned counsel aDoearing for the resDondent Universitv also submitted that the affiiiation was aranted to the Detitioner institution under Section 14 14} of the Uniyersities Act, 1973, noart from other conditions, on c condition that the oetitioner institution shall admit students bv followina the conditions and guideiines of the NCTE anc further fo!low the conditions of the State Soyernment. 6. I have heard learned counsel fo" the parties. I hove per-used the record as c!so the imDuoned orders of Annexure P-1 & P-2. 7. From bo.re perusal of Annexure P-6, it is evident that resoondent No.3. on the basis of scrutiny of the documents submitted bv the oetitioner institutio" and reoort of the Visitina Committee, decided to grant conditiona! recognition/ oermission to the Detitioner' institution for 100 students subiect to fulfillment of foliowing conditions;- i. Appoint of requisite faculty members/staff having prescribed qualifications and experience are made by the institution on the basis of recowmendations of the Seiection Committee constituted as per the police of the U6C/Affiliating University or the State 6ovt. on such terms and conditions of service as contained ,;y' ^'.'S-^--, :,? ^' i' ''iSV ./. '^^."y.^ ^y, ^w:> in the Reaulations aDolicabie for the said teacher ^ - ^^ - ; tr'ainina course. After aDDointina reouisite facuitv members/staff, their oarticulars with shotograohs are out on its officia! website by the institution and the VVRC is formallv informed alona with the fotlowinq documents in oroof/ suDport of the same;- a. An affidavit du!v at+ested by the Notcry Public on a non-judicia! stamD Qo.oer of Rs.100/- fr-om the Institution/Society/Trust (as oer the format Annexure-I attached herewi+h) that reauisite aua.lified facuitv member's/staff have been ooDointed on the basis of the recommendations of the Seiection Committee constituted as oer the policy of the USC/Affiliating Universitv or the State Gov-t. on such terms and conditions of seryice as orescribed bv the Reaulations, Rules, etc. ^- ------- • / • - - - - ^ applicabie for the sa.'fd teacher training course. b. An affidavit duty attested by the Notary Pubiic on a non-judicial stamp paper of Rs.10/- from everv individual faculty member'/staff so aDDointed as oer for'mat ths Annexur-e II attached herewith. c. A personal/individua! profile of each faculty member/ staff (as per for-mat the Annexure III attoched herewith) by the Institution/Society/Trust for the record of WRC. d. A consolidated orofile / Darticulars of the teaching/ non-teachina staff separateiy under the siqnatures of the authorized authority of ^p the institution/ Society/ Trust as per the format Annexure IV attached herewith. It is dlso clear that compliance of the above conditions was t& be made within 30 davs from the date of receiot of the order. It was SDecificaitv mentioned in the order of Annexure P-6 that the institution shatl make admissions only after it obtains unconditional recoqnition ietter from the Wester" ReqionQl Committee, BhoDa! and affiliation from the Examinino Body, which we"e conditions precedent as per Reaulation 8 (10) of the Requlations, 2005. 8. Regulation 7 (11) empowers the NCTE to grant perrnission subiect to aooointment of aunlified facuitv members before the commencement of academic session. Reaylation 7 (12) cas" a dutv uoon the institution that cfter aoDolntins the reguisite facultv/staff. shail out the information on its officisi website and also formailv inform the Reaional Committee concerned. The Reaional Committee concerned sholi then issue a form-.l unconditional recoanition order. 9. Reouiation 8 deals with the conditions for qrent of recoqnition and Reoulation 8 flO'S soecifically grovides that an insl-itutio.'i shall make admission on!v afte- it obtains unconditiona! ietter of recoanition from the Reqionai Committee concerned and affiliation from the exnminina body. 10.In the instant co.se, conditional r-ecognition was 9ranted to the petitioner institution subject to appointment of requisi-g: facultv/staff ho.vino Dr'escribed guaiifications and experience bv the institution on the basis of recommendations of the Selsction Committee constituted as per the policy of the U6C/Affiiiatina University or the State ©overnn'ent. According to Condition No.2.. after makina appointment of reguisite faculty members/staff, the institutlon shalt put thei" Dorticuiars with Dhotoaraohs on its officiai website o.nd % ^ formaUy inform the WRC along with the documents as detailed in the order of Annexure A-6. Aforesaid conditions were to be fuifilled within 30 davs from the date of receiot of the ordsr'. There is clear condition in the order of Annexure P-6 that the institute shail make admission only after it obtains unconditionai letter of recognition from the Western ftegionc! Cotnmittee, BhoDal. 11. Orde" of affiliatlon aranted by the resoondent Universltv also mentioned that affiliation is qranted subiect to terms cnd quidelines of the NCTE. 12. From the documents filed bv the Detitioiier. it is ciear thct the oetitioner faiied to fulfili ths conditions mentioned in the order of Annexure P-6 within the stioulated oeriod as the orocess for oDDointment of facuity including 1-he PrinciDa! couid not be comDleted and informed to the NCTE within stinulated period. In these circumstances, the reasons assiqned bv the NCTE for refusinq recoanition to the oetitioner institution and its subseguent confir'mation bv the aooeliate authoritv is strictly in accordance with the Requlations, 2005 cnd the Act. 13.In the matter' of Shah ©overdhan L Kabro. Teachers' CoUecs fsuoral the Hon'ble Suoreme Court in Pcr'a-11 heid thus;- "NCTE is an exoert bodv ci"eated under the oroyisions of the National Council for Teacher Education Act. 1993 and Parliament has imDosed uoon such exoert bodv the dutv to maintain the stcndards of education, DarticularlY, in relation to teacher education. Education is the backbone of evsrv democracv and anv deterioration in the stondard of teachina in the B.Ed Course would uitiinQteiv oroduce sub-standard orosoective teachers. Therefore, the conclusion of an exoert shouid not be Ijahtly tinkered with bv a court of lavu without aivjng due weiqhtaqe to the conclusion arrived at by such exoert body. The Hiqh Court fe ..' erred in hoiding that there was no reasonable justlfication for* not recoanizina the B.Ed (Vacation Course) which was being imoarted bv the respondent Institution." 14. Therefora, in the facts and circums+ances of the case. I of the ooinion that the resoondent No.3 has riohtlv refused to qrant recoonition to the setitioner as the Detitioner fai'ed to fulfill the conditions mentioned in the order of conditional recoanition aranted to the oetitioner yide Annexure P-6 which was subseguentlv confi"med by the aDoellate authority In a" aooeal oreferred bv the Detitioner. 15. In the result, the petition has no substance, the same deseryes to be dismissed and accordingly, it is hereby dismissed. 16. No order o.s to costs, Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge Rcshan/-