HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR. CHHATTISGARH SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI S.R. NAYAK,CJ. WR!T PETITiON N0.1622 OF 2<»8 PETITSONERS RESPONDENTS 1. Uday Mahavidyalay^through its principal Dr. P.L. Yadav, aged about 47 yeara, S/o. Shri G.R. Yadav, near ITI Colony, Chhawni, Bhilai, District Durg, (CG). 2. Chhattisgarh Hindi Parishad Samiti, Chhawni, Bhilai, Distriot Durg, through its Seoretary Dr. Tirath Ram Sahu, aged about - 30 years, S/o. Dhanush Ram Sahu, Resident of Chhawni Bhilai, District Durg, (CG) Vs. 1. The Vioe Chancellor, Pandit Ravi Shanker Shuk! University, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (CG). 2. The Registrar, Pandit Ravi Shanker Shukl Univereity, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur LCGL 3. The Regionai Director, National Council of Teaohing Education, Manas Bhawan, Shyamla Hills Bhopal (MP). 4. The Commissioner, State Education Research and Training Parishad, Chhattisgarh Raipur (CG). 5. The Commissioner hligher Education, State ofChhattisgarh, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG). Present: Mr. Vishnu Kostha, iearned counsel forthe petitionere. Mr. Pramod Kr. Verma, iearned Sr. Advooate with Shri Sumit Verma, learned counsei for the respondents. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 3" April, 2006) The dispute brought before the Court relates to recognition and affiliation of the petitioner-College relating to the academio session 2005-2006. Since the pleadings are complete and academic session 2005-2006 is ooming to end shortly, 1 thought it appropriate and just to hear this v/rit petition out of tum and on priority basis. Accordingly, the cour^sel for the parties were heard. (2) The 1 petitioner-Educatjonal tnstitution managed by the 2 petitioner-Samiti having decided to establish a B.Ed. College wjth 100 intakes during the aoademic session 2005-2006 and having obtained no objection -a- oertificate from the 4 respondent submitted an application to the 3"' respondent for recognition. The 3 respondent issued order dated 26.0.9.2005, marked ais * Annexure-P/7, appended to the writ petition at page 19 of the material papere, whioh reads as follows: "No.WCR/2-32/723047/77 (CON)/2005/7706 September26, 2005 To The Direotor, Chhattisgarh State Council of Education Researeh & Training Shankar Nagar, Raipur 492 Q06. Sub: Reoognition of secondary level Teacher Training Institutions. Sir, Please find enclosed the list of following institutions reoognized by Westem Regional Committee (NCTE) in its CONTINUED 77"' meeting heki on September 24-25, 2005 with an annual intake of 100 for the B.Ed course for the academic session 2005-2006, subject to the oondition that the college will submit the iist of staff/facuity duly approved by the Registrar of the affiliating University/competent authority before commencement of the aoademic session. The formal order of recognition will be issued only after the reoeipt of this list in WRC, NCTE, Bhopal. You are requested to allow all the institutions to admit students only upto the approved intake for which recognition has been Also, instruct the institutions to adhere to the norms presoribed by the NCTE relating to eligibility criteria for admission; infrastructure; staff and ourriculum transadion: ete. to the standard laid down by the NCTE and continuous mairtenance of these nonns and standards is mandatory and binding on the institution. Yours faiftfully, Regional Director. APW N0 NCTE CODE- ~WME S, ADDRESS OF THE INSTITUTION "COURSE" APPR OVED INTAK E ACADEMiC SESSIOh' AR/V0147 723047 UDAY COLLEGE,, BESIDB B. ED. I.T.i. .COLONY, CHHAWANi AREA, BHILAI DURG 49002^ CHHATTISGARH_L 100 2005-2006 C5^ - 3- After the 3 respondent issued Annexure-P/7, the petitioner submitted an application on 06.10.2005 to the 1st respondent-University for grant of affiliation depositing the presoribed fee enclosing a copyof Annexure-P/7. The application dated 06.10.2005 was foliowed by a reminder dated 26.10.2005. The 1st respondent did not grant affiliation sought by the petitioners in their application dated 06.10.2005. In the oireumstance, this writ petition Vi/as presented on 28.03.2006 praying for the foilowing reliefs. "7. RELIEF{s) SOUGHT: In view of the aot and grounds stated above the petitioner seeks issue of the following relief(s):- 1. That in view of the above facts and ciroumstances of the case this Hon'ble Court may kindiy be please to directed the respondent no.1 and 2 to grant the provisional affiliation of petitioners institution and also permit the students of the petitioners institutions for appearing in the annual examination of B.Ed. - academio session 2005-06 whfch will commence from 05.04.2006. 2. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be directed to respondent No.1 and 2 to permit the students of the petitionere institutions for appearing in the annual examination of B.Ed - aoademic session 2005-06 which will oommence from 5.4.2006 which have been admitted as per oral directions of respondent no. 1 and 2 in petitioners institution after NOC of respondent no. 4 and provisional permission of respondent no.3. 3. That any other alternath/e writ or writs, order or orders, direotion or direotions, thought expedisnt and just may also ptease be Issued. -Z|- 3) The Vice-Chancellor and the Registrar of the R. Ravishankar Shukla University, Raipur, the respondents 1 and 2 respectively, on service of notioe, have put in appearance through their oounsel and contested the writ petition on merit by filing retum on 31.03.2006. The substantial defense raised in the return to oppose the relief sought in the writ petition is that Annexure-P/7 cannot be termed as recognition in terms of the provisions of Section 14(3)(a) of the National Counoil for Teacher Education Aot, 1993 (for short "the Act'). While raising that defense, at this stage itself, it needs to be notieed that a!l other material averments made by the petitioner, such as making applications, obtaining of no obj'ection certificate from the 4 respondent or existenoe of Annexure-P/7- order made by the 3 respondent are not disputed by the respondents 1 and 2. 4) Having heard the iearned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings filed by them, the only question that arises for deoision is whether the respondent-University is justified in opining that Annexure-P/7 oannot be tenned as recognition in terms of the provisions of Section 14(3)(a) of the Act. At the threshoid, it needs to be notioed that though, admittedly, the petitioner submitted application on 06.10.2005 to respondents 1 and 2 after the 3 respondent issued Annexure-P/7-order, the University did not bother to reply to the petitionere til! the writ petition was filed and respondents were called upon to show-cause. At this juncture, it needs to be notioed that in para 5.8 ofthe writ petition, it is stated that the University had constituted a selection oommittee on 04.08.05 and that committee oonducted intewiew to fill up the posts of Asst. Professors and Professore, prepared the seleotion list and that list was approved by the University as refleoted in the letter dated 05.12.2005 produced as Annexure- P/12. This assertion made by the petitioner in para 5.8 is not seriousiy disputed. 5) In the baokground of the above facts, let me have a look at Annexure-P/7. The first sentence in Annexure-P/7 itself in unmistakabte terms disoloses the fact that the first petitioner-coilege is reoognized by the Western -5- Regional Committee of NCTE in its Continued 77 meeting held on September 24-25, 2005. Annexure P/7 also fixes annual intake of the college at 100 for B.Ed. Course for the academic session 2005-2006, Having recognized the first petitioner -Institution and having fixed annual intake at 100, the order proceeds to point out that the recognition is "subject to the conditions that the oollege will submit list of staff/faculty duly approved by the Registrar of the affiliating University/competent authority before commencement of the academic session." At this stage, it needs to be noticed the role of the University (examining body as cailed in ihe Act) in terms of the provisions of Section 14 of the Aot wtiioh deais with recognition of institution offering course or training in teacher education has become very much limited and oircumscribed. Sub-Section (3) of Section 14 is relevant, which deals with the power of the Regional Committee of NCTE for grant of recognition to an Institution. Annexure-P/7 in an unmistakable terms would show that it is a provisional recognition granted to the first petitioner- College to run the B.Ed. course wjth annual intake of 100 for the session 2005- 2006. Annexure -P/7 itself states that the formal order of reoognition would be issued after the firet petitioner-College submits the list of staff/faculty duly approved by the Registrar of the affiliated University. What is stated in para 5.8 of tbe writ petition would disclose that the list of staff was prepared with the approvai of the University and that faot was reflected in Annxeure-P/12. Sub- Section (6) of Section 14 of the Act mandates that the respondent-University [that is to say examining body in terms of sub-Section (6) ] shall, on receipt of the order under sub-Section (4), that is to say Annexure-P/7-order, grant affiliation to the institutton. In terms of the duty casf on the University under sub-Section (6) and also having regard to the faot that the approved list of staff/faculty was also available with the Univereity, the University was duty bound to grant affiliation and aiso to forward the approved list of staff/faoulty to the 3 respondent in order to faoilitate the 3 respondent to formally issue order of recognition as indicated in Annexure-P/7. - - ---- " 6 ~ (6) Be that as it may, 1 am constrained to observe that the respondents 1 and 2 who are the Universi.ty authorities, are governed by the postulates of Article 14 of the Constitution, but, they acted arbitrarily and unfairly. The indifference shown by them to the application made by the petitioners on 06.10.2005 without any response till the writ petition was filed would speak volumes. It is needless to state that the Univeraity being the State within the meaning of Artiole 12 of the Constitution, its every action should imbibe the values of reasonabteness, fairness, non-arbitrariness. The pleadings of the respondents 1 and 2 and the arguments built upon their pleadings would not inspire the confidenoe of the Court that they conduoted fairly, reasonably and non-arbitrarily. In the words of Lord Heward, the oase of the petitionere was very badly and unfairly dealt with by the respondents 1 and 2, throwing all norms of fair prooedure. No substantial ground is raised by the University in their pleadings nor in the oourse of arguments bytheirSenior Counsel on the basis of whioh 1 could possibly withhold writ sought by the petitioners. As already pointed out supra, the defence raised by respondents 1 and 2 is technical, nay, hyper technical. The parties should win or lose on substantial grounds and not on technical tortures, and particularly, particularly, such a conduct of a body like the University oannot be countenanoed. (7) In the result and for the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is ailowed and the respondents 1 and 2 are directed to forward the list of staff/faculty as approved by the Registrar of the University to the 3rd respondent along with the order of affiliation. It is stated that the petitionere have already deposited affiliation fee. IT the respondents 1 and 2 require the petitioners to perform any other formalities in the matter of issuing grant of affiliation, the petitioners shall perform the same, and that iiberty is reserved to the petitionere^. ^rt•^ c^®1 s&'- .. J^e