i 7 Amended Appeal Amended portion istyped in Italics IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT APPEAL No.360 OF 2009 (DB) APPELLANT RESPONDENTNo.l m RESPONDENTS PETITIONER Pt. Ravi Shankar Shukla University Raipur, Through Registrar, University Campus, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) Versus 01) Kanti Darshan College of Educadon run by Kanti Darshan Saikshanik Evam Computer Sansthan, Kanti Darshan Parisar, Kosa Nagar (Nehru Nagar) Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.), through its President Raraesh Kuraar Shrivastava Respondent No.2 02) State of Chhattisgarh through- Secretary School Education, D.K.S Bhawan, Mantralay, Raipur (C.G.) 03) National Council for Teacher Education, (a Statutory body of the Govemment of India) Westem Regional Committee, Manas Bhavan, Shyamla Hills, Bhopal- 462 002 (M.P.) 04) Director, State Council for Educational Research and Training, Shanker Nagar Raipur (C. G.) APPEAL UNDER SUB-RULE 10 OF RULE 158 OFLTHE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT RULES, 2007 READ WITH THE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT (APPEAL TO DIVISION BENCHl ACT. 2006 MBft Bll HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Division Bench : Appellant Respondents Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri & hlon'ble Shri Rangnath Chandrakar, JJ. WrJtADpeal No.360 of 2009 Pt. Ravi Shankar Shukla University Versus Kanti Darshan College of Education & Others {Appeal under sub-rute 10 of Rule 158 of the Chhattisgarh High Court Rules 2007 readwith the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006} Present:- Shri Manoj Kumar Dubey, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Jitendra Pali, Advocate for the respondent No.1. Shri V.V.S, Moorthy, Dy. Advocate General for the respondent No-2/State. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 09th day of November, 2010) Per Satish K. Agnihotri, J. 1) Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2) The present intra-court appeal arises from the judgment and order dated 05-11-2009 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P, (C) No. 4799 of 2009 (Kanti Darshan College of Education v. Pt. Ravi Shankar Shukla University and another). ; 3) The learned single Judge^ having considered all the issues, as agitated by learned counsel for the parties and relying on the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in State of Maharashtra v. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya and others , observed as under: 14. Relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya, it is held that it is not open to the State Government to refuse permission to open new B.Ed. course in the petitioner institution and the \^ 1 (2006 ) 9 SCC 1 ^^. '^ j , "^// \^ "^.^ -^^^s^" final authohty lies with the NCTE. NCTE cannot be dephved of its power or authority in taking appropriate decision under the Act, 1993 irrespective of absence of NOC by the State Govemment. 15. In the result, the petition is allowed. Respondent State is directed to pass appropriate orders keeping in view its own recommendation of Annexure P-3 and the memo (Annexure P-4) of the Director, SCERT, addressed to the Secretary, School Education Department. On passing of appropriate orders by the State Government, as directed, the respondent- University shall also comply with the mandatory provisions of sub-section (6) of Section 14 ofthe Act, 1993 in the matters of grant of affiliation to the petitioner institution. 4) Shri Pali, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 College, submits that subsequently on the basis of the denial of affiliation by the appellant University, the Western Regional Committee (for short "the WRC") withdrew the recognition for conducting B.Ed. course on the ground that 'application of the two colleges APW07732/723182 and APW5663/723126 contain identical land documents'. The respondent college, thereafter, preferred an appeal before the National Council for Teacher Education (for short "the NCTE"). The NCTE having considered all the facts of the case passed.the order dated 27-8-2010, copy of the said order has been produced before this Court, which is taken on record. In the order dated 27-8-2010 the NCTE observed as under: "AND WHEREAS the Council noted that (1) WRC granted recognition for conducting B.Ed. course for two institutions (a) Kanti Darshan Mahavidyalaya, Bhilai, Chhattisgarh with Code No. WRC/APW05633/723126 and (b) K.D. College of Education, Bhilai, Chhattisgarh with Code No. \NRC//\PW07732Tl2^Q2. (2) The appellant society was already running a B.Ed. college in the name of Kanti Darshan Mahavidyalaya with the recognition of WRC vide order dt. 09.06.08. And the society on 17.10.08, submitted an application for opening of a new college "K.D. College of Education" for B.Ed. course. In the application the appellant disclosed the information about the already existing programme and alongwith the application it submitted two registered ^•^ land documents in favour of the society registered on 22.09.08 for 0.29 Hect. at Kh.No. 24/2 and the other for 0.25 Hect. at Kh. No.24/3 & 24/4 and also a building plan proposed on a piece of land at 24/2 & 24/3. Fromthe building plan it was clear that the land at Kh No.24/2 and 24/3 are contiguous. Though the society was in possession of two different registered land documents, but the fact remained that these two p/eces ofland are adjacent to each other. The society had already been running a B.Ed. college since 2008 and as per Clause 8(3) and 8(4) Regulations 2007 it was not eligible to apply for additional intake in the existing B.Ed. programme. And to circumvent these two clauses of the regulations it applied for new college i.e. "K.D. College of Education" by abbreviating the 'Kanti Darshan' as 'K.D.' WRC after proper scrutinisation of the application would have c/osecf the file on the above two grounds itself. Further the appellant vide his letter dt.27.03.09 requested WRC to consider the application for B.Ed. (Addl.) programme. At this stage at least WRC could have held back the processing of the application for B.Ed. (Addl). Rather it went ahead, conducted an inspection on 04.06.09 and the team reported that infrastructure and other facilities were adequate for the existing intake and proposed additional intake and subsequently granted recognition vide WRC's order dt. 27.07.09 to K.D. College of Education for conducting B.Ed. programme with an annual intake of 100 from academic session 2009-10. But this order was not for additional intake. (3) The university vide its letterdt. 28.10.09 infonned WRC that the Regional Office, Bhopal had already granted recognition to Kanti Darshan Shikshan and computer training institution vide WRC's order dt. 28.01.08 and in the name premises it again granted recognition to one more B.Ed. College i.e. K.D. College of Education. (4) WRC, on the basis of a complaint from the affiliating university fPt. Ravi Shankar Shukla University\ conducted an inspection undersection 17 on 26.02.10. The team submitted two reports and in one of the reports it mentioned both K.D. College of Education and Kanti Darshan Mahavidyalaya interchangeably and indicated only 100 intake. The appellant further concealed the information to the team about the teacher training programmes run by the society at different places or in the same building. The team reported the address of K.D. College (APW07732H23182) at Nehru Nagar-E, Near Toll Plaza, Bhilai and Kanti Darshan Shaishavik and Computer Prashikshan Sansthan (APW05663/ 723126) at Kasa Nagar, Dixit Colony, Bhilai. In fact the appellant submitted the same building plans and building completion certificates and also CLU, as well as land documents for both the colleges. The only difference is the land at Kh. No.24/2 and 24/3 measuring 18900sq. ft. was a putta deed in the name of an individual since 19.03.02 and this was sold to g y ^ ^ the society in 2008. In view of above the Council came to the conclusion that the society was granted recognition for conducting two B.Ed. programmes in the same premises in the name of two different colleges and hence recognition for the older institution i.e. Kanti Darshan Mahavidyalaya, Bhilai, Chhattisgarh shall be restored and for the other institution i.e. K.D. College of Education the recognition shall stand withdrawn." 5) Thereafter, the case was remanded to the WRC with a direction for restoration of the recognition for the older institution i.e. Kanti Darshan Mahavidyalaya, Bhilai, Chhattisgarh and for the other institution i.e. K.D. College of Education the recognition shall stand withdrawn. 6) In view of the above, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submits that the direction passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 4799 of 2009 may be modified to the extent to consider the case of the writ petitioner in the light of the order dated 27-08-2010 passed by the NCTE. 7) Sub-section (6) of Section 14 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (for short "the Act, 1993"), a Central Act, provides tjiat every examining body shall, on receipt of the order under sub-section (4) i.e. (a) grant affiliation, to the institution, where recognition has been granted; or (b) cancel the affiliation of the institution, where recognition has been refused. Sub-section (4) of Section 14 of the Act, 1993 provides for publication of the grant or refusal of recognition to an institution. 8) A notification in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 32 of the Act, 1993, the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms & Procedure) Regulations, 2009 (for short "the Regulations, 2009"), was notified on 31-8-2009. 9) Sub-regulation (12) of Regulation 8 of the Regulations, 2009 reads as under: •;^^^. j 9®\ 10) 11) 12) "8. Conditions for grant of recognition.— XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX (12) The University of Examining body shall grant affiliation only after issue of the formal recognition order under sub-regulation (11) of Regulation 7 of these Regulations. Further, admissions by the institution shall be made only after affiliation by the University or Affiliating body as per the State policy." On conjoint reading of the provisions of the Act, 1993 and the Regulations, 2009, it is clear that the University or examining body shall grant affiliation only after issue of the formal recognition by the NCTE under the provisions of sub-regulation (11) of Regulation 7 of the Regulations, 2009. Thus, nothing further is required to be done by the University after grant of recognition by the NCTE. TheNCTE has con.sidered the cases of Kanti Darshan Mahavidyalaya, Bhilai, Chhattisgarh and K.D. College of Education, Bhilai, Chhattisgarh, by order dated 27-8-2010 as aforestated. Accordingly, the appellant University shall examine the case of the respondent No.1 college (writ petitioner) for affiliation in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (6) of Section 14 of the Act, 1993 read with sub-regulation (12) of Regulation 8 of the Regulations, 2009. In the result, the order dated 05-11-2009 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.(C) No.4799 of 2009 is modified to the above extent. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands disposed of. Sd/- Gowr SatishK.Agnihotri Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge