Bhagwan Budha ... vs State Of Bihar & Ors

3. Both these matters have had a chequered history. There have been several rounds of litigation which are being recorded herein below.

4. The appellant claims to be an institution set up by the minority Buddhist religious community. The appellant has established a Teachers' Training College at Nirmali, District Supaul (Bihar), in the year 1987. It claims that the Chief Minister's Secretariat instructed the Director, Research and Training, Primary Education, Patna (vide a letter dated 13.02.1987) to issue a permission to the appellant to establish this minority educational institution. Thereupon, the appellant proceeded to admit students pending the approval/recognition of its course, by the State Government for training of the students to become primary teachers.

5. The appellant waited for the order of recognition for more than three years, and thereafter filed a Writ Petition bearing CWJC No. 5084 of 1990 in the High Court of Patna, seeking a direction to the State Government to grant the recognition. The prayers in the petition were two-fold. Firstly, a direction to the State Government to consider and finally dispose of the matter regarding recognition, and secondly, a direction to the Bihar School 3 Examination Board (for short-Board) to allow the students of the appellant institution to appear for the ensuing primary teachers training examination. The appellant claimed that two batches of its students had completed their course in the meanwhile, i.e. 1987-89 and 1988-90. A Division Bench of the High Court issued three-fold directions on that petition vide its order dated 3.11.1990 :

6. Accordingly, students of the appellant institution appeared for the examination conducted by the Board in January 1991. However, the decision of the State Government on the aspect of recognition was not forthcoming, and hence the appellant institution filed the second Writ Petition bearing CWJC No.293 of 1992. When this Writ Petition was heard, it was pointed out on behalf of respondents that the appellant had yet not submitted the application for inspection and grant of recognition in proper proforma, and other 4 requirements were also not fulfiled. In view of this position, the Division Bench declined to pass any direction in this behalf. It, however, granted liberty to the appellants to apply afresh in proper proforma, which shall be considered and disposed of by the concerned authorities in accordance with law. Thus, this petition was disposed of by order dated 28.8.1992.

8. It appears that the inspection was accordingly carried out, and a report recommending grant of approval was made by the Director, Research and Development, Education Department on 28.05.1995. He recommended grant of approval from 1987 till 1995-97. Another three member committee carried out one more inspection and made a similar recommendation to the Special Secretary to the Government.

9. Since, the recognition was still not forthcoming, some of the students, namely one Vidyanand Choupal and others filed a Writ Petition bearing CWJC No. 517 of 1998 and prayed for a writ of mandamus that their results be declared for the examination which was conducted on 24.01.1991 for the training session of 1987-89. The Learned Single Judge who heard the matter noted that the college was not recognized in spite of the earlier order 5 dated 3.11.1990 in CWJC No.5084 of 1990, which order had also made it clear that the results can not be declared until recognition is granted. The Learned Single Judge, therefore, disposed of this third Writ Petition by order dated 28.01.1998 with a direction to the Government to pass a final order on the question of recognition.

11. The appellants accordingly made another representation on the same day i.e. 13.02.2007 to the Education Commissioner pointing out this order in LPA No.609 of 2006. The Commissioner for the Human Resource Development Department thereupon issued order Memo No. 57 on 16.03.2007. He recorded in this order that the departmental inspection committee had requested for the grant of recognition to the college from 1987-89 onwards. In 6 paragraph 3, of his order the Commissioner in fact noted that in the meanwhile, the NCTE Act had come into force, but the college had not made any application to NCTE for its recognition as required under that Act. The approval/recognition was no longer within the power of the State Government. However, since the approval ought to have been granted in view of the inspection report, he recommended that college can be considered to be a recognized one w.e.f. 1987-89. Para 3 of this order reads as follows: -

12. Inasmuch as, the results were still not being declared, the appellant filed another Writ Petition bearing CWJC No.7055 of 2007. A Single Judge of the Patna High Court who heard the matter referred to Sections 14 and 16 of the NCTE Act. He noted that under Section 14 of the Act, the institute which is giving teachers training has to apply for its recognition to NCTE within six months of the Act coming into force. The appellant had not so applied after the appointed day. The students of an institution recognized by NCTE alone can appear for the qualifying examination as per Section 16 of the 7 Act. The Learned Single Judge, therefore, dismissed the petition by his order dated 24.08.2007.

13. The appellant filed LPA No.780 of 2007 to challenge the order dated 24.08.2007. The State Government, however, reviewed the recommendation for recognition dated 16.03.2007 and cancelled that order memo by its order dated 02.09.2008, which was on the basis of the above referred Sections 14 and 16. Having referred to the facts of the case and the two Sections, this order dated 02.09.2008 recorded as follows: -

16. The appellant accordingly filed another Writ Petition bearing CWJC No.18181 of 2008 to challenge this order dated 02.09.2008. Two points were raised before the Division Bench. Firstly, with respect to the legality of the NCTE Act. On this aspect the Division Bench noted that the subject of education was listed at Entry No. 25 in List No. III (concurrent list in the 7th Schedule to the Constitution of India) and, therefore, the enactment was within the powers of the Central Government and could not be held to be bad on account of legislative competence. Secondly, it was argued that the State Government could not have rescinded the impugned order. The Division Bench noted that after coming into force of the NCTE Act, there is no power to grant recognition retained with the State Government, and therefore the order rescinding the earlier recommendation for recognition could not be said to be illegal. The Court dismissed the petition by its order dated 9.2.2009 with cost quantified at Rs.30,000/- to be paid to the State Government, the Union Government and NCTE in equal proportion. It is this order dated 09.02.2009 which is challenged in the second Special Leave Petition No. 9378 of 2009. 9

30. Even so, in our view the part of the order in CWJC No.18181 of 2008 imposing cost of Rs. 30,000/- on the appellant was not called for. The same requires to be deleted.

31. In the circumstances, we do not find any error in the two impugned orders. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed. The order in CWJC No.18181 of 2008 is however modified to the extent of deleting the cost of Rs. 30,000/-. As far as the present proceedings are concerned, there will be no order to costs in both these appeals. In view of the dismissal of both appeals all the interim applications pending therein stand disposed of.