Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Shri Om Prakash Shiksha Prasar Samiti ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 10 September, 2015

                           WP-3282-2015
(SHRI OM PRAKASH SHIKSHA PRASAR SAMITI THR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                  THR)
   W.P.No.3564/2015, W.P.No.3571/2015, W.P.No.3843/2015,
 W.P.No.4062/2015, W.P.No.4270/2015, W.P.No. 4474/2015,
           W.P.No.4734/2015, W.P.No.4769/2015 and
                       W.P.No.4889/2015,
10.09.2015
Shri M.P.S. Raghuvanshi and Shri D.K. Agarwal, learned counsel for
the petitioners.
Shri Vishal Mishra, learned Dy. Advocate General for the
respondents No.1 and 2.

Shri Shashank Indarpurkar, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.

On the request of learned counsel for the petitioners these matters are taken up on the question of interim relief as prayed for by the petitioners.

The petitioners in the present petition have prayed that they may be permitted to grant admission to eligible candidates on the seats that have remained vacant after the first phase of counselling for the B.Ed., D.Ed. and M.Ed. Courses for the academic session 2015-16. It is submitted that in the case of Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (2013) 2 SCC 617, the Supreme Court while finally deciding the petition had confirmed and affirmed its interim order dated 27.09.2012, which is also reported in (2013) 2 SCC 728. It is stated that by way of the aforesaid interim order, the Supreme Court by vacating its earlier interim order, had permitted the institutions concerned to admit the students after the cut-off date provided the universities in question was in a position to complete the mandatory requirements of 200 teaching days as per the NCTE norms and regulations. It is submitted that in the instant case also even though the last date for grant of admission as per the decision rendered in the main judgment by the Supreme Court in the case of Maa Vaishno Devi (supra) (2013) 2 SCC 617 of 1.7.2012 is over, the petitioners may be permitted to conduct college level counselling to grant admission to the students for filling up the vacant seats in similar terms on the interim orders of the Supreme Court. The learned counsel for the petitioners also submit that in the case of College of Professional Education v. State of U.P., (2013) 2 SCC 721 , the Supreme Court had permitted the institutions concerned to fill up the vacant seats by undertaking college level counselling subject to the framing of Rules. It is stated in the instant case also as the State of M.P. has also made appropriate rules for college level counselling, therefore, the petitioners may be permitted to conduct college level counselling and to admit the students on the seats lying vacant in their institutions.

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at length. From a perusal of the paragraph 84 of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Maa Vaishno Devi (supra), (2013) 2 SCC 617, it is apparent that the Supreme Court in the detailed judgment has taken into consideration its earlier decision rendered in the case of College of Professional Education (supra) as well as the NCTE Regulations and has thereafter formulated a schedule for recognition and affiliation with a view to avoid any possibility of ambiguity in the affiliation and recognition schedule. It is also apparent from a perusal of the interim order passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Maa Vaishno Devi (supra), which is reported in (2013) 2 SCC 728, that the said order was passed only on account of the fact that the Supreme Court by an interim order had earlier prohibited the colleges from making admission and on account of which the process of admission remained suspended, therefore in order to cater to the extraordinary situation the Hon'ble Supreme Court had vacated its interim order and passed order permitting institutions to make admission as a one time measure provided the university will still in a position to ensure that the students admitted were able to complete the mandatory requirements of undergoing 200 days of teaching. It is also pertinent to note that the Supreme Court while passing a final order in the case of Maa Vaishno Devi (supra) (2013) 2 SCC 617 has prescribed a schedule for recognition and affiliation inspite of having knowledge of its interim order and has held that the schedule prescribed by it has to be followed and any violation thereof shall not be permissible. Apart from the above, it is noteworthy that similar issue came up before the Division Bench of this Court at the Principal Seat in W.P. No.13062/2015 and the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 10.08.2015 has dismissed the petition in the following terms:-

“Petitioner – an Association of Private Unaided Teacher Training Minority Education Institution, has filed this writ petition in its representative capacity, and it is their case that various Institutes imparting courses of study in professional education like B.Ed and D.Ed Courses, are Members of petitioner’s association, most of the members of the petitioner’s association or infact all of them are Minority Education Institutes and it is their grievance that in the Institutes in question, after the counselling process has been completed, based on the entrance examination and the selection process conducted, more than 9300 seats are still lying vacant and, therefore, the prayer made is that a direction be issued to the State Government to permit the Institutes to conduct counselling for filling up of these seats.

2- It is pointed out in the writ petition that in view of the orders passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Maa Vaishno Devi Writ Petition No :: 13062 / 2015 Association of Pvt. Unaided Teacher Training Minority Education Instt. Vs. State of MP & Anr 2 Mahila Mahavidyalaya Vs. State of UP and others, Writ Petition (Civil) No.276/2012 – Annexure P/5, and certain other directions issued in another order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court being Civil Appeal No.5914/2011 [College of Professional Examination Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh] the said prayer can be granted.

3- Shri Manoj Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, invited our attention to the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the case of College of Professional Examination (supra) and the directions contained in Clause VI (a), (b) and (c) thereof; similar directions issued by a Bench of this Court for the last Academic Session i.e…. 2014-2015, in Writ Petition No. 7351/2014 vide Annexure P/6; the Rules of Admission and Guidelines prescribed for the current Academic Session – 2015-2016 as contained in Annexure P/2, argued that even under the Schedule prescribed for counselling, rights are available to the private educational Institutes to fill up the unfilled seats in accordance to the procedure contemplated and now as more than 9300 seats are lying vacant, the direction as prayed for should be granted.

4- Shri Pushpendra Yadav, learned Government Advocate, strongly objected to the aforesaid and argued that in the previous year the directions issued by this Court were based on the circumstances prevailing in the said year and for the present as a uniform formula, the same order cannot be implemented. Learned counsel invites our attention to the Schedule for admission fixed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of College of Professional Examination (supra), which was initially for the academic session 2011-2012 onwards, and submits that the last date for commencement of the academic session is 1 st of July, 2012 and the last date for admission to the course in question after counselling was 28.6.2012. Learned Government Advocate submits that after 28.6.2012, in the light of the judgment rendered in the case of College of Professional Examination (supra), no admission can be permitted.

5- As far as Clause VI onwards relied upon by Shri Manoj Sharma is concerned, learned Government Advocate invites our Writ Petition No :: 13062 / 2015 Association of Pvt. Unaided Teacher Training Minority Education Instt. Vs. State of MP & Anr 3 attention to paragraph 4 of the aforesaid judgment and points out that in the case which was being dealt by the Supreme Court relating to the State of Uttar Pradesh, even though a general Schedule was fixed, but on the basis of agreement and consent given by the parties in the said case, the direction as relied upon by Shri Manoj Sharma from Clause VI onwards were issued only for that particular year that also for the state of Uttar Pradesh and not for any other State. Accordingly Shri Pushpendra Yadav tries to rebut the contentions advanced by Shri Manoj Sharma.

6- That apart, Shri Pushpendra Yadav – learned Government Advocate, invites our attention to sub-clause (a) of Clause VI, an certain portion thereof, which reads as under: “(a) …….. This option will be exercised only after the end of counselling and be adopted only on the request of the colleges for filling up their remained vacant seats within three days from the last date of admission.” Placing reliance on the aforesaid provision, Shri Pushpendra Yadav points out that as on date and even till three days prior to the date of admission, none of the Institutes, whose cases are being sponsored by the petitioner Association, made any such application or sought option to do so.

7- Accordingly, learned Government Advocate submits that now when the process is already over and when in the Schedule fixed for admission as is available in paragraph 23 of the paper book, which is part of Annexure P/2; when the Institutes were granted time to fill up the seats during the period 22nd June to 26th June and when the entire admission has come to an end on 26th of June, strictly in accordance to the Schedule fixed by the Supreme Court in the case of College of Professional Examination (supra), no further indulgence can be made.

8- Shri Pushpendra Yadav, learned Government Advocate for the State, also invites our attention to the law laid down in the case of Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya (supra), the observations made by the Supreme Court in paragraph 69 of the aforesaid judgment, Writ Petition No :: 13062 / 2015 Association of Pvt. Unaided Teacher Training Minority Education Instt. Vs. State of MP & Anr 4 and submits that once the last date for grant of admission is already over, no further indulgence can be made by this Court. 9- We have considered the contentions as has been advanced before us and have also taken note of various submissions made. 10- Even though in the last academic session in paragraph 6 of sub- para (4) of the same, as indicated in the case of College of Professional Examination (supra), certain directions were issued by this Court, but such directions were issued after considering the submissions made by Shri Manoj Sharma and Shri K.S. Wadhawa, and on going through the directions, we find that infact no specific directions was issued by this Court. This Court had only directed the parties, which is the petitioner herein, to represent to the concerned Secretary of the Department, and the Secretary was directed to take a decision on the representation within three days. Therefore, to say that direction in terms of the above order passed in paragraph 6 in the case of College of Professional Examination (supra) was issued by this Court for the last year is not correct. Infact, during the last year this Court only directed the State Government to consider the same. That being so, the order passed in Writ Petition No. 7351/2014, on 26.6.2014, by this Court is of no help to the petitioner. That apart, certain submissions which have been brought to our notice by Shri Pushpendra Yadav were not taken note of by us when orders were passed on 26.6.2014.

11- Supreme Court, in the case of Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya (supra) and even before that in the case of College of Professional Examination (supra) had considered the question of laying down a procedure for conducting counselling; fixing a time schedule for the purpose of granting affiliation and admission to professional Institutes; so also for conducting an entrance examination and counselling; process for admission and the dates from which the courses and classes should commence. After taking note of various provisions and after considering the Schedule laid down in Uttar Pradesh for the Academic Session 2011-2012; for the Academic Session 2012-2013, the Supreme Court in paragraph 4, sub-para (3), has laid down the following Writ Petition No :: 13062 / 2015 Association of Pvt. Unaided Teacher Training Minority Education Instt. Vs. State of MP & Anr 5 Schedule for admission to the Academic Session 2012-2013, and the subsequent years shall be as under; and, in the note to the aforesaid Schedule, it is said that for the subsequent years the same dates and months will apply. The Schedule reads as under: “(iii) The schedule for admission for the academic session 2012-13 and subsequent years, shall be as under:

(1)Publication of Advertisement - 01.02.2011 (2)Sale of Application Forms and - 10.02.2012 to their submission 10.03.2012 (3)Date of Entrance Examination - 20.04.2012 to 25.04.2012. (4)Declaration of Result - 25.05.2012 to 30.05.2012. (5)Commencement and completion - 01.06.2012 to counselling. 25.06.2012. (6)Last date of Admissions after - 28.06.2012 Counselling. (7)Commencement of Academic - 01.07.2012 Session.” 12- From the aforesaid Schedule, it is clear that the process of admission should commence from 1.2.2012; counselling has to be completed by 25.6.2012; and, the last date for admission after counselling is 28.6.2012; and, thereafter the academic session was to commence from 1.7.2012. Based on the aforesaid Schedule fixed by the Supreme Court, in the State of Madhya Pradesh, the B.Ed Admission Programme for the 2 year Course – Academic Session 2015-16, was notified by the State Government, the admission process as is evident from paragraph 3, page 23 of the aforesaid Schedule commenced in time and as per the Schedule fixed the entire admission process is to be completed on 25.6.2015 by 5.30 PM, in the evening. The counselling for Writ Petition No :: 13062 / 2015 Association of Pvt. Unaided Teacher Training Minority Education Instt. Vs. State of MP & Anr 6 various courses were fixed from 9 th June onwards. Each Institute was required to indicate the number of seats available in their Institute on 9.6.2015 and allotment of the seats after counselling started from 9.6.2015; and, thereafter in the second round of counselling in B.Ed Institutes for vacant seats were held on 22.6.2015. Thereafter, in the last round of counselling from 22.6.2015 to 25.6.2015 and thereafter on 26.6.2015, the college level counselling for filling up the vacant seats were granted and the admission has been closed thereafter.

The Schedule fixed in the State of Madhya Pradesh is strictly in accordance to the time frame approved and directed by the Supreme Court. Thereafter, in the case of Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya (supra), it has been specifically held by the Supreme Court that the time schedule in the College of Professional Examination (supra) for the purpose of granting affiliation and admission should be strictly followed.

13- A complete reading of the judgments rendered by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid two cases, namely; Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya (supra) and College of Professional Examination (supra), clearly indicates that time schedule for admission has been fixed by the Supreme Court and deviation from the same is impermissible.

14- That being so, now when the Schedule has been notified by the Government of Madhya Pradesh and the time fixed in the said Schedule for conducting admission is already over, we cannot deviate from the same and extend by permitting further counselling which according to us would be in violation to the order of the Supreme Court and, therefore, we are not inclined to do it. 15- As far as the contention of Shri Manoj Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, with regard to the directions issued by the Supreme Court in paragraph 4, sub-para (6), in the case of College of Professional Examination (supra) is concerned, we find that this direction was on the basis of certain consent given by the counsel for the petitioner and the State of Uttar Pradesh through their counsel before the Writ Petition No :: 13062 / 2015 Association of Pvt. Unaided Teacher Training Minority Education Instt. Vs. State of MP & Anr 7 Supreme Court, and there is some force in the submission made by Shri Pushpendra Yadav, in this regard. 16- That apart, in sub-para (a) of Clause VI, reproduced hereinabove, the Institutes were to opt by submitting a written request for filling up the remaining vacant seats within 3 days from the last date of admission. It is not known as to how many Institutes have followed this procedure; in how many cases the process laid down by the Supreme Court has been followed. That apart, the question as to such a process is permissible this year is also in dispute, as this was only for the year 2011-12, that also for the State of Uttar Pradesh.

17- Be it as it may be, we are of the considered view that once in the judgments rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of College of Professional Examination (supra) and Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya (supra), the Schedule is fixed by the Supreme Court, the same has been adhered to all concerned and when the entire process of admission has been conducted in accordance to the said Schedule and the dates for admission is now over, we are not inclined to exercise our discretion or jurisdiction available in a petition under Article 226, of the Constitution, and issue any direction for permitting college level counselling, which may run contrary to the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s direction.

18- Even otherwise, in the admission process that was conducted for the current academic session, Clause 9.2 of Annexure P/2 of the Schedule specifies the time fixed therein. Merely because some seats are lying vacant, we are not inclined to issue any mandamus, as the same will not be in accordance to the requirement of law and as the same may run contrary to the mandate of the Supreme Court’s direction, we see no reason accede to such a request. 19- In view of the above, finding no ground made out for any further indulgence in the matter, we dismissing the petition with liberty to the petitioner/association to take up the matter with the State Government and it is for the State Government or the competent authority of the department to examine the same in accordance with the Writ Petition No :: 13062 / 2015 Association of Pvt. Unaided Teacher Training Minority Education Instt. Vs. State of MP & Anr 8 Rules, Regulations and the directions issued by the Supreme Court and take action, if permissible, under law.

20- Accordingly, finding no case for interference, the petition stands dismissed.” In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any ground to grant interim relief as prayed for by the petitioners. The prayer for interim relief is accordingly rejected.

 (RAVI SHANKAR JHA)   (B.D.RATHI)
       JUDGE            JUDGE