Gujarat High Court
Sahjanand vs Hemchandracharya on 7 October, 2011
Author: A.L.Dave
Bench: A.L.Dave
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/10359/2011 22/ 22 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10359 of 2011
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 12311 of 2011
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. A.L.DAVE
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To be
referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
SAHJANAND
EDUCATION TRUST - Petitioner(s)
Versus
HEMCHANDRACHARYA
NORTH GUJARAT UNIVERSITY
&
1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
HJ NANAVATI for
Petitioner(s) in SCA No. 10359 of 2011
MR AMIT M PANCHAL for
Respondent University(s) in - do -
MR AJ SHASTRI for Respondent(s)
: NCTE in - do -
MR. YATIN
N. OZA, SR. COUNSEL with MR. B.P. GUPTA for petitioners in SCA No.
12311 of 2011
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. A.L.DAVE
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date
:7/10/2011
CAV
JUDGMENT
(Per : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA) As common questions of law and facts are involved in these two writ petitions, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.
2. These two writ petitions depict extremely sorry state of affairs of a college named Shree Swaminarayan B.Ed College run and managed by Shree Sahjanand Education Trust, At and Post Tal. Vijapur, Dist. Mehsana, which is an un-recognized educational institution imparting teacher education i.e. B.Ed Course. Over a period of time, we have come across so many petitions preferred by such colleges whose recognition has been cancelled by National Council for Teachers Education (for short "NCTE") on grounds like non-appointment of Principal, inadequate teaching and non-teaching staff, lack of adequate infrastructure etc. We are sad to note that ultimately the students are the sufferers. We are reminded of an observation made by the Supreme Court almost two decades ago in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Vikas Saherbrao Roundale and ors. - (1992) 4 SCC 435, in which the apex Court observed as under:-
"2.
This court judicially noticed mushroom growth of ill equipped and under-staffed unrecognised educational institutions in Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Tamilnadu and Maharashtra States and other states too are no exceptions. Obviously the field of education is found to be fertile, perennial and profitable business venture with least capital outlay. This case is one such from the State of Maharashtra.
3. It would appear that individuals or societies without complying with the statutory requirements, establish educational or training institutions ill equipped to impart education and have the students admitted, in some instances despite warnings by the State Govt. and in some instances without knowledge of the concerned State Govt, but with connivance at lower levels."
We can take judicial notice of the mushroom growth of ill-equipped, under-staffed and unrecognized educational institutions coming up even in the State of Gujarat.
3. The facts relevant for the purpose of deciding these two writ petitions can be summarized as under:-
3.1 SCA No. 10359 of 2011 has been filed by Shree Sahjanand Education Trust, challenging order dated 25.7.2011 passed by respondent NCTE, Western Regional Committee, Bhopal withdrawing the recognition granted to the petitioner's college for B.Ed Course, in exercise of powers under Section 17 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993. Following reliefs have been prayed for in this petition:-
"6. Be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order and/or directions to:
(A) Allow this petition (B) Quash and set aside the impugned action/decision of the Respondent North Gujarat University not to allot further students to the petitioner College for B.Ed. Course for the academic year 2011-2012, from the last round of allotment scheduled on 8.8.2011.
(C) Declare that the impugned order dated 25.7.2011passed by the Respondent National Council for Teacher Education, Western Regional Committee, Bhopal withdrawing the recognition granted to the petitioner College for B.Ed. Course is illegal, arbitrary, against the weight of evidence and an order passed without of application of mind, as the petitioner college has appointed qualified person as Principal and hence there is no reason for the Respondent NCTE to withdraw the recognition granted to the petitioner college for B.Ed. Course, u/s.
17 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993;
(D) Quash and set aside the impugned order dated 25.7.2011 passed by the Respondent National Council for Teacher Education, Western Regional Committee, Bhopal withdrawing the recognition granted to the petitioner college for B.Ed. Course as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unreasonable, against the weight of evidence and an order passed without of application of mind and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.;
(E) Direct the respondent North Gujarat University not to discontinue allotment of students to the petitioner college for B.Ed. Course for the Academic Year 2011-2012 holding that recognition granted to the petitioner college cannot be withdrawn in view of provisions of Section 17 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993;
(F) Direct the Respondent National Council for Teacher Education, Western Regional Committee, Bhopal to continue the recognition granted to the petitioner college for B.Ed. Course for the Academic year 2011-2012, as if the impugned has not been passed at all."
3.2 During the pendency of Special Civil Application No. 10359 of 2011, the petitioner filed a Civil Application No. 8789 of 2011, seeking the following reliefs -
"(A) To Allow this Civil Application;
(B) To Restrain the opponent University from transferring and/or accommodating the 56 students already allotted to the applicant B.Ed.
College for the Academic Year 2011-2012 to any other College or Institution in any manner whatsoever and be further pleased to direct the opponent University withhold the process for appointment of Principal for the applicant B.Ed. College, in the interest of justice;
(C) To pass such other and/or further orders or grant such other and/or further reliefs, as may be deemed, just and proper in the interest of justice."
3.3 After hearing the learned advocate for the petitioner college, this Court while issuing Notice upon the respondents passed the following order on 16.8.2011:-
"Notice on the respondents. Post the matter on 9th December 2011. In the meantime, any action is taken by the respondents, they should ensure that the students do not suffer. Civil Application stands disposed of. Direct service is permitted."
3.4 Thereafter, on 23.08.2011, students of Shree Swaminarayan B.Ed College run by Sahjanand Education Trust- (petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 10359 of 2011), filed Special Civil Application No. 12311 of 2011, challenging the action of the respondent university of transferring them to other recognised colleges which are affiliated to the respondent university and have prayed as under:-
[A)Be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned action on the part of the respondent No.1 transferring the petitioners to other colleges as well as direct the respondent No.1 to permit the petitioners to continue pursuing their B.Ed. Course with the respondent No.2 College for the academic year 2011-2012;
(AA) Be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the Withdrawal Order dated 25.07.2011, passed by NCTE and further be pleased to quash and set aside the consequential action of withdrawal of affiliation by the respondent No.1;
(B) Pending hearing and final disposal of the petition, Your Lordship may be pleased to stay the operation, execution and/or implementation of the impugned action on the part of the respondent No.1, as well as to permit the petitioners to continue pursuing their B.Ed. Course with the respondent No.2 College for the academic year 2011-2012;
(BB) Pending hearing and final disposal of the petition, be pleased to stay the operation, execution and/or implementation of the Withdrawal Order dated 25.07.2011 passed by NCTE and further be pleased to stay the operation, execution and/or implementation of the consequential action of withdrawal of affiliation by the respondent No.1;
(C) Be pleased to grant any other and further relief(s) as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
3.5 After hearing the advocates for the respective parties, on 25.08.2011, this Court passed following order:-
".........Pendency of the case shall not stand in the way of the petitioner or any other students to get them admitted in the recognized institute to which they have been allocated."
3.6 It is an undisputed fact and an admitted position that NCTE has withdrawn the recognition granted to Shree Swaminarayan B.Ed. College, run by Shree Sahajanand Education Trust, under section 17(1) of the NCTE Act, 1993, by an order dated 25.07.2011, after its 151 meeting held 27-29.06.2011, on the ground that the college had not appointed a Principal in the college. The order further stated that the said recognition would stand withdrawn "from the academic session next following the date of withdrawal order", NCTE also advised the affiliating body/State Government not to admit/allot any student to the college. The order also clarified that according to Section 17(4) of the NCTE Act, 1993, the qualification in teacher education obtained pursuant to such course or training of after undertaking a course or training in such institution, shall not be treated as a valid qualification for the purpose of employment under the Central Government, any State Government or University, or in any school, college or other educational body aided by the Central Government or any State Government.
4. We have heard learned Counsel Mr. H.J. Nanavati, appearing for the petitioner in SCA No. 10359 of 2011 and Mr. Yatin Oza, Sr. Counsel appearing with Mr. B.P. Gupta for the petitioners in SCA No. 12311 of 2011, as also Mr. Amit M. Panchal, learned Counsel appearing for respondent University and Mr. A.J. Shastri, learned Counsel appearing for respondent NCTE.
5. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Yatin Oza, appearing for the students studying in the college stated that as the students had been allotted to the respondent college earlier, the students had started their classes in the said college from the beginning of the academic session and he has further urged that the students may not be shifted from the respondent college to any other college. Mr. Oza further contended that as the college now appointed a Principal, the respondent college may be re-affiliated with the University in order to secure the future of the students who had been allotted to the respondent college.
6. Mr. Amit Panchal, appearing for the respondent University has referred to an affidavit-in-reply filed on 14.09.2011, and has stated that the action taken by the respondent University was a consequential action and had been taken after the withdrawal order was passed by NCTE. He also contended that under the provisions of Section 17(3) of the NCTE Act, 1993, once the recognition of an institution is withdrawn under sub-section (1), such institution is required to discontinue the course or training in teacher education, and the concerned University or examining body is required to cancel affiliation of the institution in accordance with the order passed under sub-section (1), with effect from the end of the academic session next following the date of communication of the said order and therefore, it would not be permissible for the University to permit the college to admit students or allot students to the said college, in view of the recognition having been withdrawn.
7. Learned Counsel has invited attention of this Court to the Judgment dated 14.05.2010, wherein while disposing of a group of petitions being Special Civil Application Nos. 3205 of 2009 and cognate matters the Division Bench of this Court issued the following directions:-
"27. Under the circumstances, these petitions as well as Civil Applications are disposed of with following directions :
i) All the petitioners shall remove all the defects and confirm to all the norms of NCTE as applicable to the concerned institution as interpreted and explained here-in-above for which the petitioners shall have time upto 31.12.2010.
ii) Institutions after curing all the defects not later than by 7.1.2011, shall intimate to the NCTE that defects have been cured and invite the inspection team to carry out inspection.
For the above purpose, the concerned institution shall along with its communication to NCTE attach a draft of Rs. 10,000/- in favor of NCTE for one time cost of such inspection. If any institution fails to send such a communication within the time permitted, its recognition shall automatically stand withdrawn without requirement of passing any order. Though students already admitted shall not be affected by such withdrawal, the institution will not be permitted to admit any students in the next academic year.
iii) Upon receipt of such a communication, NCTE shall depute a team of qualified persons to visit the institutions, verify the infrastructure and other facilities available as also inspect the documents with respect to such facilities.
iv) Upon inspection, if NCTE finds that all defects are cured, certificate to that effect shall be given to the concerned institution and its recognition shall be continued.
v) If upon inspection however, NCTE finds any of the defects still remaining, it will be open for NCTE to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after issuing show cause notice to the concerned institution/trust.
vi) In view of above directions, all the orders cancelling recognition of the institutions are set aside. It is clarified that quashing of orders passed by the NCTE is not on merits, but only to enable the institutions to fulfill all the requirements within the extended time."
8. Mr. Panchal has further contended that the aforementioned judgment of this Court has not been modified or stayed or set aside by the Honourable Supreme Court, the directions issued therein would be binding on all concerned including the respondent college and therefore, it would not lie in the mouth of the college to not comply with the directions contained in the aforesaid judgment of this Court and yet challenge the action of the University and NCTE and claim reliefs from this Court. He has further submitted that the order passed by NCTE came to be served in the office of the University on 17.08.2011, and in view of the withdrawal order dated 25.07.2011 being required to be complied by the university an order dated 18.08.2011 was passed and it was indicated to the college that no students shall be allotted to the college and the college shall not any admit student in view of the withdrawal order dated 25.07.2011. The learned advocate stated that the students who were initially allotted to the college in pursuance of the Ist round admission process having been conducted between 13.07.2011 to 16.07.2011, were transferred and allotted to other recognised B.Ed. Colleges which are affiliated to the university between 20.08.2011 to 25.08.2011, with a view to ensure that the students who were allotted to the college earlier do not suffer.
9. Learned advocate has further contended that this Court while issuing notice on the respondents on 16.8.2011 in the petition filed by the respondent college, directed the respondents to ensure that the students do not suffer, and thought fit not to grant the relief prayed for by the college. Since, the college had failed to get any reliefs in Special Civil Application No. 10359 of 2011 and in Civil Application No. 8789 of 2011, the petitioners as students of respondent college have subsequently filed Special Civil Application No. 12311 of 2011 in this Court.
10. It was contended by the learned advocate appearing for the respondent college that the person who was serving as a Principal in the college earlier had left the college in the midst of the academic year and hence, the college did not have a Principal during the time when the NCTE visited the college. The learned advocate further contended that the college had appointed one Dr. Anilsinh Surendrasinh Chauhan as a Principal on 27.06.2011 and on the same day an application was made to the University for approving the appointment of the Principal for the B.Ed. College and the College had thus, rectified the irregularity pointed out in the order passed by the NCTE.
11. Learned counsel for the University submitted that the B.Ed. Course is of 1 year and consists of 2 Semesters. Further, the 1st Semester B.Ed. Examination are scheduled to commence from 14.11.2011, and the last date for submission of Examination forms for the said examination is 10.10.2011. Attention of this Court has been drawn to the Academic Calendar for the Academic Year 2011-2012 of the respondent University annexed at Annexure A in Special Civil Application No. 12311 of 2011 and it has been categorically pointed out that the Academic Year for the B.Ed. Course of 1 year consists of two Semesters - Semester-I and Semester-II, which have two Academic Sessions in a year. The Deans of all Faculties of Hemchandracharya North Gujarat University prepare the Academic Calendar before the beginning of the Academic Year in the month of February/March and before the commencement of the Academic Session and the said Calendar is made known to all concerned.
12. Learned advocate also contended that the college had already been intimated of the decision of the University by letter dated 09.09.2011, the college had been informed that the appointment of Shri Chauhan had not been approved in view of Shri Chauhan having not obtained his Ph.D. Degree from a University established under the Central Act or State Act or the University Grants Commission Act and therefore, the college is not entitled to claim that the college had made appointment of principal in accordance with the provisions of the N.C.T.E Act and in accordance with law.
13. Reliance was placed on the Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Chairman, Bhartia Education Society and another versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others reported in (2011) 4 SCC 527 and more particularly the principles enunciated in paragraphs 9, 11, 13, 15, 18, 19, 22 and 24 of the said Judgment. He has invited our attention to the judgment rendered by the Honourable Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale, reported in (1992) 4 SCC 435 and stated that while taking judicial notice of mushroom growth of ill-equipped and under-staffed unrecognized educational institutions in Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra States and other States too, has observed that the field of education is found to be fertile, perennial and profitable business venture with least capital out-lay and without complying with the statutory requirements, establish educational or training institutions ill equipped to impart education and have the students admitted. In the said case in paragraph 6, while referring to the case of N.M. Nageshwaramma versus State of Andhra Pradesh and another, reported in 1986 (Supp) SCC 166, has observed that if the Government is directed to permit the students admitted in those institutions to appear in the examinations, the Honourable Court would practically be encouraging and condoning the establishment of unauthorized institutions and has observed that it is not appropriate that the jurisdiction of the Honourable Court under Article 32 or Article 226 of the Constitution of India should be frittered away for such a purpose. So the request to permit the students who had training in unrecognized schools was deprecated by the Honourable Supreme Court of India. In the said case the Honourable Supreme Court of India made the following observations: -
"6.
In N.M. Nageshwaramma v. State of A.P. 1 this Court held that the private institutions unauthorisedly established were invariably ill housed, ill staffed and ill equipped. If the Government is directed to permit the students admitted into those institutions, to appear in the examination, we will practically be encouraging and condoning the establishment of unauthorized institutions. It is not appropriate that the jurisdiction of the court either under Article 32 or Article 226 of the Constitution should be frittered away for such a purpose. So the request to permit the students who had training in unrecognized schools was deprecated by this Court.
7. In A.P. Christians Medical Educational Society v. Govt. of A.P. when fervent request with all persuasion by the senior counsel, Shri K.K. Venugopal, to permit the students admitted in unrecognized and unauthorized institution to pursue balance course was made, this Court noted thus: (SCC p. 678, para 10) "We do not think that we can possibly accede to the request made... on behalf of the students. Any direction of the nature sought for... would be in clear transgression of the provisions of the University Act and the regulations of the University. We cannot by our fiat direct the University to disobey the statute to which it owes its existence and the regulations made by the University itself. We cannot imagine anything more destructive of the rule of law than a direction by the court to disobey the laws."
The request to permit the students to appear in the examination and to accommodate them elsewhere to enable them to prosecute further study was negative by this Court.
8. In All Bihar Christian Schools Association v. State of Bihar 3 this Court, when the ill-equipped and mismanaged schools were taken over by an Act whose validity was challenged on the anvil of Article 30 of the Constitution, held that even the minority institutions are subject to statutory regulations and establishment and maintenance of such an educational institution should be in conformity with the statute and the State is entitled to regulate the establishment of the educational institutions and the admission of the students in those educational institutions. It was held that the educational institutions of the minorities have no right to maladministration. Any rule or direction issued by the Government to prevent maladministration would be valid.
9. In State of T.N. v. St. Joseph Teachers Training Institute 4 the High Court of Madras while dismissing the writ petitions filed by unauthorized educational institutions, gave direction to admit the students for the examination. This Court held that the direction of admitting students of unauthorized educational institutions and thus seeking direction for permitting the students to appear at the examination has been looked with disfavour by this Court. It was held that since the students of unrecognized institutions were legally not entitled to appear at the examination conducted by the Education Department of the Government, the High Court acted in violation of law in granting permission to such students for appearing at the public examination. Accordingly the appeal was allowed and the direction issued was set aside.
10. In Students of Dattatraya Adhyapak Vidyalya v. State of Maharashtra this Court held thus:
"We are coming across cases of this type very often where allegations are made that innocent students are admitted into unrecognized schools and are made to suffer. Some courts out of compassion occasionally interfere to relieve the hardships. We find that the result of this situation is total indiscipline in the field of regulation."
11. In Andhra Kesari Educational Society v. Director of School Education relied upon by the counsel for the respondents, no doubt this Court directed the Government to consider whether the students in the appellant's college have undergone the necessary B.Ed. course and has permitted them to appear in the ensuing examination and publish their results. In that case there was a long drawn history of the recognition of the institute and that the direction was issued by this Court in the special circumstances therein. Therefore, it cannot be taken as a precedent, in particular, in the light of the law laid down by this Court as stated supra.
12. .... The ill-equipped and ill-housed institutions and sub-standard staff therein are counter-productive and detrimental to inculcating spirit of enquiry and excellence in the students. The disregard of statutory compliance would amount to letting loose of innocent and unwary children. The proceedings of the recent seminar held in Delhi, as published by the Times of India dated August 4, 1992, would demonstrate the admission by the teachers that they are not properly trained to cope up with the growing needs of the society and are unsuited to the duties they have to shoulder in imparting teaching to the children. The teacher plays pivotal role in moulding the career, character and moral fibres and aptitude for educational excellence in impressive young children. Formal education needs proper equipping of the teachers to meet the challenges of the day to impart lessons with latest techniques to the students on secular, scientific and rational outlook. A well-equipped teacher could bring the needed skills and intellectual capabilities to the students in their pursuits. The teacher is adorned as Gurudevobhava, next after parents, as he is a principal instrument to awakening the child to the cultural ethos, intellectual excellence and discipline. The teachers, therefore, must keep abreast of ever-changing techniques, the needs of the society and to cope up with the psychological approach to the aptitudes of the children to perform that pivotal role. In short teachers need to be endowed and energised with needed potential to serve the needs of the society. The qualitative training in the training colleges or schools would inspire and motivate them into action to the benefit of the students. For equipping such trainee students in a school or a college, all facilities and equipments are absolutely necessary and institutions bereft thereof have no place to exist nor entitled to recognition. In that behalf compliance of the statutory requirements is insisted upon. Slackening the standard and judicial fiat to control the mode of education and examining system are detrimental to the efficient management of the education. The directions to the appellants to disobey the law is subversive of the rule of law, a breeding ground for corruption and feeding source for indiscipline. The High Court, therefore, committed manifest error in law, in exercising its prerogative power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution, directing the appellants to permit the students to appear for the examination etc."
14. The learned advocate for the University also placed reliance on the judgments rendered by the Apex Court in the case of National Board of Examinations Vs. G. Anand Ramamurthy and others, reported in (2006) 5 SCC 515 and in the case of Bihar Public Service Commission and others Vs. Kamini (2007) 5 SCC 519, in the case of University of Mysore Vs. Govinda Rao, reported in AIR 1965 SC 491 and in the case of All India Council for Technical Education Vs. Surinder Kumar Dhawan and others, reported in 2009 AIR SCW 3124, wherein the Honourable Supreme Court in paragraph 13 has made observations in respect of rule of statutory expert bodies on education and role of Courts.
15. Considering the developments that have taken place during the pendency of the petition and also taking into consideration the relevant factors including the conduct of the petitioner college, which is not in the interest of students and considering the judgments of the apex Court, we are of the view that no relief can be granted in favour of the petitioner college. We have also taken notice of the fact that the students have already been transferred to other recognized colleges imparting education in the course of B.Ed. We have also taken notice of the fact that the admissions to B.Ed Course have already been completed by the University on 2nd of September, 2011 and any admissions after 10.9.2011 would not entitle a student to keep terms for reason of inadequate attendance.
16. However, we need to address one important question and that is with regard to Section 17 (3) of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993. It has been vociferously submitted, relying on Section 17(3) that if the recognition of an institution is withdrawn under sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Act, then the same will be with effect from the end of academic session next following the date of communication of the said order. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the order passed by NCTE withdrawing the recognition of the petitioner college will come into effect from next academic session i.e. 2012-13 and not in the current year 2011-12. As per the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner's college, if that is the case then the college must be permitted to impart education to the students and the students may not be transferred to other recognized colleges.
We need to understand the true import of the words "with effect from the end of the academic session next following the date of communication of the said order". It is brought to our notice that the B.Ed. Course is of 1 year consisting of 2 Semesters. Further, the 1st Semester B.Ed. Examinations are scheduled to commence from 14.11.2011, and the last date for submission of Examination forms is 10.10.2011. Attention of this Court has been drawn to the Academic Calendar for the Academic Year 2011-2012 of the respondent University and it has been categorically pointed out that the Academic Year for the B.Ed. Course of 1 year consists of two Semesters - Semester-I and Semester-II, which have two Academic Sessions in a year. The Deans of all Faculties of Hemchandracharya North Gujarat University prepare the Academic Calendar before the beginning of the Academic Year in the month of February/March and before the commencement of the Academic Session and the said Calendar is made known to all concerned.
17. From a perusal of the said Academic Calendar we found that the Academic Year commenced on 15.06.2011 and the Academic Session of Semester-I commenced on 24.06.2011. The Academic Session of the Semester-I would come to end on 23.10.2011 and the Diwali Vacation would commence from 24.10.2011 until 13.11.2011. The second term of Semester-II would commence on 14.11.2011 and the Academic Session would commence on 08.12.2011. The second term of the Academic Session would end on 26.04.2012 and the Summer Vacation would start from 27.04.2012 until 13.06.2012. The minimum requirement necessary for attendance by a student for keeping terms in the 1st term is 80 days and 2nd term is 80 days.
18. In light of what has been observed above, the contention that the order of withdrawal of recognition will take effect from the next academic session 2012-13 is devoid of any merit. The petitioner college is admittedly not having recognition and the petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 12311 of 2011 - students cannot be considered to be students studying in a college recognised by the National Council for Teacher Education. In the present case in view of the admission process having been completed and necessary steps having been undertaken to protect the interest of the students by transferring/allotting the students to other colleges which are recognised and affiliated to the respondent University, it would not be permissible at this stage to direct the University to allot and permit the petitioner college to admit students as such students would not be able to keep the terms as required under the University Ordinance. Moreover, such a direction would be opposed to the provisions of the Hemchandracharya North Gujarat University Act and the National Council for Teacher Education Act and would run contrary to the principles enunciated in judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of Chairman, Bhartia Education Society (supra) and State of Maharashtra (supra), wherein the Apex Court has frowned upon directions issued by courts to permit the students to study in unrecognized institutions and be allowed to appear in the examinations.
19. In the above view of the matter, both the writ petitions fail and are rejected accordingly with no order as to costs.
(A.L. Dave, Actg. C.J.) (J.B. Pardiwala, J.) */Mohandas Top