Punjab-Haryana High Court
Association Of Unaided Educational ... vs State Of Haryana And Another on 23 April, 2013
Author: Rameshwar Singh Malik
Bench: Rameshwar Singh Malik
Civil Writ Petition No. 8472 of 2013 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No. 8472 of 2013
Date of Decision: 23.4.2013
Association of Unaided Educational Colleges (Affiliated to MD
University, Rohtak)
.....Petitioner.
Versus
State of Haryana and another
.....Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK
Present: Mr. R.K.Malik, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Samrat Malik, Advocate
for the petitioner.
***
RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK J.(ORAL):
The petitioner, by way of instant writ petition, impugns the instructions, Annexure P-5, issued by the respondent-University. Petitioner also seeks a writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondent authorities to allow the petitioner association, to select the teachers for its colleges ignoring the impugned instructions, Annexure P-5.
Facts first.
The petitioner association claims that it has 26 members, as per Annexure P-1, who are running various B.Ed/M.Ed colleges affiliated with the respondent University, as unaided and self financing institutions. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that in Civil Writ Petition No. 8472 of 2013 2 compliance of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.M.A. Pai's Foundation and others Vs. State of Karnataka (2002) 8 SCC 481, the respondent State issued its Interim State Policy-Guidelines dated 21.4.2003 (Annexure P-2). Petitioner claims that the colleges of the petitioner association are running Bachelor of Education Programme, which is a professional course as per the regulations, known as National Council for Teachers Education (Recognition Norms & Procedure) Regulations 2009, issued by National Council for Teacher Education ('NCTE' for short). The Interim State Policy dated 21.4.2003 (Annexure P-2) would be applicable in the case of the petitioner as well. The instructions for approval of appointment of teaching staff in self financing professional colleges/institutions were issued by the respondent University, vide its communication dated 6.1.2010 (Annexure P-3). The respondent State also issued information regarding fee structure, in compliance of the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its judgment dated 14.8.2003 rendered in Islamic Academy and another Vs. State of Karantaka and others ( in Writ Petition (civil) 350 of 1993). Petitioner has further pleaded that the respondent University, while issuing the impugned instructions, Annexure P-5, has acted contrary to the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.M.A. Pai's case (supra). Further, while issuing proforma for inspection of colleges of education, for establishment of new college/continuation of provisional affiliation and permanent affiliation, the respondent University has violated the right of the petitioner to select teachers as per the Interim State Policy dated 21.4.2003 (Annexure P-2), issued Civil Writ Petition No. 8472 of 2013 3 by the respondent State.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent University has no jurisdiction to issue the impugned communication, Annexure P-5, which was contrary to the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.M.A. Pai's case (supra). He further submits that the petitioner as well as the respondent University were bound by the policy instructions dated 21.4.2003 (Annexure P-2) issued by the respondent State. The respondent University has no right to issue its instructions/guidelines by way of impugned communication, Annexure P-5, for grant of approval to the faculty, selected by NCTE regulated self financing education colleges. He next contended that in a proforma for inspection of colleges of education for establishment of new colleges/continuation of provisional affiliation and permanent affiliation issued vide Annexure P-6, the respondent University has allocated 50 marks to the teaching and non teaching staff, 25 marks have been allocated to infrastructure and amenities and the remaining 25 marks have been allocated to academic requirements. 50 marks allocated to the teaching and non teaching staff were arbitrary because of which the proforma, Annexure P-6, as well as the impugned communication, Annexure P-5, were liable to be set aside. Finally, he prays for setting aside the impugned guidelines/instructions, Annexure P-5 and also the impugned proforma, Annexure P-6 and further for commanding the respondents to allow the petitioner to select the teachers ignoring the impugned communication, Annexure P-5 and also the proforma, Annexure P-6.
Civil Writ Petition No. 8472 of 2013 4
Having heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, after careful perusal of record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that present one is not a fit case warranting interference at the hands of this Court, while exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. To say so, reasons are more than one, which are being recorded hereinafter.
Firstly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, while considering the important issues of great public importance and having far reaching consequences, pertaining to the professional unaided institutions, issued the directions in para 69 of the judgment in T.M.A. Pai's case (supra), which read as under:-
"In such professional unaided institutions, the Management will have the right to select teachers as per the qualifications and eligibility conditions laid down by the State/University subject to adoption of a rational procedure of selection. A rational fee structure should be adopted by the Management, which would not be entitled to charge a capitation fee. Appropriate machinery can be devised by the state or university to ensure that no capitation fee is charged and that there is no profiteering, though a reason surplus for the furtherance of education is permissible. Conditions granting recognition or Civil Writ Petition No. 8472 of 2013 5 affiliation can broadly cover academic and educational matters including the welfare of students and teachers."
A careful reading of the above said directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court leaves no room for doubt that the State and the University would operate in their respective fields, which are distinct and independent of each other. Thus, the respondent University will not be only a rubber stamping authority. Before granting affiliation to any college, the respondent University will be well within its jurisdiction to lay down and impose reasonable restrictions and norms, so as to advance the cause of quality education.
The next question that falls for consideration of this Court is, as to whether the impugned communication, Annexure P-5, laying down the norms to be followed by the NCTE regulated self financing colleges, were arbitrary or come within the scope of reasonable restrictions. The alleged offending part, of the impugned communication, Annexure P-5, as per the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, reads as under:-
xx xx xx xx
3. "The objective of this policy is to lay down the guidelines/rules for grant of approval of the faculty selected by NCTE Regulated Self-financing Colleges for the purpose of onward transmission to the NCTE.
The proposed institute which seeks Civil Writ Petition No. 8472 of 2013 6 to have a College of Education in the jurisdiction of MDU shall apply to the Dean.
College Development Council (DCDC)/ Registrar of the University with following documents:-
i) A copy of the advertisement of the vacancies in two National Newspapers having wider circulation, specifying the current eligibility conditions, grades, names of the posts and specialization etc."
xx xx xx xx A bare perusal of the above said norms would show that the respondent University was trying to emphasize only on a fair and transparent selection process. During the course of hearing, learned senior counsel for the petitioner failed to substantiate his arguments as to how the above said norms, laid down by the respondent University, were arbitrary in any manner or contrary to the Interim Policy issued by the respondent State, vide Annexure P-2 or these norms were running counter to the above said directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.M.A. Pai's case (supra).
It is neither the pleaded nor argued case on behalf of the petitioner that any of its member issued any advertisement after the impugned communication, Annexure P-5, having been issued by the respondent University, for the selection of any faculty member and it faced any difficulty in this regard. It also does not appeal to reason that not even one member of the petitioner association, would not Civil Writ Petition No. 8472 of 2013 7 have made any appointment, during these about 2½ years.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner also could not substantiate his arguments as to how and in what manner, any right of the petitioner has been violated by the respondent University, while issuing the impugned communication, Annexure P-5. On the other hand, it prima facie seems that the petitioner wants its monopoly in making the selection of faculty members on the terms and conditions as per its own suitability and at the cost of exploitation of the faculty members, thereby compromising with the quality of education. The petitioner association cannot be permitted to do so.
Having said that, this Court feels no hesitation to conclude that the respondent University committed no error of law while issuing the impugned communication, Annexure P-5. The aim is only to ensure quality education and also to avoid exploitation of the qualified teachers, who remain at the mercy of self financing colleges, because of the acute problem of unemployment.
So far as allocation of 50 marks for teaching and non teaching staff, vide proforoma for inspection of colleges of education for establishment of new colleges/continuation of provisional affiliation/permanent affiliation (Annexure P-6) is concerned, no illegality can be attached to it. No such illegality could be pointed out and substantiated by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. Again, the only object which is sought to be achieved, is to ensure the quality education and avoiding exploitation of the qualified teaching as well as non teaching staff. No prejudice has been shown to have been caused to the petitioner.
Civil Writ Petition No. 8472 of 2013 8
The theory of checks and balances should always be a welcome step at the instance of every affiliating university, like the respondent University herein, till they are working well within their jurisdiction, trying to achieve the laudable object of quality education and also avoiding the exploitation of the qualified faculty members. Once the petitioner is seeking facility of affiliation from the respondent University, it is also under legal obligation to comply with the reasonable restrictions put by the respondent University.
In the given fact situation of the present case, neither any action of the respondent University has not been found to be violative of any relevant provisions of law, nor contrary to the above said directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.M.A. Pai's case (supra). On the other hand, the Hon'ble Supreme Court itself has laid emphasis on the conditions for granting recognition or affiliation covering academic and educational matters, including the welfare of students and teachers. In this view of the matter, it is unhesitatingly held that the respondent University has not transgressed its jurisdiction, while issuing impugned communication, Annexure P-5, thereby putting only reasonable restrictions.
It does not appeal to reason as to why the petitioner association is shying away from its duties and liabilities, in ensuring the quality education, while selecting qualified staff, in a transparent and fair manner. On the other hand, it was expected from the petitioner that it would welcome such a step taken by the respondent University. However, since the intention of the petitioner association does not prima facie seems to be bonafide in this regard, it is Civil Writ Petition No. 8472 of 2013 9 opposing even the reasonable restrictions put by the respondent University by way of impugned communication, Annexure P-5.
For providing quality education, appointment of well qualified faculty members, in fair and transparent manner, would be the basic requirement. The endeavour on the part of the petitioner seems to be to avoid fair and transparent selection process, so as to proceed further as per its monopoly, at the cost of the qualified teaching as well as non teaching staff and ultimately, compromising with the quality of education. Tested from any angle, none of the rights of the petitioner have been found to be violated at the hands of the respondent University, while issuing the impugned communication, Annexure P-5.
Further, the impugned communication Annexure P-5, is based on the proceedings of meeting of the Committee constituted by the Vice Chancellor of respondent University, in compliance and in terms of the order of Delhi High Court, as it is clear from page 28 of the paper book. There is not even a passing reference in the writ petition about the order passed by the Delhi High Court. It is also pertinent to note that it has not been shown as to how the impugned communication, Annexure P-5 was arbitrary, particularly when it had been issued on the basis of proceedings of meeting of the committee, constituted by the Vice Chancellor in terms of the orders passed by the Delhi High Court.
Furthermore, Annexure P-4 and P-6 are undated and it seems that these are incomplete documents, for the reasons best known to the petitioner. No averment has been taken in this regard, Civil Writ Petition No. 8472 of 2013 10 as to how any inspection team of the respondent University, has acted against the interest of the petitioner on the basis of impugned proforma, Annexure P-6. Thus, it is held that directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.M.A. Pai's case, (supra), have not been violated by the respondent University while issuing the impugned communication, Annexure P-5.
No other argument was raised.
Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition is misconceived, bereft of any merit and without any substance, thus, it must fail. No case of interference has been made out.
Resultantly, the instant writ petition is ordered to be dismissed.
(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 23.4.2013 AK Sharma