Madhya Pradesh High Court
Malwanchal University Indore Thru. Dr. ... vs National Council For Teachers ... on 3 November, 2016
WP-6677-2016
(MALWANCHAL UNIVERSITY INDORE THRU. DR. M. CHISTOPHER Vs NATIONAL COUNCIL
FOR TEACHERS EDUCATION (NCTE))
03-11-2016
Shri Hemendra Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Romil Malpani, learned counsel for the respondents.
Heard.
By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner / University has challenged the inaction on the part of the respondent No.2 in not processing forward the Online application submitted by the petitioner University for grant of recognition of teacher education programme and for starting B.A.B.Ed./B.Sc.B.Ed,B.P.Ed.,B.El.Ed.in the Department of Education from the academic session 2017-18. According to the petitioner, for the academic session 2017-18 he has applied before the respondents for grant of recognition for starting B.A.B.Ed./B.Sc.B.Ed,B.P.Ed.,B.El.Ed. The petitioner applied Online application on 30/06/2016, but due to some technical error, the particular Web page of respondents does not accept the Online payment for processing fee. Therefore, the petitioner, after filing up the Online application, vide its letter bearing No.MU/2016/59, dated 30.06.2016, has submitted three demand drafts bearing Nos. 888766, 888767 and 88768 of Rs.1,50,000/- each drawn on Bank of India in favour of the respondent No.2 along with the original application and the necessary documents as demanded by the office of the respondents. But,the respondent No.2, without giving the petitioner any opportunity of hearing, has rejected the application stating that the processing fee was to be submitted through Online mode only. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made a statement at Bar that the respondents be directed to consider his application dated 30/06/2016 for academic year 2017-18. To support the aforesaid, he has drawn our attention to the decision of Principal Seat at Jabalpur in the case of Adhar Ram Raj Mishra Shiksha Evam Swasthya Samiti Vs. National Council for Teacher Education & Others(W.P. No.12453/2015) decided on 23/08/2016 wherein the learned Division Bench after setting aside the order passed by respondent No.3 / Board of Secondary Education directed the Board to pass appropriate order on the application of the petitioner therein for grant of no objection certificate and thereafter the respondents No.1 and 2 shall consider the application of the petitioner for grant of recognition treating the application for next academic session and necessary orders be passed in that regard by the Board within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. He has also drawn our attention to para â 21 of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of National Council For Teacher Education & Anr. Vs. Committee Of Management & Ors. reported in (2006) 4 SCC 65. Para - 21 of the judgment is relevant which reads as under :-
21. Before parting with this case, we may place on record that it is categorically stated before us by Raju Ramachandran that the Council carried forward the application of the Institution for consideration of the subsequent academic year. An inspection has already been carried out and the eligibility of the first respondent to obtain such recognition shall be determined within a period of eight weeks from date. We place on record the aforementioned submissions of the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant.
With the aforesaid, he submitted that the writ petition be disposed of by directing the respondents to treat his application for next academic session and necessary orders be passed at the earliest.
Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the Division Bench of Principal seat at Jabalpur in the case of Sunrise Education Society Chanakya Shiksha Mahavidyalaya Keolari District Seoni Vs. National Council of Teachers Education (W.P. No.10504/2016) decided on 5/10/2016. After considering the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Maa Vaishnavo Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya Vs. State of U.P. And Ors.(2013) 2 SCC 617 and College of Professional Education Vs. State of U.P. (2013) 2 SCC 721 rejected the prayer by holding that the application filed by the petitioner therein in the year 2015 should be treated as the application for processing the case for the year 2017-2018 cannot be accepted. Order dated 5/10/2016 reads as under :-
Heard on the question of admission.
The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 30.11.2015 passed by the Western Regional Committee/respondent no. 2 rejecting the application of the petitioner seeking recognition for conducting D.El.Ed. Course for 2016-17 session and the order dated 02.06.2016 by which the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of rejection has been dismissed by the appellate authority/respondent no.1.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had applied for recognition in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 7 of the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulation, 2014 framed by the N.C.T.E. under the National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993, for commencing a D.El..Ed. Course from the session 2016-17. It is stated that the said application was filed in accordance with Regulation 7 online on 30.05.2015, however, on account of network problems the demand draft of Rs.1,50,000/- could be filed only on 30.06.2015 as the User I.D. could not be generated. It is stated that the application was filed online on 30.05.2015 which was the last date for filing online application. It is submitted that in accordance with Regulation 7(2)(b) of the Regulations, a hard copy of the application was required to be supplied to the respondent no. 2 within 15 days, however, the aforesaid hard copy was sent by post to the respondent no. 2 on 15.07.2015 and was received in the office of the respondent no. 2 on 31.07.2015. It is submitted that as the application was received after 15 days, the respondent no. 2 rejected the petitioner's application by the impugned order dated 30.11.2015, being aggrieved by which the petitioner had filed an appeal before the appellate authority/respondent no. 1 which has also been dismissed by the impugned order dated 02.06.2016, hence this petition.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders passed by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 are contrary to law inasmuch as the petitioner had infact posted the hard copy of the application within 15 days and therefore he could not be held responsible for the postal delay and as this aspect has not been taken into consideration while rejecting the application, the impugned orders deserve to be set aside. It is further submitted that rejection of the application on a procedural lapse or a hyper technical ground is not permissible. The petitioner has relied upon the orders passed by the Delhi High Court in W.P. (C) No. 4667/2016 dated 23.05.2016(Raiganj Educare Vs. National Council for Teacher Education and another) and W.P. (C) No. 5460/2016(Midanapore Institute of Education Vs. National Council for Teacher Education and another) dated 02.06.2016 in support of his submission that in similar circumstances where the hard copy was received after 15 days, the Delhi High Court quashed the orders of the respondents/authorities and remitted the matter back to the authorities for considering the applications.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned orders passed by the respondents be quashed and they be directed to process the application filed by the petitioner. In the alternative, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application filed by the petitioner should be treated as an application seeking recognition for the aforesaid course for the academic year 2017-18 and the respondents be directed to process the same in accordance with law as has been done by the Delhi High Court in the aforesaid cases. We have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents who appear on advance copy.
The learned counsel for the parties agree and conjointly submit that while the last date for making an application seeking recognition as specified under st regulation 5(5) of the Regulation 2014 is 31 of May but in the instant case the NCTE by issuing an order has extended the date for filing the application to 30.06.2015.
From a perusal of the record, it is apparent, and is infact an undisputed fact, that the hard copy of the application which was required to be supplied to the NCTE within 15 days fromthe date of submitting the application online, which in the instant case was submitted on the last date prescribed for the same, i.e. 30.06.2015 was infact dispatched by the th petitioner on 15.07.2015 i.e. the 15 day after filing of the application for recognition online. In other words, it is undisputed that the hard copy of the application was not just filed after fifteendays but was also filed after the last date for filing applications seeking recognition was over and was infact received by the authorities one month after the cut off date. From a perusal of the Regulation of 2014, it is clearly established that Regulation 5(4) makes it mandatory for the applicant to file the registered land document issued by the competent authority, indicating that the society or institution applying for the recognition possesses land on the date of application, along with the online application.
Regulation 5(6) of the Regulation 2014 provides that st all applications received online from 1 May of the year shall be processed for the next academic session and final decision, either accepting or rejecting the applications shall be communicated to the applicant rd on or before 3 day of March of the succeeding year. The time bound manner in which the application for recognition has to be processed has been provided in detail under Regulation 7 of the Regulation 2014. Relevant parts of the regulation are quoted herein below.
7. Processing of applications-- (1) In case an application is not complete, or requisite documents are not attached with the application, the application shall be treated : incomplete and rejected, and application fees paid shall be forfeited. (2) The application shall be summarily rejected under one or more of the following circumstances--
(a) failure to furnish the application fee, as under rule 9 of the National Council for Teacher Education Rules, 1997 on or before the date of submission of online application;
(b) failure to submit print out of the applications made online along with the land documents as required under sub-regulation (4) of Regulation 5 within fifteen days of the submission of the online application. xxx xxx xxx (4) A written communication along with a copy of the application form submitted by the institution shall be sent by the office of Regional Committee to the State Government or the Union territory administration and the affiliating body concerned within thirty days from the receipt of application, in chronological order of the receipt of the original application in the Regional Committee.
(5) On receipt of the communication, the State Government or the Union territory administration concerned shall furnish its recommendations or comments to the Regional Committee concerned within forty five days from the date of issue of the letter to the State Government or Union territory, as the case may be. In case, the State Government or Union Territory Administration is not in favour of recognition, it shall provide detailed reasons or grounds thereof with necessary statistics, which shall be taken into consideration by the Regional Committee concerned while disposing of the application.
6) If the recommendation of the State Government is not received within the aforesaid period, the Regional Committee concerned shall send a reminder to the State Government providing further time of another thirty days to furnish their comments on the proposal. In case no reply is received, a second reminder shall be given for furnishing recommendation within fifteen days from the issue of such second reminder. In case no reply is received from the State Government within aforesaid period, the Regional Committee shall process and decide the case on merits and placing the application before the Regional Committee shall not be deferred on account of non-receipt of comments or recommendation of the State Government.
(7) After consideration of the recommendation of the State Government or on its own merits, the Regional Committee concerned shall decide that institution shall be inspected by a team of experts called visiting team with a view to assess the level of preparedness of the institution to commence the course. In case of open and distance learning programmes, sampled study centres shall be inspected. Inspection shall not be subject to the consent of the institution, rather the decision of the Regional Committee to cause the inspection shall be communicated to the institution with the direction that the inspection shall be caused on any day after ten days from the date of communication by the Regional officer. The Regional Committee shall ensure that inspection is conducted ordinarily within thirty days from the date of its communication to the institution. The institution shall be required to provide details about the infrastructure and other preparedness on the specified proforma available on the website of the Council so the visiting team at the time of inspection along with building completion certificate issued by the competent civil authority, if not submitted earlier.
From a perusal of the aforesaid provisions and other clauses of Regulation 2014 it is apparent that the application filed for recognition has to be processed in a time bound manner and that for each step that is undertaken for processing the application, a specific time period has been prescribed. Moreover, from a conjoint reading of the Regulations 5(4), 5(6), 7(2)(b), 7(4), 7(5) and 7(6), it is apparent that the person applying for recognition, apart from filing an application online, has to submit a hard copy not just of the application made by him online but also of the land documents which are mandatorily required to be filed under regulation 5(4) within 15 days of submission of the online application and that this requirement is mandatory and cannot be termed as mere procedural or technical, in view of the fact that the aforesaid hard copy of the application as well as land documents have to be sent by the Regional Committee to the State Government and the affiliating body under regulation 7(4) so that the concerned authority of the State Government and the affiliating body can make the necessary enquiry on that basis and give the necessary recommendations in respect of the documents relating to the land and other averments made by the applicant in his application within the time frame specified in the regulations. From a perusal of the aforesaid regulations, it is apparent that the prescription of 15 days in regulation 7(2)(b) is not just a procedural or technical requirement but is infact a mandatory and necessary requirement which has been prescribed for ensuring that the application for recognition can be processed within the time frame provided in the regulations which has been held to be mandatory by the Supreme Court in the case of Maa Vaishnavo Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya Vs. State of U.P. and others (2013) 2 SCC 617 and College of Professional Education Vs. State of U.P. (2013) 2 SCC 721. The Supreme Court in the case of Maa Vaishnavo Devi (supra) has held that any deviation from the time frame prescribed is impermissible as under:-
81. Lastly, the question which is required to be discussed in light of the facts of the present cases is adherence to the Schedule. Once the relevant Schedules have been prescribed under the Regulations or under the Judge made law, none, whosoever it be, is entitled to carve out exceptions to the prescribed Schedule. ....
82. are constrained to reiterate with emphasis at our command that the prescribed schedules under the Regulations and the judgments must be strictly adhered to without exceptions. ....
83. Undoubtedly, adherence to Schedule achieves the object of the Act and its various aspects.
Disobedience results in unfair admissions, not commencing the courses within the stipulated time and causing serious prejudice to the students of higher merit resulting in defeating the rule of merit.
87.4 We make it clear that no Authority/person/Council/Committee shall be entitled to vary the schedule for any reason whatsoever. Any non-compliance shall amount to violating the orders of the Court.
When the aforesaid provisions of law are applied to the facts available to the present case, it is clear that undisputedly the application filed by the petitioner was filed not just beyond the period of 15 days from the of filing online application and was infact served on the authorities about a month after the cut off date of 30.06.2015 and therefore, the same has rightly been rejected by the authorities by the impugned orders. It is also an admitted and undisputed fact that the applicant did not just default in filing a copy of online application within 15 days as required by regulation 7(2)(b) but also failed to submit a hard copy of the land documents which were filed by the petitioner along with his application as provided under regulation 5(4) of the Regulation 2014 and therefore, in the absence of the hard copy of the application or the land documents the application has been rejected by the authorities in view of the provision of regulation 7(2)(b) of the regulation 2014 which mandates that the application for recognition shall be summarily rejected on failure to submit the print out of the applications made online along with the land documents as required under sub regulation (4) of Regulation 5 within 15 days of the submission of the online application. We are constrained to observe that we are in respectful disagreement with the observation made by the Delhi High Court in the cases relied upon by the petitioner for two reasons, firstly; as in the instant case, there was no challenge to the constitutional validity of Regulation 7(2) (b) of NCTE in those cases and therefore the regulations which are statutory in nature have to be complied with and except in exceptional circumstances, a direction rendering the provisions otios could not have been issued and secondly; the Supreme Court in several decisions has not just upheld the validity of Regulations 5 and 7 but has also observed that the application for recognition should be processed within the time frame prescribed by the regulations which has been held to be mandatory and inflexible by the Supreme Court in the cases of Maa Vaishnavo Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya Vs. State of U.P. and others (2013) 2 SCC 617 and College of Professional Education Vs. State of U.P. (2013) 2 SCC 721 and therefore the time frame prescribed under the regulations cannot be overlooked as mere procedural or technical and has to be adhered to by all concerned. Quite apart from the above, in view of the specific and clear mandate of the regulation of 2014 the requirement of furnishing the hard copy of the application and the land documents is not just a technicality or formality as the authority concerned on receiving the hard copy and land documents has to forward the same to the concerned State Government and the affiliating authority or body for the purpose of seeking its comments before processing the application any further and in case the hard copy and land documents are not furnished to the authority within the prescribed time frame the said process is delayed and in case the process is delayed then it would result in violation of the time frame prescribed by the NCTE and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the judgments of Maa Vaishno Devi (supra) and College of Professional Education (supra).
From a perusal of the order passed by the Delhi High Court in the W.P. No. 4667/2016, it is also apparent that the High court of Delhi has expressed grave doubts about the legality and validity of clause 7(2)(b) of the NCTE Regulation, 2015 without any discussion or mentioning any reason for expressing such doubts regarding validity, moreso when the constitutional validity of the regulation had not been challenged before the Delhi High Court. Apparently, the decisions of the Supreme Court upholding the regulations 5 and 7 as well as the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Maa Vaishno Devi (supra) and College of Professional Education (supra) were neither considered nor were they placed before the Delhi High Court while the aforesaid petitions were decided.
In the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the aforesaid decisions of the Delhi High Court is totally misconceived. We are required to follow the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of Maa Vaishno Devi (supra) and College of Professional Education (supra) and to take into consideration the NCTE Regulations.
We are also of the considered opinion that the prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the application filed by the petitioner in the year 2015 should be treated as the application for processing the case for the year 2017-18 cannot be accepted. Regulations 5 and 7 of the Regulation of 2014 necessarily requires the person applying for recognition to state the factual aspects and to comply with the mandatory infrastructural requirements prescribed under law as on the date of filing the application and these facts have to be specifically and clearly mentioned in the application and therefore in case the petitioner wishes to apply for recognition for the year 2017-18, he is required to make a fresh application giving the said details in the application for recognition which should be th filed before the cut off date i.e. 30 of May, 2016 which date in the instant case has already lapsed.
In the circumstances, the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the application should be treated as an application seeking recognition for the 2017-18 session is also rejected.
In the last, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the petitioner's application has been rejected outright, the respondents/authorities be directed to refund the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- deposited by the petitioner.
The prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioner is heard only to be rejected in view of the provisions or regulations 7(1), 7(2), a conjoint reading of which makes it clear that in case the application filed by a person is rejected at the initial stage itself the application fee paid shall be forfeited. In view of the mandate of regulations 2014, the prayer for refund of the application fees made by the petitioner cannot be considered and is hereby rejected.
The petition filed by the petitioner being meritless is accordingly dismissed.
In view of the aforesaid, the case of Adhar Ram Raj Mishra Shiksha Evam Swasthya Samiti (supra) will not be applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case.
For these reasons, we cannot accept the prayer of the petitioner that his application dated 30/06/2015 should be treated as the application for processing the next academic year 2017-18 and, therefore, in case, the petitioner wishes to apply for admission in the year 2017-18 he is required to make a fresh application seeking recognition for academic session 2017-18 in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 7 of the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulation, 2014 framed by the N.C.T.E. Under the National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993.
With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of.
(P.K. JAISWAL) (VIRENDER SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE