Patna High Court
Lalit Narayan Mithila Universi vs S.M.Zaheer Alam Teachers Train on 20 May, 2010
Author: Mihir Kumar Jha
Bench: Mihir Kumar Jha
Letters Patent Appeal No.756 OF 2008
--------
(Against the judgment and order dated 5.8.2008 passed by learned
Single Judge in CWJC No. 5785 of 2007 and CWJC No. 13416 of
2007)
1. Lalit Narayan Mithila University, through its Registrar, Kameshwar
Nagar, Darbhanga.
2. Vice Chancelllor, Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Kameshwar
Nagar, Darbhanga.
3. Registrar, Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Kameshwar Nagar,
Darbhanga.
4. Controller of Examination, Lalit Narayan Mithila University,
Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga.
......Respondents/Appellants
Versus
1. S.M.Zaheer Alam Teachers Training College, Bahera, through its
Secretary, S. M. Naiyar Imam, son of late S. M. Zarif, resident of
village Bahera, Police Station Bahera and District Darbhanga.
... Petitioner.
2. The State of Bihar through the Commissioner cum Secretary,
Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar,
New Secretariat, Patna.
3. National Council for Teachers Education through the Member
Secretary, Wing-II, Hans Bhawan, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New
Delhi.
4. Eastern Regional Committee through the Regional Director,
N.C.T.E, 15, Neelkanth Nagar, Nayapalli, Bhubaneshwar.
5. Hon'ble Chancellor of Universities, Raj Bhawan, Patna.
6. Najeeb Ahmad Khan, s/o Dr. T. I. Khan r/o National Cinema
Chowk, Darbhanga.
7. Sharmila Kumari, d/o Siya Ram Sharma, r/o Anand Bhawan, Sarita
Tola, Sheetalpur, Saran
8. Tabassum Sultana, d/o Sultan Ahmad Khan, r/o Station Road,
Nawadah, P. S. Nawadah, District-Nawadah.
.. Respondents.
--------
For the appellants : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr. Adv.
: Mr. Pushkar Narain Shahi, Adv.
For the Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Ashok Kumar Choudhary, Adv.
: Mr. Pratap Sharma, Adv.
For Respondent nos. 3 and 4 : Mr. S. N. Pathak, SCC.G.
For respondent nos. 6 to 8 : Mr. Pratap Sharma, Adv.
-------
2
PRESENT: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA
JUDGEMENT
( 20/05/2010)
As per Mihir Kumar Jha, J.
Heard Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned counsel for the appellants,
Mr. Ashok Kumar Chaudhary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
contesting respondent-writ petitioner, Mr. S. N. Pathak, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of Nation Council of Teachers Education (NCTE)
and Mr. Pratap Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent nos. 6 to 8.
2. This intra court appeal is directed against the judgment and
order dated 5.8.2008 of the learned single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 5785 of
2007 which was heard along with C.W.J.C. No. 13416 of 2007 and
allowed by directing the appellant Lalit Narayan Mithila University,
hereinafter referred to as the University to permit the students of S. M.
Zaheer Alam Teacher Training College, Bahera, hereinafter referred to as
the College, for the sessions 2001-02, 2002-03,2003-04 for appearing in
the next forthcoming examination of B.Ed Course conducted by the said
University subject to fulfillment of the prescribed formalities regarding
forms and fees etc.
3. Shorn of niceties, the facts required to be taken into
consideration lie in a narrow compass. The College is said to have been
established in the year 1984 by a Muslim Minority Society, namely 'Rauf
3
Muslim Jamia' registered under the Society Registration Act, 1860 for
imparting education of teachers training leading to one year B.Ed course.
The college was granted permanent recognition by the State of Bihar on
29.9.1994. Soon thereafter however National Council For Teachers
Education Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') came into force
with effect from August 1995 in the State of Bihar and in terms of the
requirement under the Act the College had applied for recognition with
National Council for Teachers Education (NCTE) and the Eastern
Regional Committee (E.R.C.) of NCTE at Bhuvneshwar had initially by
an order dated 12.7.1997 in terms of section 14 of the Act had given
recognition to the College for its one year B.Ed Course for the academic
session 1997-98 only on a provisional basis making such recognition
conditional and subject to fulfillment of NCTE norms. Such temporary
recognition for one year of the college with the NCTE was again
extended by another order dated 22.6.1998 of the regional committee for
the academic session 1998-99 onwards on a condition that the College
must continue to fulfil the norms laid down under the regulations and
submit its annual report in this regard by 30th of April of each year.
4. It is a matter of record that such recognition of the College
with NCTE had continued only upto 2000-01 session inasmuch as by
order dated 9.5.2001 the E.R.C. of NCTE on the basis of its inspection
report and other relevant materials furnished by the College had found
that the College did not fulfil the prescribed requirement and as such by a
4
notice dated 29.6.2000 in terms of proviso to Section 14(3)(b) of the Act
as with regard to cancellation of the recognition and after affording an
opportunity of hearing to the College had refused to grant it recognition
from 2001-02 session on as many as six grounds namely:-
"1. Teachers are neither paid salary as per
UGC scales not as per State Govt. scales.
2. The Psychology lad; E.T. lab & Work
Experience lad. are not equipped as per NCTE
norms.
3. The audited account of the college was
neither shown to the visiting team nor has
been submitted to ERC.
4. The institution does not have adequate
number of practice teaching schools in the
area.
5. The working days and teaching days are not
observed as per NCTE norms in the institution.
6. The endowment fund of Rs. 5 lacs and
reserve fund equal to three months salary of
the staff is not maintained by the institution."
5. The refusal of recognition by order dated 9.5.2001 made the
College an unrecognized college by NCTE and despite the appeal
preferred by the College before the Central Council of NCTE against the
said order, dated 9.5.2001 of the E.R.C. was not interfered with as would
be apparent from the appellate order passed by the Central Council of
NCTE dated 4.9.2001 whereby and whereunder the case of the College
was only remanded back for reconsideration under the relevant provision
of the Act. There being no order of stay by the appellate authority, the
College continued to remain derecognized by NCTE and the E.R.C. of
the NCTE even after reconsideration had held that the claim made by the
5
College regarding its present status and removal of deficiencies was
incorrect inasmuch as no significant improvement had been made in the
status of the College and as such the E.R.C. by an order dated
19/20.05.2003, had again reiterated its the earlier decision of refusal of recognition of the College in the order dated 9.5.2001.
6. To complete the sequence, it would be also necessary to note here that the appeal filed by the College against the order of E.R.C. dated 19/20th May 2003 was again disposed of by the Central Council of NCTE by an order dated 25.8.2003 without giving any substantial relief to the College which in fact had once again only remanded the matter back to E.R.C. for considering the findings of the re-inspection of the College in the report dated 27.3.2003. The E.R.C. of NCTE on being again remanded the matter back by the appellate order of Central Council dated 25.8.2003 had once again reiterated its earlier decision dated 9.5.2001 regarding refusal of recognition to the College on the following grounds:-
"(i) The audited accounts of the college were neither shown to the visiting team nor have been submitted to ERC.
(ii) Transparency in financial transactions is not maintained.
(iii) The salaries are not paid in cheque.
(iv) The endowment fund of Rs.5 lacs and reserve fund equal to three months salary of the staff is not maintained by the Institution.
(v) Proper procedure has not been followed in the recruitment of teachers as well as admission of students in the B.Ed.
programme."
6
7. The College again went in appeal for the third time before the Central Council of the NCTE which curiously this time by its order dated 28.7.2004 had set aside only the third order of the E.R.C. dated 6.11.2003 on the ground that new grounds recorded in the said order dated 6.11.2003 by the E.R.C. without its being brought to the notice of the College through a show-cause notice was unsustainable. It has to be however noted that the Central Council in its appellate order while reversing the order of E.R.C. had also sought to restore "status quo ante".
8. From the aforesaid admitted facts it is clear that the earlier order of refusal of recognition the E.R.C. dated 9.5.2001 and its affirmance again in the order dated 19/20.05.2003 were never set aside or reversed by the Central Council in exercise of its appellate power under Section 18(5) of the Act and it is only the third order of E.R.C. dated 6.11.2003 which alone was set aside and that too not on merits but only on the ground of alleged violation of principles of natural justice.
9. Be that it may, after the said order dated 28.7.2004 was passed by the Central Council of NCTE the College, respondent-writ petitioner, had approached the University with a request that its students of Sessions 2001-02, 2002-03,2003-04 should be allowed to appear in the B.Ed. examination conducted by the University. The University accordingly had sought certain clarifications by its letter dated 11.9.2004 from the E.R.C. of NCTE as with regard to meaning of the "status quo ante" granted to the College by the Central Council in its order dated 28.7.2004. The E.R.C. 7 in its reply vide letter dated 24.9.2004 had informed the Controller of the Examination of the University that meaning of status quo ante granted and restored under the order of Central Council of NCTE was being ascertained from the NCTE headquarters and the same would be communicated on receipt of such clarification from the headquarter of NCTE.
10. From the averments made in the writ petition it however appears that in the meantime the College had moved Delhi High Court in WP(C) No. 6695 of 2003 as against the aforementioned order dated 6.11.2003 passed by the E.R.C. refusing to give recognition to the College but in view of the aforesaid appellate order of the Central Council dated 28.7.2004 reversing the order of the E.R.C. dated 6.11.2003, the College had sought leave of the Delhi High Court to withdraw the writ petition which was allowed by an order dated 13.10.2004 of the Delhi High Court with a direction to NCTE that steps be taken for holding examination of B.Ed. Course of students of the College in terms of the order of the Central Council of NCTE dated 28.7.2004. The Central Council of NCTE thereafter, interpreting the order of Delhi High Court dated 13.10.2004 had directed the E.R.C. of NCTE to permit all the students of the College to take examination for B.Ed. Course who were enrolled even after 8.5.2001 and accordingly the E.R.C. of NCTE in its letter dated 5.11.2004 addressed to the Controller of Examination of the University on the basis of order of the Delhi High 8 Court dated 13.10.2004 had advised the University that the students of the College who were enrolled either before or after 8.5.2001 should be allowed to appear the University B.Ed. examination in the light of order of the Delhi High Court after due verification of their enrollment by the College.
11. The University, thus, had constituted a committee of three members, namely, Professor A. P. Sinha, Department of Zoology, Marwari College, Dr. Jaykar Jha, Head, P. G. Deptt. Of Botany, L. N. Mithila University, and Dr. R. K. Choudhary, Inspector of Colleges to enquire into the details regarding affiliation of the college, enrollment of the students after 8.5.2001 and other necessary formalities for holding of the examination as would be evident from the resolution of the Examination Board of the University dated 13.12.2004. It appears that three members committee had submitted their report whereafter the matter was placed to the Examination Board of the University in its meeting held on 17.2.2005. The Examination Board in the light of the enquiry report submitted by the three members committee and its recommendation had rejected the request of the College for holding examination of its students for the Sessions 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04 in the period in which the College had stood derecognized by the NCTE and a communication to this effect was also made to the Principal of the College by the University vide its letter dated 24.2.2005, which had also become final in the absence of its assailed either before Chancellor of the 9 University or before an appropriate court of law.
12. The College infact had only moved the Delhi High Court by filing a contempt petition for violation of its order dated 12.10.2004 and the Delhi High Court had issued notice for contempt on 4.3.2005 and thereafter by a fresh order dated 14.3.2005 Delhi High Court had directed the Controller of the Examination of the University that those students of the College who had allegedly been admitted in 2003-04 Session, be permitted to take next ensuring examination whereas for the other students of 2001-02 and 2002-03 sessions, the University should submit its proposal to Delhi High Court for holding a special examination.
13. The Vice- Chancellor and the Controller of examination of the University thereafter had moved the Apex Court by filing Special Leave Petition No. 7354 of 2005 as against the notice of contempt and the aforesaid order of the Delhi High Court dated 14.3.2005 and the Apex Court by its order dated 6.4.2005 had stayed the hearing of the contempt proceedings till further orders. Subsequently, the Apex Court by order dated 16.8.2005 had held that Vice Chancellor, the Examination Controller as also other authorities of the University, who were not impleaded as parties to the original writ petition filed by the College in the Delhi High Court, could not be proceeded for contempt and accordingly had set aside the order of Delhi High Court dated 14.3.2005.
14. It is, however, very significant to note here that the College had also filed a writ petition under Article 32 of Constitution of India 10 before the Apex Court, W.P.(Civil) No. 375 of 2005, for permitting its students of three academic sessions to appear in the B.Ed examination of the University which however was dismissed by the same order dated 16.8.2005 by giving liberty to the College to file its writ application under Article 226 before the High Court wherein it was also observed that setting aside of notice of contempt and order dated 14.3.2005 passed by Delhi High Court issuing directions for holding examination of students of College in S.L.P. filed by the Vice-chancellor and Examination Controller of the University would not stand as a bar in the way of the College seeking same relief in a writ petition which may be filed before the High Court and the High Court would be at liberty to grant interim relief being uninfluenced by the order passed in S.L.P. No. 7354 of 2005.
15. It is again a matter of record that the writ petition filed by the College before the Delhi High Court, W.P.(C) No. 17549 of 2005 in the light of observations made by the Apex Court was also dismissed vide its order dated 9.9.2005 on the ground of territorial jurisdiction wherein it was held that the entire cause of action relating to the grievance raised therein pertaining to Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Bihar had arisen in the State of Bihar.
16. It appears that after the writ petition of the College was dismissed by the Delhi High Court, the College had moved this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 12995 of 2005 and this Court had allowed the prayer of the petitioner by an order dated 17.8.2006 by issuing a direction to the 11 appellant-University to take examination of the students of College for the Sessions 2001-02,2002-03, 2003-04 in the next forthcoming examination subject to such terms and conditions as imposed and insisted by the University.
17. The University, however on being approached by the College for compliance of the aforesaid order of this Court dated 17.08.2006 had by its letter dated 10.11.2006 had sought a number of information in writing from the College for the purpose of holding B.Ed. examination of students admitted in Sessions 2001-02,2002-03, 2003-04 in terms of its Examination Regulations, namely:-
"(I) When the college advertised in news paper about admission to B.Ed. course for aforesaid sessions ? please name the paper, date of publication and also enclose the paper- cutting of the said advertisements.
(2) When the entrance tests were taken ?
whether the dates of tests were notified in the newspaper ? If yes, please mention the dates and clippings of the notice.
(3) The answer sheets of entrance test exams. for aforesaid sessions be furnished.
(4) Why the dates of admissions are not mentioned on the admissions forms ?
(5) Whether the viva-voce tests of the selected students for each sessions mentioned above were conducted by the selection committee for admission comprising of:-
a) Principal of the college & two senior most teachers of the college.
(b) District Education Officer;
(c) The Principal of state Govt. run Teacher's Training college as required under rules framed by the Govt. of Bihar under section -5 of Bihar State Private Physical Training College & Private Teacher Training College & Private Primary School Teachers 12 training college (control & Regulation) Act, 1982 (Act, 29 of 1982)? If yes, please furnish details with signatures of the concerned authorities.
(6) When did you publish the results of the entrance test for the sessions 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2003-04 ? Please furnish the information.
(7) When did you take steps for registration of students of B.Ed. Course of your college for aforesaid three sessions?
(8) When your Institution was de-
recognized did you take admission for aforesaid 3 session of B. Ed. Course?"
18. Additionally, the University by a separate letter dated 10.11.2006 had made certain enquiries from the College as to where the students of the College of the three sessions were said to have undergone practical training. The College thus instead of submitting the required information to the University had initiated a contempt proceeding, MJC No. 2294 of 2006 in this Court alleging that the aforesaid enquiry by the University in its two letters dated 10.11.2006 were in violation of the order dated 17.8.2006 in C.W.C. No. 12995 of 2006. This Court by an order dated 11.10.2006 while hearing the aforesaid contempt petition in view of the plea raised by the University as with regard to statutory requirement of fulfilment of its Examination Regulations, had directed the College to hand over the documents and information to the Counsel for the University as required by the University in its aforesaid two letters dated 10.11.2006 for verification. It was during the pendency of this contempt application the Vice-chancellor of the University on 17.12.2006 had 13 passed a reasoned order holding that no students were admitted in B.Ed.
Course in the College much less imparted training and therefore the claim of the College for allowing the students to appear in the examinations of 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04 Sessions was unsustainable as they did not fulfil the prescribed conditions of the Examination Regulations of the University. Let it be noted that after this order of the Vice Chancellor dated 17.12.2006 was produced before the learned single Judge hearing the contempt application, MJC No. 2294 of 2006 of the College he had dropped the contempt proceedings by an order dated 19.12.2006 wherein it was recorded as follows:-
" While complying with the Court's order, the University found that the students of the applicant institute for the sessions 2001-2002, 2002-03 and 2003-04 cannot be allowed to appear in the forthcoming examination in as much as the terms and conditions for allowing them as imposed or insisted upon by the University have not been complied with. In those circumstances, the Court's order has been complied with.
Accordingly, the application is disposed of but with no order as to costs.
The petitioner institute is aggrieved by the decision by which the University has held that the said students have not complied with the terms and conditions and provisions as are normally imposed and insisted upon by the University.
In those circumstances, leave is granted to the petitioner institute as well as the students of the said sessions to take such recourse to law as they may be advised to ... their grievances against the said decision of the University."14
19. It appears that thereafter the College had also filed a review application before the Vice-Chancellor of the University on 25.12.2006 which too was rejected by a reasoned order dated 7.2.2007 reiterating that there was no question of holding of the examination of students of 2001- 02,2002-03, 2003-04 batch of the College as they had not fulfilled the prescribed requirement of the Examination Regulations of the University.
20. It would be also useful to record here in view of the aforementioned order dated 19.12.2006 in the contempt petition, L.P.A. No. 681 of 2006 filed by the University as against the order of learned single Judge dated 17.8.2006 in C.W.J.C. No. 12995 of 2006 directing the University to hold the examination of students for the Sessions 2001- 02,2002-03, 2003-04 was withdrawn on 19.2.2007.
21. It is only thereafter two connected writ applications one by the college itself C.W.J.C. No. 5785 of 2007 on 2.5.2007 and the other by three students of the College, respondent nos. 6 to 8 to this appeal, C.W.J.C. No. 13416 of 2007 on 8.10.2007, were filed for an identical relief namely;
"(i) To quash the order dated 13.12.2006 and 17.12.2006 passed by the Vice-Chancellor (Respondent No. 6) whereby he has not allowed the students of the petitioner college of the Sessions 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04 to appear in the B. Ed. Examination and refused the same in illegal, mala fide and arbitrary manner (Annexure-36).
(ii) To issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to quash the resolution of 15 Examination Board dated 17.2.2005 as contained in Agenda No. 5 (ii) passed by Respondent Nos. 5 to 8 (Annexure-18).
(iii) To issue an appropriate writ/writs, order/orders and direction/directions in the nature of mandamus to the respondent nos. 5 to 8 to take appropriate steps to hold the examination of the students of the college/ Institution of the Sessions 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04 within a shortest period and publish the result.
(iv) To issue an appropriate writ/writs, direction/directions order/orders particularly against respondent nos. 6 and 7 for initiation of a contempt proceeding for overreaching the Hon'ble Court's order and for filing a false affidavit before this Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case. "
22. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the appellant University wherein on the basis of Examination Regulation of B.Ed. examination of the University it was sought to be contended that since none of the students of the College had fulfilled the requirement of Examination regulations of the University as with regard to admission, undergoing course, completing of classes and practical training, the University had taken a conscious decision to reject the prayer of the College for allowing its students of 2001-02,2002-03, 2003-04 Sessions from appearing in the B.Ed. examination.
23. On the basis of these facts and rival contentions of the parties the learned single Judge in the impugned judgment had framed following questions:-
"(i) Whether the said order of the Council dated 28.07.2004 will have prospective effect and will be operative from the year 2004 16 onwards as claimed by the authorities of the Regional Committee as well as the authorities of the University or the said order of the council dated 28.7.2004 will have retrospective effect and will be operative from the date of order of the Regional Committee i.e., 9.5.2001 which was challenged by the College before the National Council in the appeal decided by the National Council on 28.7.2004 ?.
(ii)Whether in view of the final order of the National Council and the specific provisions of law, the College even though de-recognized for three years i.e. from 2001 to 2004 could continue functioning and admitting students and taking classes for the aforesaid three sessions i.e. 2001-02, 2002-03, and 2003-04 ?
(iii) Whether after final decision of this Court by order dated 17.8.2006 (Annexure- 26 to the writ petition of the College ) passed in C.W.J.C.No. 12995 of 2005 considering and deciding each and every issue involved, the Vice-chancellor of the University was justified in taking up the matter for decision again without complying the said specific order of this Court ?
(iv) Whether the findings of the Vice-
Chancellor in the impugned order dated 17.12.2006 (Annexure- 36 to the writ petition of the College) are perverse, biased, baseless and against specific provisions of law ?."
24. The learned single Judge while answering the question no. (i) has held that the order dated 28.7.2004 passed by the Central Council was retrospective in effect as a result of which the College was not affected by the earlier order of derecognition passed by the E.R.C. of NCTE dated 9.5.2001 and the recognition of the College from the year 1998 stood restored through out without any break in the years 2001-2004 in view of the appellate order of Central Council dated 28.7.2004. Answering 17 question no. (ii) it has been held by the learned Single Judge that in the period of derecognition of the College the institution was entitled to continue such course/training till the disposal of its appeal before the National Council of NCTE i.e. the Appellate Authority. As with regard to question no. (iii) it has been held that in view of the order dated 17.8.2006 passed in CWJC No. 12995 of 2005, there was no occasion to the Vice Chancellor of the University to decide the eligibility of the students of the College of three academic years 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04 inasmuch as the University was to only complete the formalities for holding the examination. Finally, as with regard to question no. (iv) it has been held that the order of the Vice Chancellor dated 17.12.2006 refusing permission for appearance of students of 2001-2002, 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 academic sessions was wholly illegal. Having held so, learned single Judge had allowed both the writ petitions with a direction the Vice Chancellor of the appellant Lalit Narayan Mithila University to allow the students of the College for the Sessions 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04 to appear in the next forthcoming examination of B.Ed Course subject to fulfillment of the formalities regarding forms, fees etc.
25. Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant- University has submitted that a derecognized College in terms of Section 14(5) of the Act has the statutory obligation to discontinue the course of training in teacher education from the end of the academic sessions next following the date of receipt of the order refusing recognition and as such 18 when the order of the E.R.C. of NCTE was passed on 9.5.2001and was communicated prior to the commencement of next academic session from June 2001, the College could not have continued either with the admission of the students for the next three sessions 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04 or imparting teaching to them inasmuch as the order of the Central Council reversing the decision of refusal of recognition of the College by E.R.C. was passed only on 28.7.2004. Placing reliance on Examination Regulations he has also submitted that the University and its Vice-Chancellor were well within their power and jurisdiction to make enquiry into the claim of the College of imparting teaching course in the years 2001 to 2004 when the College was derecognized. In this context he has also refered to the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sunil Oraon Vs. CBSE and Others reported in (2006) 13 SCC 673.
26. In our considered opinion, the said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is fit to be accepted inasmuch as Section 14(5) of the Act in no uncertain terms casts obligation on the institution to discontinue the Course or training in teacher education from the end of the academic session next following the date of receipt of the order refusing recognition. Section 14 reads as follows:-
" 14.Recognition of institutions offering course or training in teacher education- (1) Every institution offering or intending to offer a course or training in teacher education on or after the appointed day, may, for grant of recognition under this act, make an application to the Regional committee concerned in such form and in such manner 19 as may be determined by regulations:
Provided that an institution offering a course or training in teacher education immediately before the appointed day, shall be entitled to continue such course or training for a period of six months, if it has made an application for recognition within the said period and until disposal of the application by the Regional Committee.
(2) The fee to be paid along with the application under sub-section (1)shall be such as may be prescribed.
(3) On receipt of an application by the Regional Committee from any institution under sub-section (1), and after obtaining from the institution concerned such other particulars as it may consider necessary, it shall-
(a) if it is satisfied that such institution has adequate financial resources, accommodation, library, qualified staff, laboratory and that it fulfills such other conditions required for proper functioning of the institution for a course or training in teacher education, as may be determined by regulations, pass an order granting recognition to such institution, subject to such conditions as may be determined by regulations, or
(b) if it is of the opinion that such institution does not fulfill the requirements laid down in sub-clause (a) pass an order refusing recognition to such institution for reasons to be recorded in writing:
Provided that before passing an order under sub-clauses (b) the Regional Committee shall provide a reasonable opportunity to in concerned institution for making a written representation.
(4) Every order granting or refusing recognition to an institution for a course or training in teacher education under sub-
section(3) shall be published in the Official Gazette and communicated in writing for appropriate action to such institution and to 20 the concerned examining body, the local authority or the State Government and the Central Government.
(5)Every institution, in respect of which recognition has been refused shall discontinue the course or training in teacher education from the end of the academic session next following the date of receipt of the order refusing recognition passed under clause (b) of sub-section(3).
(6)Every examining body shall, on receipt of the order under Sub-section(4),-
(a)grant affiliation to the institution, where recognition has been granted; or
(b)cancel the affiliation of the institution, where recognition has been refused; or"
27. From a bare reading of the Scheme under Section 14 of the Act it becomes absolutely clear that the recognition is a condition precedent for imparting of teachers training course and refusal of such recognition by the NCTE itself spells doom for such institution in continuing its such teaching programme. In view of the very clear provision of Section 14(5) of the Act, we are not inclined to approve the reasonings of the learned single Judge that Section 14(5) has to be read along with Section 14(1) of the Act. Section 14(1) of the Act in fact only envisages that every institution offering or intending to offer a course or training in teachers education on appointed date has to necessarily approach the NCTE for grant of recognition under the Act by filing an application to the Regional Committee and infact proviso to sub-Section (1) makes it absolutely clear that after the commencement of the Act not only such institutions would be entitled to continue offering course or 21 training in teachers education which were doing so immediately before the appointed date only for a period of six months only i.e. for one academic session only. Sub-Section (1) of Section 14 does not in any way hedge or circumscribe much less dilute the provision of Section 14(5) of the Act which by itself is complete embargo of continuing with the teachers education course to an institution whose recognition has been refused by the NCTE.
28. It has to be taken into account that sub-Section (1) of Section 14 is in respect of a College which for the first time after commencement of the Act approaches the NCTE for grant of recognition. Section 14(5) of the Act on the other hand is with regard to any such institution which was earlier granted recognition by NCTE for limited period of time and was ultimately refused such recognition. The very purpose of Section 14(5) of the Act by providing discontinuation of the course or training in teachers education from the end of the academic session next following the date of receipt of the order refusing recognition passed under Clause B of Sub- Section 3 of Section 14 of the Act would make it clear that an institution which was granted recognition for specific period and was later on refused such recognition on account of non-fulfilment of the requirement laid down in Clause (A) of Sub-Section(3) of Section 14 of the Act will have to compulsorily discontinue the teaching programme from the next academic session.
29. Thus, we have no iota of doubt that once the recognition of 22 the College was refused on 9.5.2001 well before commencement of the academic session 2001-2002, it had to compulsorily discontinue the teachers training till the date such recognition was restored back to the College by NCTE. Consequently, as the appellate order was passed only after commencement of the academic session 2003-04, the college if at all on the strength of the appellate order of the Central Council dated 28.7.2004 could have started its teaching programme only for the academic sessions 2004-2005 onwards. In that view of the matter, this Court would find it difficult to accept the submission of Mr. Chaudhari the learned counsel for the respondents-writ petitioners that even in the period of derecognition i.e. between 9.5.2001 to 28.7.2004 it could have continued with admission of the students in the three academic sessions 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04 and also undertaken the teaching work.
30. Additionally, it has to be also kept in mind that the University being the examining body in terms of Section 14(6) of the Act in view of the order dated 9.5.2001 of the E.R.C. refusing recognition to the college had good reasons to cancel the affiliation of the College and therefore the enquiry made by the University as with regard to procedure of admission or the manner in which such courses were continued by the College in the period of derecognition i.e. 9.5.2001 to 28.7.2004 cannot be faulted with in law. The University while allowing the students of the University to appear in the examination cannot act as a mere post office inasmuch as its statutory Examination Regulations itself provide for recording 23 satisfaction of the University of the students intending to appear in the examination to have been properly admitted and undergone the training course. Judged in this background the reasons given by the Vice- Chancellor of the University in the impugned order refusing permission for appearance of the students of 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04 Sessions were not only germane to the issue but also were well within the powers of the University. The Vice-Chancellor in the order dated 17.12.2006 while refusing permission to the college in fact had given the following reasons:-
"(a) The College, having been de-
recognised on 9.5.2001 by the Regional Committee and remained unrecognized until 28.7.2004, could not have functioned and admitted any student to B.Ed. Course during period of de-recognition.
(b) The College never informed either the Regional Committee or the University regarding admission of students to B.Ed.
Course in the aforesaid three sessions of 2001-2002, 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 nor took any step for registration of those students.
(c) The College did not produce any paper before the University authorities to convince them that entrance test for admission to B.Ed. course was at all taken during the said period.
(d) The headmaster of Milat High School, Rupaspur, Darbhanga as well as the Principal of Jayanand Uchcha Vidyalaya had informed the University that no certificate was issued by their schools to the effect that students of the College got practical training in their schools for the aforesaid Sessions.' 24
31. This court on perusal of the aforesaid reasons is fully satisfied that the University was well within its power to refuse permission for appearing of the students of three sessions 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-
04. In this context, the provision made in Section 17(3) of the Act has also to be appreciated inasmuch as the same lays down as follows:-
"17(3) Once the recognition of a recognized institution is withdrawn under sub- section(1), such institution shall discontinue the course or training in teacher education, and the concerned University or the examining body shall 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 follow the date of communication of the said order."
32. Truly speaking this may not be a case under section 17(3) in terms of the order dated 9.5.2001 inasmuch as the E.R.C. of NCTE had refused recognition to the College but then if the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents-writ petitioners have to be taken to its logical conclusion that since college prior to 9.5.2001 in terms of order of earlier recognition of NCTE was imparting education as a recognized college, it had also a right to continue to do so during the pendency of its appeal against the order refusing grant of recognition by E.R.C. of NCTE would mean that despite refusal/withdrawal of the recognition of the College in terms of order dated 9.5.2001 it could still continue the course or training in the teachers education. Such submission infact if allowed would by itself negate and frustrate the very object of Section 14(5) 25 and/or 17(3) of the Act which in no uncertain terms require that immediately on service of order dated 9.5.2001 refusing recognition the College could not have continued either with the admission or imparting education as claimed by the respondents-writ petitioners for the Sessions 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04.
33. At this stage, this Court must take note of the another submission of Mr. Chaudhari, the learned counsel for the respondents- writ petitioners, wherein a great reliance has been placed on the meaning of the order of 'Status quo ante' used in the appellate order dated 28.7.2004 inasmuch as he has submitted that the moment the appellate authority namely the Central Council had passed the order of "status quo ante", the situation which was prevailing prior to 9.5.2001 was restored back which would mean that the recognition of the college was never refused.
34. This Court, however, cannot accept such submission both on facts and in law. First of all, so far the facts of the College and its students of three sessions are concerned, there also so glaring inasmuch as in the first order of recognition dated 12.7.1977, the E.R.C. of NCTE had given recognition to the College for teaching in B.Ed Course with intake capacity of 150 students upto the end of academic session 1997-98 subject to the condition that they could take action to fulfil the NCTE norms not yet fulfilled by them and report to ERC of NCTE by 31.3.1998 along with an application for extension of recognition. The conditions for 26 fulfillment were also laid down in the order dated 12.7.1997 granting recognition only for 1997-98 session which were as follows:-
Conditions for fulfillment (1) Teaching staff should be paid as per UGC/State Scale of pay (2) Adequate number of reference books should be purchased for the library. (3) Residential accommodation should be arranged for the Principal, teaching staff and provision should be made for a Hostel for Men students.
(4) Adequate furniture should be provided for Principal's room, staff room, Science laboratory and library.
(5) Students Practice Teaching should be properly organized and special attention should be paid to the practical work of the students.
(6) Students should be admitted strictly on merit basis as per NCTE norms.
(7) Management Committee should be reconstituted giving representation to two members of teaching staff."
35. Thereafter, the second order dated 22.6.1998 was passed by the ERC of NCTE granting recognition to the College for one year B. Ed Course from the academic year 1998-99 with intake capacity of 150 students subject to the condition that the institution continued to fulfil the norms laid down under the regulation and submission of annual report in this regard by 30th April each year. It was only thereafter that an inspecting team of the Regional Committee of NCTE had visited the College on 16/17 June 2000 and in terms of the report of visiting team as also other relevant materials it had found that the College did not fulfil the requirement and had issued a notice dated 29.6.2000 to the College 27 under Proviso to Section 14(3)(b) of the Act by way of giving an opportunity to the college to make a written representation. NCTE ultimately by the said order dated 9.5.2001 after considering the representation filed by the College dated 25.7.2000 had come to the conclusion that recognition to the college be refused for the following reasons:-
"1. Teachers are neither paid salary as per UGC scales not as per State Govt. scales.
2. The Psychology lad; E.T. lab & Work Experience lad. are not equipped as per NCTE norms.
3. The audited account of the college was neither shown to the visiting team nor has been submitted to ERC.
4. The institution does not have adequate number of practice teaching schools in the area.
5. The working days and teaching days are not observed as per NCTE norms in the institution.
6. The endowment fund of Rs. 5 lacs and reserve fund equal to three months salary of the staff is not maintained by the institution."
36. The aforesaid reasons related to non-payment of salary to the teachers as per UGC pay scale/ State Government pay scale, lack of laboratory in the subject of psychology etc. and work experience as per NCTE norms and also lack of adequate number of practice teaching schools in the area. All these reasons coupled with the fact that when the college was also not having normal fund of Rs. 5 lac and reserve fund equal to three months salary of the staffs it cannot be said that the refusal of recognition was for such reasons which were not referable or connected to the functioning of the college.
28
37. It is in this back ground that one has to take into account the subsequent orders of the appellate, Central Council which on two occasions had affirmed the order of refusal of recognition on 4.9.2001 without setting aside the order dated 9.5.2001 as would be evidenced from the text of the order dated 4.9.2001. It has to be repeated at the cost of the repetition that even the second attempt of the College for grant of recognition had failed inasmuch as in the order dated 19/20-5-2003 it was recorded as follows:-
".....And whereas the Council vide order dated 4.9.2001 referred the case on REMAND to the Eastern Regional Committee, Bhubaneshwar for consideration and verification of all aspects of the case with specific directions to the Regional Director "to initiate further action in the case after obtaining clearance from the Govt. of Bihar". As the institution was under
investigation by vigilance department and records were taken from ERC, NCTE.
And Whereas Govt. of Bihar has been requested several times to furnish the present status of the institution in the light of the vigilance inquiry and no reply has been received from Govt. of Bihar.
And whereas a visit of the applicant institution was carried out by a visiting team constituted by the competent authority on 27.3.2003 and the visiting team has since submitted its report.
And whereas on 30.4.2003, the Regional Committee after considering the report of the visiting team as well as other relevant materials furnished by the applicant institution as well as gathered by the Committee, had opined that the claims made by the applicant institution regarding its present status and removal of deficiencies are not satisfactory and no significant 29 improvement observed in the status of the institution found earlier.
Therefore, the Regional Committee decided to confirm the earlier decision of withdrawal/ refusal of recognition order dated 9.5.2001 No. 1341 of the applicant institution."
38. The said order was again did not yield any fruitful result much less restore the position which was existing on 9.5.2001 even when the E.R.C. of the NCTE had affirmed its earlier order of refusal of recognition dated 9.5.2001 inasmuch as on that occasion also, the Central Council in the order dated 25th August 2003 had once again remanded the matter to E.R.C. by recording as follows:-
"..... And whereas Secretary, S. M. Zaheer Alam Teachers Training College (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), preferred an appeal dated 31st May 2003 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said order.
And whereas Shri S. M. Naiyer Imam, Secretary and Prof A. H. Amar, Principal, S. M. Zaheer Alam Teachers Training College presented the case of the appellant institution on the 24th July, 2003. In the appeal as well as during oral submission it has been submitted that since the Appeal committee had remanded the matter to the ERC for re-consideration, it was obligatory on the part of ERC, to pass orders on the basis of material available with it and if there is still any confusion, the appellant should be heard personally. The appellant has contended that ERC should not be influenced by other agencies like State Govt. university etc. 30 And whereas the Council noted that while the institution was revisited on the 27th March, 2003 the main findings of the inspection team have not been indicated in the refusal order. In the circumstances, it is felt necessary that the ERC should consider the matter afresh keeping in view the inputs provided by the inspection team that visited the institution on the 27th March 2003.
And Whereas the Council after careful consideration of all aspects of the matter has come to the conclusion that the case of the institution be remanded back to the Eastern Regional Committee, Bhubaneshwar for further processing and the ERC should consider the matter afresh keeping in view the inputs provided by the inspection team that visited the institution on the 27th March, 2003.
And now therefore the Council hereby remands back the case of S. M. Zaheer Alam Teachers Training College, Darbhanga, Bihar to the Eastern Regional Committee, Bhubaneswar, for taking necessary action as indicated above."
39. It is in this background one has to also appreciate the order dated 6.11.2003 which was passed by the Regional Committee for refusal of recognition:-
"..........And whereas the Hon'ble High Court of Patna in its judgment dated 23.9.2002 in C.W.J.C. No.8527 of 2002 ordered that " as the appellate authority has remitted that the matter to the Eastern Regional Committee , it is obliged to make inspection, proceed in the matter and take final decision in accordance with the law regarding affiliation of petitioner's institution." Considering this judgment, a visit of the applicant institution was carried out by a visiting team constituted by the competent authority on 27.3.2003 and the visiting team has since submitted its report.31
And whereas on 30.4.2003, the Regional committee after due consideration of the report of the visiting team as well as other relevant materials furnished by the application institution and gathered by the Committee, had opined that the claims made by the applicant institution regarding its present status and removal of deficiencies are not satisfactory and no significant improvement observed in the status of the institution found earlier and accordingly the Regional committee decided to confirm the earlier decision of withdrawal/Refusal of recognition order dated 9.5.2001 vide order No. ERC/7-34( ER-34.8.1)/2003/989 dated 19/20 .5.2003.
And whereas the institution preferred an appeal dated 31st May 2003 to the NCTE, New Delhi under Section 18 of NCTE Act, 1993 against the order of the Eastern Regional Committee No. ERC/7- 31/ER-34.8.1)/2003/989 dt19/20 .5.2003.
And whereas the council vide order dated August 25,2003 referred to the case on Remand to the Eastern Regional Committee, Bhubaneswar for re-
consideration and taking necessary action with the remark that while the institution was revisited on the 27th March 2003, the main findings of the inspection team have not been indicated in the refusal order. In the circumstances, it was felt necessary that the ERC should consider the matter afresh keeping in view the inputs provided by the inspection team that visited the institution on the 27th March 2003.
And whereas on 29.10.2003, the Regional Committee after re-considering the report of the visiting team dated 27th March, 2003 and other relevant materials furnished by the applicant institution as well as gathered by the Committee, had opined that the claims made by the applicant institution regarding its present status and removal of deficiencies are not satisfactory and no significant improvement observed in the 32 status of the institution found earlier.
And whereas, the Regional Committee decided to confirm the earlier decision of withdrawal/refusal of recognition order dated 9.5.2001 No. ERC/7- 18/2001/1341 of the applicant institution of the following grounds:
(i) The audited accounts of the college were neither shown to the visiting team nor have been submitted to ERC.
(ii) Transparency in financial
transactions is not
maintained.
(iii) The salaries are not paid
in cheque.
(iv) The endowment fund of
Rs.5 lacs and reserve fund
equal to three months
salary of the staff is not
maintained by the
institution.
(v) Proper procedure has not
been followed in the
recruitment of teachers as
well as admission of
students into the B.Ed.
programme.
(vi)
Now, therefore, the Regional
Committee hereby confirms the earlier
decision of withdrawal/ refusal of recognition Order No. ERC/7-18/2001/1341 dated 9.5.2001 of the application institution."
40. It is actually this order dated 6.11.2003 only which was set aside by the Central Council on 28.7.2004 which for sake of clarity is quoted herein below;
"Whereas the Eastern
Regional Committee(ERC), NCTE,
Bhubaneshwar in its order No. F.ERC/7-
39(ER-39.6.8)/2003/3136 dated 6th
33
November, 2003 confirmed its earlier order dated 9th May, 2001 withdrawing recognition to S. M. Zaheer Alam Teacher Training College, Bahera, Dharbhanga, Bihar for conducting B. Ed. Course on the grounds that(1) teachers are neither paid salary as per UGC Scales nor as per State Govt. scales; (ii) the Psychology lad. E.T. Lab. & Work Experience lab. Are not equipped as per NCTE norms;(iii) the audited accounts of the college were neither shown to the visiting team nor has been submitted to ERC; (iv) the institution does not have adequate number of practice teaching schools in the area; (v) the working days and teaching days are not observed as per NCTE norms in the institution: and (vi) the endowment fund of Rs.5.00 lacs and reserve fund equal to three months salary of the staff are not maintained by the institution.
And whereas the Secretary, S. M. Zaheer Alam Teacher Training College, Bahera, Dharbhanga, Bihar (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) preferred an appeal dated 10th December, 2003 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as the Council) under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said order.
And whereas, Shri S. M. Naiyer Imam, Secretary, S. M. ZAheer Alam Teacher Training College, Bahera, Darbhanga, Bihar presented the case on 25th February, 2004. In the course of personal presentation the institution was asked to furnish specific replies with documentary proof on the grounds of rejection. The Secretary of the Institution in its letter dated 17th March, 2004 furnished replies with documentary proof with reference to the deficiencies pointed out by the ERC in its refusal order.
And whereas the council noted that it was stated in replies that the audited statement of accounts were shown to the 34 visiting team and also submitted to the ERC;
transparency in financial transactions is maintained; salaries will be paid by cheque if the staff desires or NCTE instructs;
endowment fund of Rs.5.00 lacs is now being maintained; reserve fund is also being maintained; in the matter of admission of students, the qualification prescribed are followed; the candidates appear at a written examination and thereafter a merit list is drawn up; and teachers are selected through issue of an advertisement followed by an interview/test by a Selection Committee inter- alia consisting of an expert from other institution/university.
And whereas, the Council further noted that there is an apparent contradiction in the six grounds which were adduced in the order dated 9th May 2001 and five grounds which have been adducted in the later order dated 6th November 2003. the new grounds adduced, irrespective of their sustainability, have not been brought to the notice of the appellant through show-cause notice as envisaged in the NCTE Act.
And whereas the Council, after careful consideration of all aspects of the matter, is of the opinion that the order dated 6th November, 2003 is defective, unjust and violative of the provisions of the NCTE Act.
In the circumstances, the order appealed against deserved to be reversed and the status quo ante restored.
And now therefore, the Council hereby reverses the order appealed against."
41. From perusal of the said order, it would thus become clear that only the order dated 6.11.2003 of ERC was set aside by the Central Council while restoring 'status quo ante'. Thus the term 'status quo ante' used in the appellate order therefore has to be understood in the context in 35 which it was used in the appellate order. Prior to 28.7.2004 when the appellate order came into existence, the order which was passed by the E.R.C. and which was subject matter of appeal, was dated 6.11.2003 and surprisingly when the Central Council had directed restoring of 'status quo ante' it could have at best amounted to restoring of the position as it was existing on 6.11.2003. In that event also, the student of the college for three academic sessions 2001-2002, 2002-03, 2003-2004 could not have been allowed to appear in the examination as the Central Council could not have put the clock back. It has to be noted that Central Council in its clear words neither had passed an order for restoration of the order of grant of recognition dated 22.6.1998 nor had it set aside the order of the Regional Committee dated 9.5.2001 refusing to grant of recognition to the College. In that view of the matter, this Court would find it difficult to sustain the claim of respondents-writ petitioners that in terms of the appellate order setting aside the order of the Regional Committee dated 6.11.2003 and restoring 'status quo ante', the recognition given to the College in the year 1998 was restored. The order of the Central Council dated 28.7.2004 therefore had to be given only a prospective operation as it had never passed an order for grant of recognition to the college.
42. In the opinion of this Court, the appellate power under Section 18 of the Act, in the case in hand being one against the order under Section 14, the same could not have been given retrospective operation by using the expression 'status quo ante' in the appellate order for 36 allowing the students to have been admitted and undergone teachers training course in between 9.5.2001 to 28.7.2004. For appreciation of this aspect, section 18 of the Act being relevant is quoted herein below:-
"18. Appeals- (1)Any person aggrieved by an order made under Section 14 or Section 15 or Section 17 of the Act may prefer an appeal to the Council within such period as may be prescribed.
(2) No appeal shall be admitted if it is preferred after the expiry of the period prescribed therefore:
Provided that an appeal may be admitted after the expiry of the period prescribed therefore, if the appellant satisfied the Council that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the prescribed period.
(3) Every appeal made under this section shall be made in such form and shall be accompanied by a copy of the order appealed against and by such fees as may be prescribed.
(4) The procedure for disposing of an appeal shall be such as may be prescribed:
Provided that before disallowing an appeal, the appellant shall be given a reasonable opportunity to represent its case. (5) The Council may confirm or reverse the order appealed against."
43. In view of section 18(5) therefore the Central Council at best could have either affirmed the order dated 6.11.2003 of the Eastern Regional Committee or could reverse the said order but it had no power to grant 'status quo ante' and pass an order usually passed only by a court of law having power of grant of injunction. Admittedly, no such power of stay or grant of injunction vested in the Central Council/ Appellate 37 Authority under Section 18 of the Act and therefore the expression 'Status quo ante' also cannot be given a wider meaning so as to envisage conferment of benefit of recognition from retrospective effect which would amount to override the provisions of Section 14(5) and/or 17(3) of the Act. As a matter of fact, this Court would find it difficult in the concept of remand made by the Central Council, the appellate authority, which on two earlier occasions did not interfere in the order refusing recognition passed by E.R.C. and its concept of grant of "status quo ante"
in third appellate order. However as this case is not related to the issue of grant of recognition to the college even after 28.7.2004, we would not like to make any pronouncement on this issue but at the same time sincwe the Respondent writ petitioner College has questioned the authority of the University on the basis of the order of "status quo ante" we can also not hold that the College had remained entitled to also allow its students of three academic sessions 2001-2002, 2002-03, 2003-2004 to be admitted and undergo course of study for their being found eligible to appear in the university examination, during the pendency of its appeals before the Central Council.
44. According to the ordinary legal connotation, the term 'status quo' implies the existing state of things at any given point of time as has been held in the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. vs. State of Bihar , reported in AIR 1988 SC 127 and in the case of Satyabrata Biswas vs. Kalyan Kumar Kisku, reported in (1994) 38 2 SCC 266. It has been held there in that expression implies existing state of things at any given point of time. In Black's Laws Dictionary 'Status quo ante' has defined the situation existing before something else (being discussed) occurred. A question therefore would arise as to where the situation was existing for the College in the matter of its recognition before 28.7.2004, the date on which an order was passed by Central Council of NCTE for restoring "Status quo ante". A clear answer which would automatically emerge in view of the facts noted above that prior to 28.7.2004, recognition of the college had stood refused on three occasions namely order dated 9.5.2001, again by order dated 19/20.5.2003 and finally on 6.11.2003. If therefore the Central Council which had only restricted power in terms of Section 18(5) of the Act either to confirm or reverse the order refusing recognition passed by the E.R.C. it could not have resorted to its non-existing power to bring that situation which was existing prior to 9.5.2001. Refusal of recognition is always with prospective effect in terms of Section 14(3), (4),(5) of the Act and that is how it has to be given effect to only in the next academic session. Such decisions on an appeal can be reversed but then while reversing the Central Council had to specify that it was restoring the order of recognition granted to the respondents-writ petitioner on 22.6.1998. That having been not done, the Central Council in fact is prima facie responsible for creating this impasse while traveling beyond the jurisdiction of Section 18 of the Act specially when its appellate order 39 dated 28.7.2004 is not on merit but only the ground of violation of principles of natural justice which at best could have led to another remand for reconsideration as to whether the deficiencies recorded in the two orders of E.R.C. dated 9.5.2001 and 6.11.2003 had actually been rectified by the College so as to be restored back its earlier recognition.
45. Judged in this back ground, the order of 'status quo ante' of Central Council in our considered opinion, could not have reversed the clock back by giving retrospective recognition to a college whose recognition was refused on 9.5.2001. The use of expression 'status quo ante' therefore by itself could not have enured to any benefit at least in the matter of allowing its students of three academic sessions 2001-2002, 2002-03, 2003-2004 for their appearance in the university examination. The University was well within its right to enforce by its Examination Regulations and the college which at the time of getting affiliation had bound itself unconditionally by accepting the observance of University's Rules and Regulations including examination regulations could not have claimed a right of compelling the University for allowing its students of unrecognised period merely by use of clever expression of "Status quo ante" in the appellate order dated 28.7.2004 of the Central Council of NCTE.
46. Thus, on the basis of the materials on record we have no hesitation in holding that the order of the 'status quo ante' which is usually not passed even by the court of law, save and except in rare of rarest 40 cases, was very casually and cleverly used by the Central Council in its appellate order simply in order to create confusion. On the basis of such confusing order of the Central Council of NCTE, the University however, could not have changed its Examination Regulations or requirements of screening the bona fides of the students about whom the college started laying its claim for the first time for their appearance in the examination only after 28.7.2004. In this regard, there is infact unimpeachable evidence on record that at no point of time, the College had informed any one including the authorities of the University that despite its refusal for recognition on 9.5.2001 it had still been continuing with admission and teaching work for the academic sessions 2001-2002, 2002-03, 2003- 2004. The very fact that even compulsory registration of such students undergoing one year course was never made up the College in the University would lend strength to the case of the University that for a period of three years of derecognition of the College the teaching work of the college had remained totally disrupted and paralysed and its entire claim of taking admission and undergoing course of teachers training was hoax. Accordingly, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the University was fully justified in refusing permission for appearance in the examination of the aforesaid students of three batches in a period in which the college had no recognition by NCTE.
47. The last plank of submission of learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioners that the order of this Court dated 17.8.2006 in 41 CWJC No. 12995 of 2005 did not give any jurisdiction to the University and its authorities to reexamine the matter as with regard to bona fides of the students claiming to have under gone courses of study in the period the college had not been recognized by the NCTE, has to be only noted for its being rejected. First of all, the order dated 17.8.2006 was passed at the point of time when the University had not refused the permission inasmuch as the impugned order was passed by the Vice Chancellor only on 17.12.2006 and therefore whatever was said in the order of the learned single Judge dated 17.8.2006 has to be understood in the context, the said order was passed relevant portion whereof reads as follows:-
".........In the instant case, recognition was granted on 22nd of June, 1998. This recognition was sought to be interfered with in a just manner as found by the National Council for Teacher Education and accordingly all such attempts to interfere with such recognition was obliterated by the N.C.T.E. by its order dated 28th July 2004 restoring the status quo ante. The words used in the order dated 22nd June, 1998 and in the order dated 28th July 2004 are so clear that one and the only meaning of the same would suggest that the recognition of the institute as made on 22nd of June, 1998 remained unaffected, despite attempts made by the orders as mentioned above. Section 16 of the aforesaid Act does not prevent taking of examination of those students whose education process was sought to be unjustly interfered with and which has been found by the appropriate appellate authority constituted by the aforesaid Act itself to be unjust.
Accordingly, this Writ petition is allowed by directing the respondent University to take examination of the 42 students of the aforesaid institute for the sessions 2001-2002, 2002-2003 and 2003- 2004 in the next forthcoming examination subject to such terms and conditions and provisions as are normally imposed and insisted upon by the university."
48. Before we could really commend and discuss the aforementioned order it has to be understood that the learned single Judge who had passed the said order had himself, subsequently realised the significance of Section 14(5) of the Act as also the Examination Regulations of the University and therefore while dealing with the same matter in the contempt when it was pointed out to him that the University could not have allowed the students of three academic sessions in which college had stood derecognized in the order dated 19.12.2006 in MJC No. 2294 of 2006, the contempt application arising out of the order dated 17.8.2006 in CWJC No. 12995 of 2005 had held as follows:-
" While complying with the Court's order, the University found that the students of the applicant institute for the sessions 2001-2002, 2002-03 and 2003-04 cannot be allowed to appear in the forthcoming examination in as much as the terms and conditions for allowing them as imposed or insisted upon by the University have not been complied with. In those circumstances, the Court's order has been complied with.
Accordingly, the application is disposed of but with no order as to costs.
The petitioner institute is aggrieved by the decision by which the University has held that the said students have not complied with the terms and conditions and provisions as are normally imposed and insisted upon by the University.43
In those circumstances, leave is granted to the petitioner institute as well as the students of the said sessions to take such recourse to law as they may be advised to ... their grievances against the said decision of the University."
49. The net impact of the two orders of learned single Judge one in writ petition dated 17.8.2006 and the other in the contempt petition dated 19.12.2006 is, all that could have been examined by this Court in the connected writ petitions by way of examining of the correctness of the order dated 17.12.2006 passed by the Vice-Chancellor of the University as to whether the findings recorded therein that the students of the three academic sessions had not complied with the terms and conditions and provisions as are normally imposed or insisted for allowing the students to appear in the examination were correct or not. Unfortunately, this aspect of the matter has not been at all gone into by the learned single Judge who has simply brushed it aside by holding that the enquiry made by the University and its Vice-Chancellor in this regard was both in excess of his jurisdiction as also meaningless.
50. In the opinion of this Court, even if the order of learned single Judge dated 17.8.2006 in C.W.J.C. No. 12995/2005, in the earlier writ petition of the College as with regard to his interpretation of 'Status quo ante' and restoration of recognition of College be deemed to be correct, though we must for the reasons recorded above hold that they are not correct, inasmuch as the said order does not take into account the 44 provision of Section 14(5) of the Act and thus per incurium, we would still hold that the University was well within its power to examine the bona fides of the students of the College for three sessions 2001-2002, 2002-03, 2003-2004 inasmuch as it could not have allowed any of its students to all these batches to appear without being satisfied of their being admitted and undergone the course in the prescribed manner.
51. We are of the view that even in a case in which, the College has been recognized by the NCTE and consequently affiliated by the University the examining body, the power of the University to follow its Examination Regulation for examining bona fides of the students seeking to appear in the University examination is not totally precluded. The institution is recognized by NCTE for a fixed number of in take of students and if the institution admits more than number of students prescribed in the order of recognition of NCTE and approaches the University for allowing all of them to sit in the University examination, is the university is bound to allow them to appear in the examination without being satisfied as to whether the students had been properly admitted and had undergone the course ? In the case in hand, the college was claiming that in the period it had stood derecognized on account of refusal of recognition it had admitted students and sent to them for practical training in the nearby institutions but on enquiry the University could find out that no such practical training was imparted to such students. All these aspects have been in fact considered in the impugned 45 order passed by the Vice-Chancellor on 17.12.2006 at length but unfortunately no discussion about the correctness of those reasonings has not been gone into by the learned single Judge who in fact some how has found the act on the part of Vice Chancellor of the University making enquiry about the bona fides of the claim of the college of admitting students and imparting them training, to be an act of impertinence/disobedience of the order of this Court. The fact, however remains that the same learned single Judge who had earlier passed order dated 17.8.2006 had not held such act on the part of the Vice Chancellor of the University to be in violation of his own order and that is how he had dropped the contempt proceedings vide order dated 19.12.2006.
52. It is also now not too far to understand as to why the respondent- writ petitioner College had avoided the University and its first order dated 28.2.2005 refusing to give permission to its students in appearing in the University Examination and had approached Delhi High Court without impleading the University and had obtained an order dated 14.3.2005 directing the University to allow its students to appear in the examination. Such order was however found to be bad by the Apex Court and consequently the Delhi High Court had also dropped the contempt proceeding and its writ petition filed by the College for the same relief was thrown overboard on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. Till that time, the College had never brought the University in picture so as to bind it and therefore the order of this Court in the first instance in the writ 46 petition filed by the respondent-writ petitioners prior to passing of the impugned order of Vice-Chancellor dated 17.12.2006 could not have in any way adversely affected the power of the University to make enquiry and go into the bonafides of the college as with regard to its claim of allowing three batches of students to appear in the university examination.
53. We have in this context also carefully perused the order of the Vice Chacnellor of the University dated 17.12.2006 and find no error in the same wherein all that has been recorded is as follows :-
"..........By order dated 17/8/2006 in CWJC No. 12995 of 2005 the Hon'ble High Court was pleased to direct the respondent University to take B.Ed. Examination of the students of S. M. Zaheer Alam Teacher's Training College, Bahera for the Session 2001-2002, 2002-2003, 2003-2004 in the next forthcoming examination subject to such terms and conditions and provisions as are normally imposed and insisted upon by the University. Pursuant to the said order the writ petitioner by letter dt. 14/08/06 has requested the University to take necessary action to conduct the examination of students of S. M. Zaheer Alam Teacher's Training College, Bahera for the aforesaid three sessions of B. Ed. Course. The said college has also filed M. J. C. No. 2294 of 2006 in the Patna High Court to punish the University authorities for disobedience of the aforesaid order of Hon'ble High Court.
Before allowing the students to appear in any examination, University enquires as to whether students were registered with the University or not and at the time of registration, University examines as to whether student is bona fide or not and whether student was at all admitted to the 47 college or not in the case of students of B. Ed. Course University also enquires as to whether students were trained or not.
In the light of aforementioned requirements the University considered the letter dated 24.8.2006 of S. M. Zaheer Teacher's Training College, Bahera.
The Registrar of the University by letter dated 10/11/2006 sought certain information from the concerned college regarding admission of students to B. Ed. Course for the session 2001-2002, 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 to ascertain whether students are bona fide and duly trained or not.
The concerned college was derecognized on 9.5.2001 by the Eastern Regional Committee of National Council for Teacher's Education and the College remained so until 28/7/2004. in view of section 14(5) of National Council for Teachers Education Act. College could not have admitted any student to B. Ed. Course during the period of derecognization. Eastern Regional Committee of National Council for Teachers Education has informed the University that S. M. Zaheer Alam Teachers's Training College never informed them about admission of students to B. Ed. Course in session 2001-2002, 2002-2003 and 2003-2004. the concerned college also never informed University about admission of students in the said three session nor took any step for registration of those students. On demand by the University of answer sheets of entrance test exams of the said three sessions the concerned college had taken a plea that answer sheets are destroyed after one year of examination. The concerned college did not produce any paper before the University authorities to convince them that entrance test for admission to B.Ed. course was at all taken in 2001, 2002 and 2003. Head Master of Millat High School, Rupaspur, Darbhanga has informed the University that no certificate was issued by his school to the effect that students of B. Ed 48 Course of S. M. Zaheer Teachers Training College, Bahera for sessions 2001-2002, 2002- 2003 and 2003-2004 got practical training in their school. Similarly, Principal of Jayanand Uchcha Vidyalaya, Bahera has also informed the University that there is no paper available with them to show that students of S. M. Zaheer Teacher's Training College, Bahera took practical training in their school.
From the aforesaid facts it appears that during May 2001 and July, 2004 no students were admitted to B. Ed. Course in S.M. Zaheer Teachers Training College, Bahera much less trained and only after order of derecognization was set aside by the National Council for Teacher's Education, the concerned college has admitted students and wants that students should be allowed to sit in examination.
In the aforesaid factual aspect, I am of the view that students of B. Ed. Course of Sessions 2001-2002, 2002-2003 and 2003- 2004 of S. M. Zaheer Teacher's Training College, Bahera does not fulfill conditions which are insisted upon by the University before allowing them to appear in examination."
54. Such order of the Vice-Chancellor of the University being the subject matter of the connected writ petition ought to have been examined by the learned Single Judge in the background of the Examination Regulations but from perusal of the impugned order of the learned single Judge it appears that no findings has been recorded as with regard to any infirmity or incorrectness in the reasons recorded by the Vice-Chancellor save and except that the Vice-Chancellor ought not to have made such exercise in view of earlier order of this Court dated 17.8.2006, in the earlier writ petition filed by the respondent-writ petitioners, College. 49
55. The position in law as with regard to according permission to the students of unrecognised institutions has been well settled by a series of judgments of Apex Court. In Regional Officer, CBSE V. Sheena Peethambaran, reported in (2003) 7 SCC 719, the Apex Court has observed;
"6. This Court has on several occasions earlier deprecated the practice of permitting the students to pursue their studies and to appear in the examination under the interim orders passed in the petitions. In most of such cases it is ultimately pleaded that since the course was over or the result had been declared, the matter deserves to be considered sympathetically. It results in very awkward and difficult situations. Rules stare straight into the face of the plea of sympathy and concessions, against the legal provisions."
56. In CBSE V. P. Sunil Kumar, reported in (1998) 5 SCC 377, the institutions whose students were permitted to undertake the examination of the Central Board of Secondary Education were not entitled to appear in the examination. They were, however, allowed to appear in the examination under the interim orders granted by the High Court. In that context the Supreme Court observed;
"4.............But to permit students of an unaffiliated institution to appear at the examination conducted by the Board under orders of the Court and then to compel the Board to issue certificates in favour of those who have undertaken examination would tantamount to subversion of law and this Court will not be justified to sustain the orders issued by the High Court on misplaced sympathy in favour of the students."50
57. In Guru Nanak Dev University V. Parminder Kr. Bansal, reported in (1993) 4 SCC 401 the Supreme Court observed that such interim order is subversive of academic discipline. The relevant observations, are as under;
"7.......... We are afraid that this kind of administration of interlocutory remedies, more guided by sympathy quite often wholly misplaced, does no service to anyone. From the series of orders that keep coming before us in academic matters, we find that loose, ill-
conceived sympathy masquerades as
interlocutory justice exposing judicial
discretion to the criticism of degenerating into private benevolence. This is subversive of academic discipline, or whatever is left of it, leading to serious impasse in academic life. Admissions cannot be orders without regard to the eligibility of the candidates. ..... The courts should not embarrass academic authorities by themselves taking over their functions."
58. Yet in another case i.e. in A.P. Christians Medical Educational Society V. Govt. of A.P., reported in (1986) 2 SCC 667 the Apex Court held that:-
"10..........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."
59. In State of T.N. V. St. Joseph Teachers Training Institute, reported in (1991) 3 SCC 87 the Apex Court observed that the direction of admitting the students of unauthorised educational institutions and 51 permitting them to appear at the examination has been looked on with disfavour and the students of unrecognised institutions who are not legally entitled to appear at the examination conducted by the Educational Department of the Government cannot be allowed to sit at the examination and the High Court committed an error in granting permission to such students to appear at the public examination.
60. In CBSE V. Nikhil Gulati, reported in (1998) 3 SCC 5 the Apex Court deprecated the practice followed by the High Court to issue direction and also observed that such aberrations should not be treated as a precedent in future.
61. In Krishna Priya Ganguly V. University of Lucknow, reported in (1984) 1 SCC 307 the Supreme Court observed;
"3........ whenever a writ petition is filed provisional admission should not be given as a matter of course on the petition being admitted unless the court is fully satisfied that the petitioner has a cast-iron case which is bound to succeed or the error is so gross or apparent that no other conclusion is possible."
62. In State of Maharashta V. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale, reported in (1992) 4 SCC 435, it was held that the students of unrecognised and unauthorised educational institutions could not have been permitted by the High Court on a writ petition being filed to appear in the examination and to be accommodated in recognised institutions. The Apex Court observed;
52
"12. .........Slackening the standard and judicial fiat to control the mode of education and examining system are detrimental to the efficient management of the education."
63. Based on the aforesaid judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Sunil Oraon (supra) has laid down the law in the following terms:-
"Time and again, therefore, this Court had deprecated the practice of educational institutions admitting the students without requisite recognition or affiliation. In all such cases the usual plea is the career of innocent children who have fallen in the hands of the mischievous designated school authorities. As the factual scenario delineated against goes to show that the school has shown scant regards to the requirements for affiliation and as rightly highlighted by learned counsel for CBSE, the infraction was of very serious nature. Though the ultimate victims are innocent students that cannot be a ground for granting relief to the appellant. Even after filing the undertakings the school nonchalantly continued the violations."
64. Thus in view of aforesaid authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court as also in view of our findings recorded above that the most important aspect of the matter, relating to the College being derecognised in between 9.5.2001 to 28.7.2004 and its students of the three batches not fulfiling the requisite condition under Examination Regulations of the University had been overlooked and/or incorrectly decided by the learned single Judge in the impugned judgment, we have no hesitation in holding that the order passed by the University and its Vice-Chancellor on 17.12.2006 does not suffer from any infirmity and consequently, the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge, setting 53 aside the aforementioned order of the Vice-Chancellor of the University, cannot be sustained.
65. This appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned judgment and order of learned single Judge is set aside. The writ petitions filed by the respondents-writ petitioners are consequently dismissed.
66. There would be, however, no order as to costs.
I agree
(Dipak Misra, CJ.) (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)
Patna High Court, Patna
Dated, 20th May,2010
AFR/kanchan