Delhi High Court
Sainath College Of Education vs National Council For Teacher Education ... on 18 August, 2015
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
Bench: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 18th August, 2015
+ W.P.(C) No. 7497/2015
SAINATH COLLEGE OF EDUCATION ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjay Sharawat, Adv.
versus
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEAHER EDUCATION
AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Gautam Narayan, ASC (GNCTD)
for R-2.
Ms. Latika Chaudhary for Ms. Avnish
Ahlawat, Adv. for R-3.
AND
+ W.P.(C) No. 7508/2015
OJAS COLLEGE OF EDUCATION ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjay Sharawat, Adv.
versus
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION
AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Gautam Narayan, ASC (GNCTD)
for R-2.
Ms. Latika Chaudhary for Ms. Avnish
Ahlawat, Adv. for R-3.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1. The grievance of the petitioner Institutes in both the petitions is that
though they applied well within time for grant of recognition for
commencing imparting education in D.El.Ed. course / programme in the
W.P.(C) No. 7497/2015 & W.P.(C) No. 7508/2015 Page 1 of 12
year 2015-16 but the respondent no.1National Council for Teacher
Education (NCTE) caused delay at each and every stage and now has finally
vide decision taken in the meeting held from 20 th to 22nd July, 2015 though
held the petitioner Institutes entitled to recognition but owing to the last date
prescribed by the Supreme Court of 3rd March extended in this year till 31st
May, 2015 in Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya Vs. State of U.P
(2013) 2 SCC 617 for grant of recognition having expired, have granted
recognition to the petitioner Institutes not from the Academic Session 2015-
16 but w.e.f. the Academic Session 2016-17.
2. These petitions have been filed seeking directions, (i) for an inquiry
against the Chairperson, Member Secretary and Regional Director of the
respondent no.1 NCTE as well as against the Director of the respondent no.3
State Council of Educational Research & Training (SCERT) in terms of
paras 87.4 and 91.2 of Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya supra;
(ii) for grant of recognition to the petitioner Institutes for the Academic
Session 2015-16 instead of Academic Session 2016-17; (iii) to the
respondent no.3 SCERT to grant affiliation to the petitioner Institutes for
D.El.Ed. course for Academic Session 2015-16; and, (iv) to the respondent
no.3 SCERT to include the name of the petitioner Institutes in the
W.P.(C) No. 7497/2015 & W.P.(C) No. 7508/2015 Page 2 of 12
counselling and to permit the petitioner Institutes to admit students to the
Academic Session 2015-16 in the D.El.Ed. course.
3. The petitions came up first before this Court on 7th August, 2015
when notice thereof was issued.
4. Though no replies have been filed by either of the respondents but the
counsel for the respondent no.1 NCTE states that the NCTE has no objection
to conducting an inquiry into the allegations of delays and the same will be
done.
5. The counsel for the petitioner Institutes, the counsel for the
respondent no.1 NCTE and the counsel for the respondent no.3 SCERT have
been heard.
6. The counsel for the petitioner Institutes states that the respondent no.2
Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) would have no
role in the facts of these cases.
7. I have enquired from the counsels as to which authority would be the
appropriate authority to conduct the inquiry.
8. The counsel for the petitioner Institutes and the counsel for the
respondent no.1 NCTE state that the inquiry into the allegations against the
W.P.(C) No. 7497/2015 & W.P.(C) No. 7508/2015 Page 3 of 12
officials of the respondent no.1 NCTE would have to be conducted by the
Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD), Government of India.
The counsel for the petitioner Institutes states that the inquiry vis-a-vis
respondent no.3 SCERT would have to be conducted by the respondent no.2
GNCTD.
9. Accordingly, a direction is issued to the Secretary, MHRD and to the
Secretary of the GNCTD to conduct an inquiry into the allegations made in
these petitions of delays caused by the respondents no.1 NCTE and
respondent no.3 SCERT respectively in the matter of evaluating the
applications of the petitioner Institutes for grant of recognition for imparting
education in D.El.Ed. course. A copy of this order be served by the counsel
for the respondent no.1 NCTE on the Secretary, MHRD. The counsel for the
respondent no.2 GNCTD to ensure compliance of the order.
10. The petitioner Institutes, if so desire, would be at liberty to within 15
days hereof make a representation with further particulars to the authorities
aforesaid entrusted with the enquiry, detailing the delays at each and every
stage and the violation if any of the schedule laid down in Maa Vaishno
Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya supra.
W.P.(C) No. 7497/2015 & W.P.(C) No. 7508/2015 Page 4 of 12
11. This Court is inundated with petitions in such matters. The authorities
entrusted with the inquiry to also attempt to identify the causes of the delay
if any in dealing with the applications and to issue necessary directions to
alleviate the same in future years so that the applications for recognition for
all programmes of the respondent no.1 NCTE are considered in a time bound
manner and outcome thereof is announced with sufficient time available to
the aggrieved applicants to avail remedies thereagainst.
12. The counsel for the petitioners with respect to the other relief claimed,
of grant of recognition for the current academic year, has contended that:-
(i) the scheduled laid down in Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila
Mahavidyalaya is only of the time to be followed for grant of
recognition and grant of affiliation and no time has been fixed
for the commencement of the academic session or for
counselling or for admission as has been done in the case of
Medical Council of India, Dental Council of India, All India
Council For Technical Education etc. Thus, once it is found that
the respondent no.1 NCTE and the respondent no.3 SCERT are
to blame for the delays, there is no impediment to the Court
W.P.(C) No. 7497/2015 & W.P.(C) No. 7508/2015 Page 5 of 12
granting recognition / affiliation beyond the stipulated date as
long as the last date prescribed for admission has not lapsed;
(ii) attention in this regard is invited to the Note under the Schedule
for Admission to D.El.Ed. course in the Prospectus published
by the respondent no.3 SCERT and which is as under:-
"Note:
In case of availability of vacant seats after 3 rd list of
admission in Self Financing (Pvt.) Recognized
Institute Affiliated to SCERT, next wait list in rank-
wise, category-wise, for admission, will be declared
and uploaded on the website on the notified dates to
be announced on 25.08.2015. For updated details
please see SCERT website regularly i.e.
www.scertdelhiadmission.org Regarding final closure of
admission, date will be notified on the website
www.scertdelhiadmission.org as per the status/situation of
vacancy. After notified date of closure of
admission, all admissions shall be summarily
closed even if any seats are vacant, keeping in view
the compulsory number of working days (200 days)
prescribed in NCTE Act/Regulation.
Candidates are advised to continuously check
website www.scertdelhiadmission.org getting current
information till completion of admission process."
On the basis thereof it is contended that counselling is still
underway and this Court can direct the respondent no.1 and the
W.P.(C) No. 7497/2015 & W.P.(C) No. 7508/2015 Page 6 of 12
respondent no.3 NCTE & SCERT to grant recognition and
affiliation for the current academic year (it is pointed out that
the respondent no.3 SCERT has already approved list of faculty
of both the petitioner Institutes) and permit the petitioner
Institutes to admit students;
(iii) that some other institutions similarly situated as the petitioner
Institutes had directly filed the petitions in the Supreme Court
in this regard but the said petitions were disposed of directing
the High Court to be approached; it thus follows that the
Supreme Court did not find any impediment to the High Courts
directing recognition and affiliation beyond the dates prescribed
in Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya;
(iv) that some of the other High Courts also have granted
recognitions after the prescribed date. Reliance in this regard is
placed on Joseph Sriharsha Mary Indraja Educational Society
Vs. The National Council for Teacher Education
MANU/AP/3415/2013 and the SLP No.27026/2014 arising
wherefrom was disposed of on 26th September, 2014;
W.P.(C) No. 7497/2015 & W.P.(C) No. 7508/2015 Page 7 of 12
(v) that approximately 24000 students had sought admission to the
D.El.Ed. course in the institutes in Delhi from the respondent
no.3 SCERT and the seats available in the D.El.Ed. course are
only 2140; there is no justification for refusing so many
students admission when the petitioner Institutes have been
found entitled thereto and have been denied recognition for the
current academic year only for the reason of the date having
lapsed; and,
(vi) that the petitioner Institutes would suffer financial burden of
keeping the infrastructure and faculty ready for the Academic
Session 2016-17 and ought to be allowed to admit students.
13. The counsel for the respondent no.3 SCERT has invited attention to
the Schedule for Admission in the Prospectus aforesaid which prescribes the
date, (i) from 29th June, 2015 to 14th July, 2015 for making applications for
admission; (ii) of 29th June, 2015 for declaration of the 1st list of candidates
for admission; (iii) of 6th August, 2015 for declaration of 2nd list of
candidates for admission; (iv) of 14th August, 2015 for declaration of the 3rd
list of candidates for admission; and, (v) of 3rd August, 2015 for
commencement of the Academic Session 2015-16. It is further contended
W.P.(C) No. 7497/2015 & W.P.(C) No. 7508/2015 Page 8 of 12
that the date of 25th August, 2015 for declaring the next waiting list for
admission is only for the vacant seats available after the 3rd list of admission
and not for fresh admissions. It is thus contended that the reliance by the
petitioner Institutes on the said date is misconceived. She has further stated
that the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the judgment relied upon by the
counsel for the petitioner Institutes granted the order because the counselling
had not started till then. (I may in this regard notice that the Supreme Court
disposed of the SLP supra observing that the impugned order had only
directed consideration by the respondents and which consideration was
accepted to be in accordance with law and thus no interference was called
for).
14. I have considered the aforesaid contentions.
15. Admittedly, after the grant of recognition, the petitioner Institutes are
required to obtain affiliation from the respondent no.3 SCERT and which the
petitioner Institutes till date do not have. I have enquired the procedure
entailed in the grant of affiliation. The counsel for the petitioner Institutes
states that no procedure in this regard has been prescribed. He has however
contended that the inspection, if any, required by the respondent no.3
SCERT is a matter of one day only.
W.P.(C) No. 7497/2015 & W.P.(C) No. 7508/2015 Page 9 of 12
16. The counsel for the respondent no.3 SCERT states that she has no
instructions in this regard.
17. Though the schedule laid down in Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila
Mahavidyalaya supra undoubtedly does not give the final date for admission
or for commencement of the academic session after prescribing 10 th May of
each year as the final date for grant of affiliation for the relevant academic
year but the context in which the said schedule came to be prescribed was
the delay in commencement of the academic year owing to the delays in
grant of recognition and affiliation. Thus, merely because the Supreme Court
has not prescribed the dates for admission or the dates for commencement of
the academic session would not be a ground for this Court to pass an order
which would have the effect of delaying the academic session which has
already commenced on 3rd August, 2015.
18. There is thus no merit in the argument of the counsel for the petitioner
Institutes on the basis of the Note aforesaid appended to the Schedule for
Admission prescribed by the respondent no.3 SCERT, which the counsel for
the respondent no.3 SCERT rightly pointed out is only with respect to the
vacant seats. Else, by the time the petitioner Institutes came before this
W.P.(C) No. 7497/2015 & W.P.(C) No. 7508/2015 Page 10 of 12
Court, the academic session as aforesaid had already commenced on 3 rd
August, 2015.
19. It has been repeatedly held by the Courts, as noticed by the Division
Bench of this Court in Rajeev Kumar Vs. Union of India
MANU/DE/1752/2014 that merely because seats are remaining vacant is no
ground to indefinitely delay the commencement of the academic session and
to hold repeated rounds of counseling and make mid-term admissions. Thus
on the basis of the said argument also this Court cannot direct admission at
this stage.
20. Owing to the urgency expressed, the petitions are being disposed of
without awaiting the counter affidavits. At this stage, it cannot also
conclusively be said whether there were any delays on the part of the
respondent no.1 NCTE and respondent no.3 SCERT and/or whether the
delays even if any, are attributable solely to the said Bodies. Without a
conclusive finding on the said aspect being reached and for which as
aforesaid an inquiry has been ordered, it would not be appropriate to on
mere allegation of delay grant recognition and affiliation or order grant
thereof after the stipulated date. The petitioner Institutes are thus not entitled
W.P.(C) No. 7497/2015 & W.P.(C) No. 7508/2015 Page 11 of 12
to the relief claimed of recognition and affiliation for the current academic
year.
21. These petitions are disposed of with the hope that the respondent no.1
NCTE and the respondent no.3 SCERT in the ensuing years will act within
the confines of the schedule laid down by the Supreme Court and give ample
time to the aggrieved applicants to avail of the remedies available in law.
22. The inquiries ordered above be completed on or before 31 st January,
2016 and copies of reports thereof be furnished to the counsel of the
petitioners.
No costs.
Copy of this order be given dasti under signature of Court Master.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
AUGUST 18, 2015 'pp' W.P.(C) No. 7497/2015 & W.P.(C) No. 7508/2015 Page 12 of 12