Patna High Court - Orders
Dr. B. R. Ambedkar College Of Education & ... vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 15 November, 2016
Author: Ajay Kumar Tripathi
Bench: Ajay Kumar Tripathi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9230 of 2016
======================================================
Dr. B. R. Ambedkar College Of Education & Ors
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar & Ors
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9870 of 2016
======================================================
S. A. College Of Education
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar & Ors
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10436 of 2016
======================================================
Shams Teachers Training College & Anr
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar & Ors
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10986 of 2016
======================================================
Al Hassan Teachers Training College & Ors
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar & Ors
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10834 of 2016
======================================================
Rameshwar Laxmi Mahto Teachers Training
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar & Ors
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10755 of 2016
======================================================
Shyam School Of Education
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar & Ors
.... .... Respondent/s
2 Patna High Court CWJC No.9230 of 2016 (15) dt.15-11-2016
P2 / 19
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11002 of 2016
======================================================
Mahila Mahavidyalaya Run By Bhagwan Bhaskar Mahila Uthan Samitee
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar & Ors
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11935 of 2016
======================================================
M. P. College Of Education & Anr
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar & Ors
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11630 of 2016
======================================================
Bihar State Minority Education College Association & Ors
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar & Ors
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12136 of 2016
======================================================
Swami Vivekanand B. Ed. Teachers Training College
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar & Ors
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10108 of 2016
======================================================
Al Fatima Educational Society B. Ed. College & Ors
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar & Ors
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9969 of 2016
======================================================
Teacher Training College
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar & Ors
3 Patna High Court CWJC No.9230 of 2016 (15) dt.15-11-2016
P3 / 19
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10307 of 2016
======================================================
Satyam International Institute Of Higher Studies
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar & Ors
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9920 of 2016
======================================================
Radhey Shyam Teachers Training College
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar & Ors
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10360 of 2016
======================================================
Shri Bhagwat Prasad Singh Memorial B. Ed. College & Ors
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar & Ors
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10058 of 2016
======================================================
Dr. Zakir Hussain Teachers Training College & Ors
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar & Ors
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10676 of 2016
======================================================
Raghunandan Teachers Training College
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar & Ors
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10619 of 2016
======================================================
Dr. S. P. Singh College Of Teacher Education
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
4 Patna High Court CWJC No.9230 of 2016 (15) dt.15-11-2016
P4 / 19
The State of Bihar & Ors
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10019 of 2016
======================================================
Lichchvi College Of Teachers Training
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar & Ors
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9921 of 2016
======================================================
Chanakya Foundation & Ors
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar & Ors
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9960 of 2016
======================================================
Mahatma Buddha Teachers Taraining College & Ors
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar & Ors
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9965 of 2016
======================================================
Patel College Of Education
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar & Ors
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9823 of 2016
======================================================
Al Momin College Of Education
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar & Ors
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9857 of 2016
======================================================
Mahabodhi Teachers Training College
.... .... Petitioner/s
5 Patna High Court CWJC No.9230 of 2016 (15) dt.15-11-2016
P5 / 19
Versus
The State of Bihar & Ors
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9873 of 2016
======================================================
Nezamia College Of Education
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar & Ors
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9800 of 2016
======================================================
Teachers Training College, Bhagalpur & Ors
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar & Ors
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CWJC No.9230 of 2016)
For the Petitioner : Mr. P.K. Shahi, Senior Advocate
Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Lalit Kishore, PAAG1
Mr. Anjani Kumar, AAG2
Mr. Anil Kumar Jha, A.C. to AAG4
(In CWJC No.9870 of 2016)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arun Kumar
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Md. Raisul Haque- Sc4
For M.U. : Mr. Ajay Bihari Sinha, Advocate
(In CWJC No.10436 of 2016)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjeet Kumar
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Gp5- Rajiv Roy
(In CWJC No.10986 of 2016)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Karuna Nath Sahay
For the State : Mr. Sunil Kumar Mandal, S.C.3
Ms. Alka Singh, A.C. to S.C.3
For M.U. : Mr. Ajay Bihari Sinha, Advocate
(In CWJC No.10834 of 2016)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Yashraj Bardhan
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Dhurjati Kr. Prasad- Gp7
For LNMU : Mr. Ajay Bihari Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Chandra Mohan Singh, Advocate
(In CWJC No.10755 of 2016)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shashi Bhushan Singh
For the State : Mr. Shyama Kant Singh, A.C. to G.P.15
For LNMU : Mr. Ajay Bihari Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Chandra Mohan Singh, Advocate
(In CWJC No.11002 of 2016)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Krishna Kant Tiwari
6 Patna High Court CWJC No.9230 of 2016 (15) dt.15-11-2016
P6 / 19
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sc13-Arvind Kumar
(In CWJC No.11935 of 2016)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jagnnath Singh
For the State : Mr. Raghwanand, G.A.11
Mr. Sanjay Kr. Tiwari, A.C. to G.A.11
(In CWJC No.11630 of 2016)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jagnnath Singh
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sc10- Sheo Shankar Prasad
For LNMU : Mr. Ajay Bihari Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Chandra Mohan Singh, Advocate
(In CWJC No.12136 of 2016)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arun Kumar
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Syed Iqbal Ahmad-Sc20
For LNMU : Mr. Ajay Bihari Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Chandra Mohan Singh, Advocate
(In CWJC No.10108 of 2016)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sc21- Kumar Manish
(In CWJC No.9969 of 2016)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arun Kumar
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sc5- Satyendra Kumar
(In CWJC No.10307 of 2016)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arun Kumar
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sc6- Manindra Kishore Singh
For M.U. : Ms. Seema Ghazala, Advocate
(In CWJC No.9920 of 2016)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Yashraj Bardhan
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ajay Behari Sinha- Sc19
Ms. Seema Ghazala
(In CWJC No.10360 of 2016)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arun Kumar
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ga12- Ajay
(In CWJC No.10058 of 2016)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Jawahar Pd. Karan- Aag4
(In CWJC No.10676 of 2016)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Santosh Kumar Mishra
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Gp32- Harish Kumar
For M.U. : Mr. Ajay Bihari Sinha, Advocate
(In CWJC No.10619 of 2016)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arun Kumar
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Partha Sarthi- Ga11
(In CWJC No.10019 of 2016)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Madhukar Pandey
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sc21- Kumar Manish
(In CWJC No.9921 of 2016)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Santosh Kumar Mishra
For the State : Mr. Birju Prasad, G.P.13
Mr. Ravi, Kumar, A.C. to G.P.13
Mr. Ashok Kumar, A.C. to G.P.13
Mr. Amresh, A.C. to G.P.13
For University : Mr. Arbind Nath Pandey, Advocate
(In CWJC No.9960 of 2016)
7 Patna High Court CWJC No.9230 of 2016 (15) dt.15-11-2016
P7 / 19
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjeet Kumar
For the State : Mr. Shyama Kant Singh, A.C. to G.P.15
(In CWJC No.9965 of 2016)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arun Kumar
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ga13- Smt Namrata Mishra
For M.U. : Mrs. Seema Ghazala
(In CWJC No.9823 of 2016)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arun Kumar
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sc9- Raj Nandan Prasad
(In CWJC No.9857 of 2016)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arun Kumar
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sc7- Mithilesh Pathak
(In CWJC No.9873 of 2016)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arun Kumar
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sc8- Kumar Alok
(In CWJC No.9800 of 2016)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Gp27- Purnendu Singh
For NCTE (In all cases) : Mr. S.N. Pathak, Advocate
For M.U. (In all cases) : Mr. K.N. Singh, Senior Advocate
Mr. Vipin Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Girijesh Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Nirmal Kumar Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR
TRIPATHI
ORAL ORDER
15 15-11-2016These batch of writ applications came to be filed by various institutions, which are offering B.Ed. and other courses relating to teachers training in the State of Bihar. They have all rushed to the High Court challenging a decision or communication, by virtue of which the State of Bihar decided to hold an inspection of these colleges to find out their physical existence as well as the kind of facilities existing therein. The relevant communication is Letter No.161, dated 15.06.2016, issued under the signature of the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar with a directive to all the District Magistrates as well as the 8 Patna High Court CWJC No.9230 of 2016 (15) dt.15-11-2016 P8 / 19 Superintendent of Police except the districts of Sheohar, Sheikhpura, Arwal and Kishanganj. The letter reads as below:-
i=kad& 20@fo 1&07@2016 ¼f'k{kk foHkkx½ 161 @ lsok esa] lHkh ftyk inkf/kdkjh lHkh vkj{kh v/kh{kd ¼f'kogj] 'ks[kiqjk] vjoy ,oa fd'kuxat dks NksM+dj½ iVuk] fnukad 15@6@2016 fo"k;& NCTE }kjk ekU;rk izkIr ,oa fofHkUu fo'ofo|ky;ksa ls lEc) vjktdh; f'k{kd izf'k{k.k laLFkkukas ds 'kS{kf.kd ,oa vk/kkjHkwr lajpuk dh tk¡p ds lac/a k esA egk'k;] jkT; esa f'k{kk ds xq.kkRed fodkl esa ;ksX; ,oa izf'kf{kr f'k{kdksa dh Hkwfedk egRoiw.kZ gS] blds fy, vko';d gS fd f'k{kd izf'k{k.k laLFkkukas }kjk izf'k{kqvksa dks xq.koÙkkiw.kZ izf'k{k.k iznku fd;k tk,A jkT; esa yxHkx 200 ls vf/kd vjktdh; f'k{kd izf'k{k.k laLFkku NCTE }kjk ch-,M- dkslZ gsrq ekU;rk izkIr gSAa buesa ls dbZ laLFkku jkT; ds cksMZ@fdlh fo'ofo|ky; ls lEc) gksdj Øe'k% nks izdkj ds dkslZ&Mh-,y-,M-] ch-,M-@,e-,M- Hkh lapkfyr dj jgs gSaA izf'k{k.k laLFkkukas dk nkf;Ro gS fd mudh vk/kkjHkwr lajpuk NCTE ds ekud ds vuq:i gks ,oa muesa fu;fer izf'k{k.k iznku fd;k tk jgk gksA izf'k{k.k laLFkku }kjk mu nkf;Roksa dk vuqikyu fd;k tk jgk gS vFkok ugha] bldh tkudkjh jkT; ljdkj ds ikl miyC/k ugha gSA vr% vkidks funsf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd vius&vius ftys esa lapkfyr lHkh vjktdh; f'k{kd izf'k{k.k egkfo|ky;ksa@laLFkkuksa dh vk/kkjHkwr lajpuk rFkk 'kSf{kd xfrfof/k;ksa ls lacfa /kr ,d la;qDr tk¡p izfrosnu layXu fofgr izi= esa ¼laLFkkuokj½ 10 fnuksa ds vUnj miyC/k djkus dk d"V djsaA vkids ftyk ls lacfa /kr NCTE }kjk ekU;rk izkIr lHkh f'k{kd izf'k{k.k laLFkkuksa dh lwph ¼1] 2 ,oa 3½ layXu gSA vuqyXud& ;FkksDr fo'oklHkktu ¼vatuh dqekj flag½ eq[; lfpo] fcgkjA
2. There is a background under which this communication was issued by the Chief Secretary of the State of 9 Patna High Court CWJC No.9230 of 2016 (15) dt.15-11-2016 P9 / 19 Bihar. The education sector was shaken up by a scandal, which came to be exposed through the media after the result of the Intermediate level was announced by the Bihar School Examination Board. There were certain toppers in the said examination and the media curiosity to interview those candidates exposed the dark side of the education system prevalent in the State of Bihar. The Court would not like to go into all the murky details because the facts are within public knowledge and domain especially when wide scale coverage was given to the said episode both in the print as well as electronic media.
3. The Government of Bihar, therefore, decided to identify the B.Ed. institutions of such kind, which were involved not in the bona fide business or activity of imparting education. Idea was to separate the honest institutions from the spurious ones.
4. We are dealing with the institutions, which are governed by a central statute known as National Council of Teachers Education Act, 1993, which became operational since 17th August, 1995.
5. The power to grant recognition as well as permission to allow such institutions to admit students for teachers training courses is vested in the National Council of Teachers Education. So far as the State of Bihar is concerned, it is the 10 Patna High Court CWJC No.9230 of 2016 (15) dt.15-11-2016 P10 / 19 Regional Council located at Bhubaneshwar, which exercises authority over Bihar.
6. Procedures have been laid down under the Act and the Regulation by the National Council of Teachers Education and most of the process for such exercise is carried out through the online mechanism. Verifications are made and based on the inputs provided by the institutions seeking permission on assessment of the facilities and infrastructure available with the institutions, permission is granted at times conditionally. The institutions thereafter have to seek affiliation from a Board or a University as the case may be for the purposes of conduct of examination and award of degrees.
7. When the tsunami of the scandal hit the education sector, the State of Bihar took it as a duty caste upon it to clean up the education sector since they thought it was a God sent opportunity. The stand of the Principal AAG-I, during the course of argument, is that nothing more should be read into the communication of the Chief Secretary. The reason for the Chief Secretary to write such letters to the district authorities was that despite grant of permission by the Regional Council of NCTE, there were many a things which were amiss in a glaring way with such institutions. The State is not trying to raise an accusing finger 11 Patna High Court CWJC No.9230 of 2016 (15) dt.15-11-2016 P11 / 19 on NCTE with regard to the manner in which such permissions have been accorded. But there are huge gaps between what is declared by the institutions to NCTE and what has been discovered and found in actual reality. The ultimate consumer of such products from these institutions will largely be the State of Bihar. Therefore, such pass outs and so called trained teachers with training, which are suspect will have a bearing on the future of the students studying in the schools of Bihar. If they are hired and saddled with the responsibility of imparting education at various levels the ultimate sufferers would be the generation next as well as society.
8. This Court is willing to give the benefit of doubt to the State of Bihar but the Court will also will not hesitate to observe that letter writing by the Chief Secretary to the district authorities specially the District Magistrates as well as the Superintendent of Police could be a knee-jerk reaction and out of the hat kind of thinking. State of Bihar has to keep in mind the statutory provisions that govern and regulate such institutions i.e. NCTE Act.
9. There cannot be any argument that the State of Bihar as such does not have much of a role or powers to exercise in matters of either granting or according permission to setup such 12 Patna High Court CWJC No.9230 of 2016 (15) dt.15-11-2016 P12 / 19 institutions. But the issue, which is seriously vexing this State cannot be just brushed aside or wished away on the high sounding submissions, which have been made on behalf of the petitioners' counsel.
10. The Court directed the Regional Director of National Council of Teachers Education, Bhubaneshwar to file a counter affidavit and indicate their stand. He was also ordered to be present in person to assist. The reasons thereof are reflected in the order-sheet. Affidavits have been filed. The affidavit of the NCTE largely is an extract of the various statutory provisions of the Act as well as the Regulation. We are not concerned about the provisions of the statute as such. What is under consideration is how to clean up phoney, substandard or dubious institutions running in the State of Bihar. An inspection of such institutions, which has to be actual physical inspection with the objective spelled out in earlier part of the order is the need of the hour.
11. Various proposals were placed before this Court and the same were considered extensively as well as debated at the bar.
12. The power vested in National Council of Teachers Education being the nodal authority has to prevail under the statute however in recent times certain disputes have also 13 Patna High Court CWJC No.9230 of 2016 (15) dt.15-11-2016 P13 / 19 travelled to the Hon'ble Supreme Court as to the role of the State in such matter. Hon'ble Supreme Court had occasion to consider some aspect of this matter, which does have reflection on the issue agitating the petitioners and the Court. In this regard, the attention of the Court is drawn to a decision rendered by a Division Bench decided by the Hon'ble Justice Dipak Misra in the case of State of Rajasthan v. LBS B.ED College, AIR 2016 SC 4428.
13. The Court has the privilege of the said decision because the Apex has extensively dealt with the powers and functions of the NCTE as well as the scheme of the Act and the provisions. Not only this, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also dealt with the previous decisions rendered on the NCTE Act and the powers, which flows therefrom. The observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in paragraph-13 and 14 which of vital relevance is reproduced herein below:
"13. Yet again, another two-Judge Bench in Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya v. State of Uttar Pradesh opined that Regulations framed under the Act clearly show that upon receiving an application for recommendation, the NCTE shall send a copy of the application with its letter inviting recommendations/comments of the State Government on all aspects within a period of 30 days. To such application, the State is expected to respond with its complete comments within a period of 60 days. In other words, the opinion of the State on all matters that may concern it in any of the specified fields are called for. The Court observed that this is 14 Patna High Court CWJC No.9230 of 2016 (15) dt.15-11-2016 P14 / 19 the stage where the State and its Department should play a vital role and they must take all precautions to offer proper comments supported by due reasoning. Once these comments are sent and the State Government gives its opinion which is considered by the NCTE and examined in conjunction with the report of the experts, it may grant or refuse recognition. Once it grants recognition, then such grant attains supremacy vis-à-vis the State Government as well as the affiliating body. Normally, these questions cannot be re- agitated at the time of grant of affiliation. Proceeding further, it was held that once the University conducts inspection in terms of its Statutes or Act, without offending the provisions of the Act and conditions of recognition, then the opinion of the State Government at the second stage is a mere formality unless there was a drastic and unacceptable mistake or the entire process was vitiated by fraud or there was patently eminent danger to life of the students in the school because of non-compliance of a substantive condition imposed by either of the bodies but in the normal circumstances, the role of the Stat is a very formal one and the State is not expected to obstruct the commencement of admission process and academic courses once recognition is granted and affiliation is found to be acceptable.
14. As we find from the aforesaid authorities as well as the Regulations framed by the NCTE, the State has a say, may be a limited one. We are inclined to use the word 'limited' because the State's say is not binding on the NCTE. However, the NCTE is required to take the same into consideration, for the State has a vital role to offer proper comments supported by due reasoning. It needs no special emphasis to say that final authority rests with the NCTE. It is the clear legal position." (emphasis mine)
14. If the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the State has a say and role to offer and the NCTE is required to take the 15 Patna High Court CWJC No.9230 of 2016 (15) dt.15-11-2016 P15 / 19 same into consideration because the input, which is provided by the State is of vital significance from what has transpired in this Court during the course of hearing it is evident as to why serious resistance was being put up by all these institutions, which may not be entirely bona fide. If what has been declared by these institutions before the NCTE, which formed the basis for grant of permission to take admission is authentic as well as as per actuals, there should not be a huge gap between what was declared and what is found. The Court does not want to go into specific instances as to where things are amiss and amiss in a big way. If this is so then there is something which is required to be done even by NCTE while granting permission to these institutions on the basis of declarations made by them for course correction.
15. If what the Hon'ble Supreme Court has had to say in the case of State of Rajasthan v. LBS B.ED College (supra) and the law as stands today then the opposition, which has been placed by the petitioners to the communication of the Chief Secretary will have to be considered in the above light.
16. In the given facts and the law, the Court would like the National Council of Teachers Education to perform its duties as the nodal authority. They also have to introspect as well as ensure that the duty which is caste upon them under the statute 16 Patna High Court CWJC No.9230 of 2016 (15) dt.15-11-2016 P16 / 19 is not a formality but is guided in such a manner that it succeeds in achieving the object and purpose behind the legislation. The NCTE will continue to grant permission to such institutions but before grant of such permission, there has to be an actual physical verification of the institution with regard to the standards and requirements, which make these institutions eligible for such permission.
17. This Court has had occasions to hear several writ applications where institutions make a grievance that there is a long delay between the decision taken by NCTE and the affiliation, which is granted by either the University or the Board. There is loss of time and energy in litigation in seeking direction for grant of early affiliation. Since admissions have to be granted by such institutions within a timeframe manner as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2013) 2 SCC
617.
18. With the object of cutting down on such time, the Court directs that the team, which will be constituted by NCTE for inspection will also include a nominee from the University or the Examination Board, as the case may be. Such nominee shall be a person nominated by the Vice-Chancellor of a University or 17 Patna High Court CWJC No.9230 of 2016 (15) dt.15-11-2016 P17 / 19 Chairman of the Examination Board. The said nominee shall not be below the rank of a senior Professor or an officer not below the rank of a Secretary of Examination Board. The nominees must have impeccable reputation and integrity.
19. In addition to the above, there are many institutions of such kind, which are located in remote parts of the State of Bihar and people sitting in Bhubaneshwar cannot access such areas easily. The Court is also aware that many of these institutions are run by people who are neither short of money or muscle power. Therefore, the inspecting team needs to be also supported for local logistics and protection has to be extended by the district administration. The team should also comprise of either the District Magistrate or a person nominated by him not below the rank of an Additional Collector. If necessary, the district administration can take the support of the local police in this regard but they will not form part of the inspecting team.
20. The reason for comprising of such team for inspection is also to cut down in delay which is caused between the grant of permission by NCTE and the second inspection, which is carried out by such Universities or the Board and two kinds of report are at times generated. A common team, inspection team and inspection report will help expedite matters and lend 18 Patna High Court CWJC No.9230 of 2016 (15) dt.15-11-2016 P18 / 19 credibility.
21. In view of the above it will not be the District Magistrates or the Superintendent of Police who are going to conduct inspection of these institutions but inspection of these institutions are going to be conducted by the team which has been put in place by virtue of the order passed by the Court.
22. The above order has been passed with regard to private institutions, government institutions including Universities which run such courses which want recognition and affiliation for the future. What about the institutions, which are already in existence and which are also required to be inspected and verified?
23. Since this would be a one time exercise, therefore, the same team, which has been envisaged in the earlier part of the order will also carry out a fresh inspection. The said exercise with throw up new light therefore a fresh decision emerging from such inspection would be required to be taken at the level of National Council of Teachers Education and the authority which grants affiliation for the purposes of conduct of examination. This will be in public interest of one and all.
24. The counsel for the petitioners, the State as well as the National Council of Teachers Education submit that some kind of monitoring can also be done by the Court to ensure that the 19 Patna High Court CWJC No.9230 of 2016 (15) dt.15-11-2016 P19 / 19 spirit and object behind passing of the order is achieved by a timeframe and the matter does not drag on indefinitely since it will not be in the interest of any of the contesting parties to the dispute. The Court is happy to note that after the deliberation is over the parties are not treating the present litigation as an adversarial litigation.
25. As agreed, the Court would like an affidavit on the progress made by the NCTE, the State and the Universities or the Board after the exercise for inspection of the existing institutions is done by 21.03.2017.
26. Matters will be listed on 21.03.2017 for further consideration on the inputs on the exercise done till then.
(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.) S.Kumar/-
U