Patna High Court
Managing Committee Of Bhagwan Budh ... vs The State Of Bihar And Ors. on 16 March, 1994
Equivalent citations: 1995(1)BLJR85
JUDGMENT G.C. Bharuka, J.
1. This writ application was originally filed for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents Bihar School Examination Board to allow the candidates of the petitioner to appear at the ensuing examination for the academic session 1989-91 and 1990-92 pertaining to teachers training and to publish the result. But subsequently an amendment petition was filed whereby the petitioner has sought to challenge the order dated 7-4-1993 (Annexure 8) passed by the State Government in Human Resources Development Department by which the application of the petitioner for grant of recognition/permission contemplated under the provisions of the Bihar Non-Government Physical Training Colleges and Non-Government Teacher's Training Colleges and Non-Government Primary Teacher's Education Colleges (Control and Regulation) Act, 1982 (hereinafter the Act only) read with Bihar Non-Government Teachers Training Colleges and Non-Government Primary Teachers Education College (Control and Regulation) Rules, 1987, has been rejected.
2. It appears that after the enforcement of the Act, the petitioner had filed, an application for grant of permission/recognition for admitting and running a teachers training college for training of primary school teachers. The application was filed sometime in May, 1983, Though this institution was not granted any permission/recognition either for admitting students to the courses or for conducting the courses of studies in question still under some interim orders obtained from this Court, the candidates claiming to be the students/trainees of the petitioner-institution were made to appear at the respective examinations held by the Bihar School Examination Board (hereinafter the "Examination Board" only) for four academic sessions 1983-85, 1984-86, 1985-87 and 1986-88. It also appears that the Deputy Director of Education and the District Education Officer, after some enquiry and inspection of the institution, submitted a report dated 15-6-87 recommending for grant of recognition to the institution. Possibly keeping in view this report, the State Government under its memo No. 1107 dated 27-11-87 granted recognition to the petitioner, institution for the periods 1987-89 and 1988-90, subject to the fulfilling of the following conditions:
(i) The institution should shift to its own building within a fixed time limit.
(ii) It should appoint teaching and non-teaching staff having prescribed qualifications and eligibility within a fixed time limit.
(iii) There should be a well equipped library in the institution.
It is a matter of record that the Joint Secretary to the Government in the Department of Education as also the District Education Officer had again individually submitted reports dated 3.5.88 and 6.5.1988 recommending therein for grant of recognition to the institution for the periods 1987-89 ad 1988-90. But the Government by its order dated 2.2.1989 refused to grant recognition for the said periods on the grounds that the institution failed to fulfil the conditions laid down in the rules for recognition setting out five specific deficiencies. The petitioner unsuccessfully challenged the said order before this Court by filing a writ petition. Thereafter by obtaining leave, the petitioner filed an appeal being Civil Appeal No. 4129 of 1989 before the Supreme Court, which was disposed of on 21-9-90 (Annexure 3) with a direction to the respondents to dispose of the application of the petitioner for grant of recognition to the petitioner for the periods 1983-85 to 1986-88 by 31-12-1990. While giving this direction, the Supreme Court took note of the fact that the statutory rules under the Act has come into force only in 1987 and, therefore, the question of recognition for the said period "will not depend upon conformity with the strict provisions of the rules." Keeping in view (his direction of the Supreme Court, the State Government under its order dated 31-12-1990 (Annexure 4) granted recognition to the petitioner institution for the aforesaid periods till 1986-88. Having succeeded in getting its candidates to appear at the desired examination of teachers training for the session upto 1988-90, the Secretary of the institution addressed several letters including dated 2.7.91 and 7.2.91 (Annexure 5) the State Government for grant of recognition for the subsequent periods as well. But since no decision was being taken in this regard by the State Government the petitioner again filed a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 7479 of 1992 which was disposed of on 11.12.1992 whereby the Director, Research and Training, Respondent No. 2, was directed to dispose of the petitioner's application for grant of recognition within four months. Pursuant to this direction, the impugned order dated 7-4-1993 (Annexure 8) has been passed whereby the application for grant of recognition to the petitioner-institution has been rejected on the ground of no fulfillment of the conditions laid down for recognition under the Rules. The impugned orders contains 12 reasons for refusing the recognition to the petitioner-institution, which are as follows:
(i) The College does not possess any land of its own. It claims to be possessing 10-11 Bighas of land on lease.
(ii) The College does not have is own play ground. It has taken a play ground on lease for 7 years.
(iii) There is no residential accommodation for the Principal of the College.
(iv) The College library contains sub-standard books
(v) Students are not admitted in the College as per prescribed procedure.
(vi) The College does not impart education in accordance with prescribed curriculum.
(vii) Rupees one thousand is charged from every student, who intends to take admission in the College, which is contrary to the rules.
(viii) College laboratory possess negligible apparatus and chemicals.
(ix) The Principal of the College is not B.Ed. Amongst the teachers only Smt. Urmila Kumar is B.ED. This shows that the College has not employed qualified teachers to impart satisfactory training.
(x) The College does not have proper arrangement for imparting appropriate training.
(xi) The College has not furnished any accounts before the Inspecting team, and
(xii) The Secretary of the College is a Government employee, which is impermissible.
While assailing the impugned order (Annexure 8), learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondents have committed an error of record in holding that the Principal of the College is not B.Ed. Since according to him the present Principal of the College is holding the qualification of B.A. B.T. and has joined the institution after his superannuation from the post of Principal of a Government Teachers Training College. He has further submitted that keeping in view the earlier order and directions of the Supreme Court (Annexure 3), the respondents have absolutely no authority in law to reject the application for recognition as has been done by the impugned order.
3. After hearing the learned Counsel for the contesting parties and on consideration of the attending facts and the statutory provisions, I am of the view that the question involved in this case now stands finally settled by a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of St. John's Teachers Training Institute (For Women), Madurai v. State of Tamil Nadu, . The apex Court by referring to its earlier judgments in the case of N.M. Nageshwaramma v. State of A.P. reported in 1986 Supp. SCC, 166 and in Andhra Kesari. Educational Society v. Director of School Education , has laid emphasis on the need of maintaining very high standards of education, sports, administration and maintenance in Teachers Training Institutes. It has been said that though the teachers taking training in these institutions for acquiring the desired qualification are no doubt required to pass the examination but that by itself is not enough. What is more important is training for a certain minimum period in a properly organised and equipped Training Institute which can be achieved only in an institution which is well equipped for the said purpose in accordance with the Act and the Rules made in this regard. In the case of St. John's Training Institute (supra) the apex Court in para 12 of the judgment has held that:
this Court cannot go into the question as to whether a Teacher Training Institute should be set up on a Campus consisting of 10 acres or 5 acres. It is also not for this Court to lay down the sizes of the classrooms, laboratories, number of toilets or the number of books to be kept in the library. It is entirely for the State Government to lay down the requirements of a Teachers Training Institute Campus.
In para 21 of the said judgment, their Lordships have struck a note of caution in respect of passing of interim orders by courts directing the students of unrecognised institutions, to appear at the examination concerned. Their Lordships have held that 'the Courts should not issue fiat to allow the students of unrecognised institutions to appear at the different examinations pending the disposal of the writ applications'.
4. In the present case on a reading of the conditions laid down in the statutory rules for grant of recognition and the infirmities noticed by the Government in the impugned order, most of which remained unrebutted by the petitioner. In my opinion, no relief can be granted to them in writ jurisdiction. The plea that in view of the directions of the Supreme Court as contained in Annexure-3, it was incumbent upon the State Government to grant recognition to the institution even in respect of the periods in question, has also to be rejected because the Supreme Court has merely directed the State Government to consider the grant of recognition to the petitioner for four academic sessions i.e. 1983-85, 1984-86, 1985-87 and 1986-88 without seeking strict compliance with the provisions of the Rules which had come into force only in 1987. In my opinion, the question of grant of recognition for the period during which the statutory rules had come into force, the grievance of the petitioner has to be judged keeping in view the law so laid down by the apex Court in St. John's Teachers Training Institute case (supra) and also keeping in view the infirmities pointed out by the State Government. Under the circumstances, I am of the considered view that no relief can be granted to the petitioner in writ jurisdiction by this Court.
5. Anyhow it will be open for the petitioner institution to file a fresh application in the form and manner prescribed in the rules clearly stating therein as to whether it has fulfilled all the conditions required for getting recognition/permission. In the event such an application is filed, (he State Government will constitute a three man committee as prescribed under Rule 6 of the Rules and dispose of the application keeping in view the recommendation of the said Committee within three months from the date of filing of such application.
6. With the above observation and directions this writ application is dismissed. But there shall be no order as to costs in the facts and circumstances of this case.
Gurusharan Sharma, J.
7. I agree.