Madhya Pradesh High Court
Oriental University Indore Thru. ... vs National Council For Teachers ... on 13 June, 2016
Bench: Jarat Kumar Jain, Vivek Rusia
-:: 1 ::- W.P.No.3738 of 2016
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR
BENCH INDORE
( Division Bench )
(Hon'ble Shri Justice Jarat Kumar Jain and
Hon'ble Shri Justice Vivek Rusia)
Writ Petition No.3738 of 2016
Oriental University, Indore through its Registrar Narendra
Kumar Mehar
VERSUS
National Council for Teachers Education and another
*****
Shri V.K.Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri R.S.Chhabra, learned counsel for the respondents.
*****
O R D E R
( Passed on this 13th day of June, 2016 ) Per J.K.Jain, J. :
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for setting aside the order passed by the respondent No.1 on 02.05.2016 and for issuance of direction to respondent No.2 to grant approval for four units as additional intake in B.Ed. Course.
[2] Petitioner is a private university established under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Niji Vishwavidyalaya (Sthapna Avam Sanchalan) Adhiniyam, 2011 and a approved state private university by U.G.C. Petitioner is running various courses including B.Ed. In April, 2015, the petitioner applied for approval of additional 200 seats (4 units) in its B.Ed. Course. After the inspection, -:: 2 ::- W.P.No.3738 of 2016 the visiting team had recommended the same. However, Western Regional Committee, NCTE, Bhopal in the 246th meeting without assigning any reason or pointed out any deficiency has granted approval only for 50 additional seats for B.Ed. Course. Since the petitioner is having all infrastructure and facility and no reason was assigned for not approving four units, hence the petitioner submitted a letter on 19.03.2016 requesting to grant approval for four units.
The 247th meeting of Western Regional Committee was held on 4-6/04/2016 and the case of the petitioner was considered, but without any reason the same has been rejected. Thereafter, petitioner again submitted a representation to respondent No.2 but the same was rejected. Thereafter, petitioner filed an appeal before the respondent No.1 against the order of respondent No.2. For an early decision of appeal the petitioner approached this Court by filing a Writ Petition No.2836/2016. This Court disposed of the Writ Petition with a direction to decide the appeal expeditiously. Thereafter respondent No.1 has dismissed the appeal vide order dated 02.05.2016 without assigning reasons. Therefore, petitioner has filed this petition on the ground that the respondent No.2 did not grant any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing order for granting approval with lesser number of seats and while passing the order, recommendation made by the visiting team has not been considered. Respondent No.1 being an appellate authority, was bound to decide the issue whether respondent No.2 was justified in granting approval for one -:: 3 ::- W.P.No.3738 of 2016 unit instead of four units. But the appellate authority has not decided the dispute independently. Hence, the order passed by the respondents are liable to be set aside.
[3] The respondents have filed joint return and their stand is that the petitioner has been given recognition of two units of B.Ed. in March, 2015 and has also been granted permission for additional 50 units for B.Ed. and different courses for the year 2016-17. As per Clause 3.1 of Appendix 4 pf NCTE Regulations, 2014, there can be only one basic unit of 50 seats with a maximum of two units. The petitioner university cannot demand more than prescribed under Clause 3.1 of Appendix 4. Therefore, considering the said provision of law the application of the petitioner was decided. The petitioner university has three units of B.Ed. (150 students). As per the Regulation 7(8) of Regulation 2014 the visiting team (VT) at the time of inspection for new courses or enhancement of the intake of existing course shall verify the facility for existing recognized teachers education course and ascertain the fulfillment and maintenance of Regulations and norms and standards for existing courses as well. The visiting team has not taken into account Clause 3.1 of Appendix 4. The decision for grant of permission does not solely vests on the inspection report and respondent No.2 is not bound by the report of the VT. It is further averted that Respondent No.1 issued LOI for one additional unit of B.Ed. course on 21.03.2016. There was no protest when the LOI was received by the petitioner. The appeal has been decided judiciously. Considering the provisions of NCTE -:: 4 ::- W.P.No.3738 of 2016 Regulations, 2014 and norms and standards for B.Ed. Course, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief claimed in the petition.
[4] Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the visiting team in its report recommended for granting additional four units for B.Ed. Course but the Western Regional Committee (WRC) without assigning any reason or pointed out any deficiency recommended only for one additional unit for B.Ed. Course. Representations made by the petitioners were not considered and respondent No.1/appellate authority without assigning any reason dismissed the appeal. It is further submitted that subsequent explanations or reasons averted in the return and affidavit cannot be accepted to sustain the order. For this purpose he placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill V/s. Chief Election Commissioner reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405, Nandkishore Ganesh Joshi V/s. Commissioner Municipal Corporation of Kalyan reported in (2004) 11 SCC 417 and State of Punjab V/s. Bandeep Singh reported in (2016) 1 SCC 724.
[5] Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that even the stand taken by the respondents in the return that as per Clause 3.1 of Appendix 4 Regulations, 2014, total three units can be approved is not correct. This provision is only for initial stage, therefore, the justification for not approving the additional four units for B.Ed. Course cannot be accepted.
[6] Learned counsel for the petitioner also -:: 5 ::- W.P.No.3738 of 2016 submits that it is not correct that the petitioner has not protested when the LOI was received. On 19th March, 2016 while accepting the LOI for one additional unit on the same day the petitioner has sent a protest letter (Annexure-P/6) to respondent No.2. Lastly, learned Counsel submits that the appellate authority has not assigned any reason for dismissing the appeal, therefore, the order be set aside and the matter be remanded back to the appellate authority for passing reasoned and speaking order.
[7] On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the visiting committee report is not binding on respondent No.2 and respondent No.2 considering all material facts approved one additional unit for B.Ed. course, two units of B.A. B.Ed. course, one unit of M.Ed. course and two units for B.Ed. part time course for academic session 2016-17. It is true that reasons have not been assigned by respondent No.2 for approving only one additional unit for B.Ed. course. However, appellate authority in its order dated 02.05.2016, in view of Clause 3.1 Appendix 4 of Regulations NCTE, gave a finding that the respondent No.2 has rightly granted one additional unit for B.Ed. course. It may be said that the appellate authority's order is not very happily worded but it cannot be said that the order is a non-speaking order. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner has not made any allegation about the mala fide on the part of the respondents. There is no illegality or perversity in the orders and the decision has been taken considering the provisions of NCTE Regulations, 2014.
-:: 6 ::- W.P.No.3738 of 2016Thus, the petition be dismissed.
[8] After hearing learned counsel for the
parties, we have perused the record.
[9] Firstly, we would like to examine whether
the reasons in the impugned order are judicious, fair and reasonable. For this purpose, it is useful to refer the operative portion of the impugned order which reads as under :-
"AND WHEREAS the Committee noted that the appellant, while submitting the required documents to the W.R.C. in response to the Letter of Intent, which contained their decision to grant one additional unit, did not either question the decision of the W.R.C. or seek reasons for granting one additional unit only. This shows that the appellant was willing to accept the additional intake as granted by the W.R.C. Further, it is stated that Western Regional Committee (NCTE), Bhopal has already granted permission for annual intake of 150 students (100+50) leading to a total of 300 students for two years. In these circumstances, the Committee concluded that the appeal deserved to be rejected and the order of the W.R.C. confirmed.
AND WHEREAS after perusal of the memorandum of appeal, affidavit, the documents available on record and considering the oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Committee concluded that the appeal deserved to be rejected and the order of the WRC is confirmed.
NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against."
[10] As per the appellate authority, in response to LOI which contained to grant one additional unit for B.Ed., the petitioner did not question the decision of WRC or seek reasons for granting only one additional unit. It is evident from the record that the petitioner in compliance of LOI sent a letter dated 19.03.2016 (Annexure-P/5) fulfilled the formalities for additional one unit for B.Ed. and on the -:: 7 ::- W.P.No.3738 of 2016 same day sent another letter (Annexure-P/6) to the respondent No.2 with the request that the petitioner University possesses the infrastructure and facilities to run additional intake of four units of B.Ed. Hence, petitioner be granted additional 4 units in B.Ed. Course. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner has accepted the decision without any protest or representation. It is not denied by the Respondents in their return that the petitioner has not submitted representation dated 19.03.2016 (Annexure-P/6).
[11] In the return, the Respondents have taken a stand that as per the Clause 3.1 of Appendix 4 of NCTE Regulations, 2014, the Respondent No.2 has rightly granted permission for total 3 units for B.Ed. course.
12] The appellate authority in the impugned order has not mentioned that as per Clause 3.1 of Appendix 4 of NCTE Regulations, 2014, total 3 units can be approved. Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill (supra); Nandkishore Ganesh Joshi (supra); and Bandeep Singh (supra) held that the action to be judged by the reasons stated while making the order and supplementary reasons in the shape of affidavit to be excluded.
[13] Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Nandkishore Ganesxh Joshi (supra), held as under :-
"21. ..... ..... ..... ..... A statutory authority, as is well known, when it acts in terms of a statute, is bound by its action. It cannot supplement or supplant the reason later on by way of affidavit. ..... ..... ..... ....."
[14] Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Bandeep -:: 8 ::- W.P.No.3738 of 2016 Singh (supra), held as under :-
"4. There can be no gainsaying that every decision of an administrative or executive nature must be a composite and self-sustaining one, in that it should contain all the reasons which prevailed on the official taking the decision to arrive at his conclusion. It is beyond cavil that any authority cannot be permitted to travel beyond the stand adopted and expressed by it in the impugned action. If precedent is required for this proposition it can be found in the celebrated decision titled Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commr. [(1978) 1 SCC 405] of which the following paragraph deserves extraction : (SCC p. 417, para 8) "8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose, j. in Gordhandas Bhanji [AIR 1952 SC 16] (AIR p.18, para 9) '9. ..... public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself.' Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older."
[15] It is evident from the order of appellate -:: 9 ::- W.P.No.3738 of 2016 authority that while dismissing the appeal, they have not assign the reason that in the light of Clause 3.1 of Appendix 4 of NCTE Regulations, 2014, permission for maximum 3 units can be granted. Therefore, keeping in view the dictum of Hon'ble apex Court, the subsequent stand taken in the return cannot be allowed. However, we have considered Clause 3.1 of Appendix 4 of NCTE Regulations, 2014. This Clause provides that there shall be a basic unit of 50 students, with a maximum of two units. It means in initial stage the permission can be granted maximum for two units. But there is no provision that the permission cannot be granted for more than 3 units.
[16] In the present case, the visiting team in its report recommended for granting additional 4 units for B.Ed. Course. Western Regional Committee in the minutes of 22.04.2016 meeting held on March 16-18th, 2016 at Sl.No.23 - without assigning any reason or pointed out any deficiency, only granted permission for 1 additional unit of the B.Ed. Course. The petitioner has submitted representations on 19.03.2016 and 05.04.2016, but the respondent No.2 has not considered these representations. Thereafter petitioner has filed an appeal before the Respondent No.1 but the Respondent No.1 has dismissed the appeal on a frivolous ground that while accepting the LOI for additional 1 unit, the petitioner has not protested or made any representation; whereas from the record it is evident that the petitioner has made the representation on the same day.
[17] In such circumstances, we are of the view -:: 10 ::- W.P.No.3738 of 2016 that the Respondent No.1 being a statutory authority should have pass the reasoned order and act independently in fair manner which is lacking in the impugned order. Thus, we have no option except to set-aside the impugned order. Accordingly the order is hereby set-aside. The matter is remanded back to the appellate authority to pass a speaking order within a period of one month.
Thus, the petition is allowed as indicated above. No order as to costs.
[ JARAT KUMAR JAIN ] [VIVEK RUSIA]
JUDGE JUDGE
(Sharma AK/*)