Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sri Guru Gobind Singh Khalsa College vs Panjab University on 13 September, 2012
Author: Ranjit Singh
Bench: Ranjit Singh
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.410 OF 2011 :{ 1 }:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: September 13, 2012
Sri Guru Gobind Singh Khalsa College, Mahilpur, District Hoshiarpur
....Petitioner
Versus
Panjab University, Chandigarh and others
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
Present: Ms. Neha Jain, Advocate for
Mr. K.S. Dadwal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Navkiran Singh, Advocate and
Ms. Harpreet Kaur, Advocate.
Mr. Deepak Sibal, Advocate
for the University.
Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Advocate for
Mr. Vinod S. Bhardwaj, Advocate
for N.C.T.E.
****
RANJIT SINGH J.(ORAL):
This order shall dispose of eight Civil Writ Petition No. 410 of 2011(Gurjeet Kaur and others Versus Panjab University, Chandigarh and others), Civil Writ Petition No. 6182 of 2011 (Gurjeet Kaur and others Versus Panjab University and others), Civil Writ Petition No. 884 of 2011(Randeep Kaur and others Versus Panjab University and others), Civil Writ Petition No. 6493 of 2011 (Gurjeet Kaur and others Versus Panjab University and others), CWP CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.410 OF 2011 :{ 2 }:
No.6313 of 2011(Randeep Kaur and others Versus Panjab University and others), CWP No. 6486 of 2011(Bhagel Singh and others Versus Panjab University and others), CWP No. 6487 of 2011(Gagan Deep Singh and others Versus Panjab University and others) and CWP No. 11749 of 2011(Rajneesh Kaur and another Versus Panjab University and others). The facts are being taken from Civil Writ Petition No. 410 of 2011.
The petitioner-Institution in this case has approached this Court seeking writ of mandamus for University to declare the result of the students of 3rd and 4th years of B.P.Ed (4 years course), examination for which was held in April/May, 2010.
The petitioner-Institution is affiliated with the respondent- Panjab University for Bachelor of Physical Education (4 years course) with intake of 50 seats. The first Session commenced in 2006-07 and admissions were also continued in 2007-08 and 2008- 09 after due affiliation. Regular admission in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd year for Sessions 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 had also taken place. Subsequently, in the year 2008-09, a condition was imposed regarding the necessity of approval by Regional Director NCTE, Jaipur for the purpose of running B.P.Ed classes for 4 year also. The College thereafter has stopped this course. The students, who were already admitted in the year 2006-07 were in the pipe-line and were in the process of completing 4 years course. They appeared in the examination held in April/May, 2010 but their result was not declared.
The petitioner-Institution filed representation on 21.8.2010 and prayed for declaring the result of such students as they were CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.410 OF 2011 :{ 3 }:
admitted after due affiliation. Obvious plea is that necessity to obtain sanction/permission from NCTE at that time was not the need. Despite representations, which are more than one in number, the University has not declared the result and this has now necessitated the filing of present petitions by the petitioner and others Institutions.
Written statement is filed on behalf of the University. It is pointed out that petitioner-Institution was repeatedly asked to seek approval for running this course from NCTE and when it failed to do so, the respondent-University was left with no choice but to take action directing the petitioner-Institution to stop further admission. The result of the students, who had already been admitted and were permitted to appear in the examination, was withheld. It is pointed out that the affiliation given to the petitioner-Institution was provisional. The assertion made by the petitioner-Institution that the affiliation was unconditional is disputed and denied. Reference is then made to communications, which were initiated by the University requiring the College to pursue their case with NCTE for grant of recognition. Reference is also made to the resolutions passed by the Syndicate of the University in this regard, which have been reproduced in the reply. It is stated that the copies of such resolutions were forwarded to the Colleges. It is then pointed out that despite this, the College did not seek approval of recognition from the NCTE and ultimately decision to prohibit the institution from making further admissions was passed. It is this want of approval from NCTE for which the result of the students, who had appeared in the examination, has been withheld. It is pleaded that till date, no approval has been CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.410 OF 2011 :{ 4 }:
obtained from NCTE. It is accordingly urged that the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed.
Initially, the petitioner-Institution had not impleaded NCTE as party-respondent. Subsequently, however, the action was taken to implead Regional Director, NCTE, Jaipur which was allowed and notice was issued to NCTE as well. During the pendency of petition, the students, who were admitted in M.P.Ed and B.P.Ed Courses with the petitioner-College were permitted to take examination provisionally subject to the outcome of writ petition. On this count, they were not to be conferred with any equitable rights. Despite repeated opportunities, the NCTE failed to respond and did not file any reply. This invited a punitive order whereby costs of `25,000/- was imposed while granting last opportunity to NCTE for filing reply. Reply on behalf of the NCTE has also been filed. Reference is made to the Regulations which lay down the procedure for grant of recognition to an institution to run such courses. These are as under:-
"(a) The institution shall appoint the staff as per NCTE norms i.e. the Selection Committee is to be constituted as per policy of the State Government/Affiliating University/Affiliating Body/UGC.
(b) The institutions are required to submit an Affidavit (Formats enclosed) on Rs.100 stamp paper from the management of the institutions and Affidavit on Rs.10 stamp paper from the staff appointed.
(c ) Attention of the institutions concerned are also CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.410 OF 2011 :{ 5 }:
drawn to Regulation 7(12) of NCTE Regulation dated 13th January, 2006, which reads as "The institution concerned, after appointing the requisite faculty/staff, shall put the information on its official website and also formally inform the Regional Committee concerned. The Regional Committee concerned shall, then, issue a formal unconditional recognition order". Compliance with the requirement shall be submitted on a Sworn Affidavit and annexure there to the issue of Unconditional Recognition Order. The institution shall not admit students to the course, until it submits the compliance regarding the appointment of the qualified teaching staff and until the unconditional recognition order under 7(12) of the Regulations is issued to the institution."
A reference is also made to the purposes for which NCTE Act, 1993 was enacted by the Parliament. It is pointed out that Institution shall not admit students to the course, until it submits the compliance regarding the appointment of the qualified teaching staff and until the unconditional recognition order under 7(12) of the Regulations is issued to the Institution. NRC thereafter is also vested with the powers under Section 14(3)(a) of the NCTE Act, whereby unconditional recognition is a need to achieve planned and coordinated development of the teacher education system throughout the country. It is then pointed out that as per Section 16 of the Act, no examining body shall, on or after the appointed day grant affiliation, whether provisional or otherwise to any Institution or to CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.410 OF 2011 :{ 6 }:
hold examination whether provisional or otherwise for a course or training conducted by a recognized Institution, unless the institution concerned has obtained recognition from the Regional Committee concerned under Section 14 or permission for a course or training under Section 15. The Institutions are to make admission only after obtaining unconditional order of recognition from the Regional Committee concerned and affiliation from the examining body.
That being the legal position, the issue was mainly about the fate of students, who were admitted by these institutions but are now left in the lurch. The issue to an extent was compounded when the University under the directions of this court was asked to declare the result. The result of most of the candidates was declared, but some of the students, who had appeared in Session 2009-10 had not received their result. The counsel for the NCTE was directed to seek instructions about the fate of students, who had passed the examinations. The case had to be adjourned on various occasions on the assurance of the counsel appearing for NCTE that some decision in respect of such students was under contemplation.
This court had to make some sympathetic observations and asked the NCTE to consider the case of students, who were innocent victims of the College and should not be punished for no fault on their part, particularly when their result has been declared. Again few adjournments followed, when this court sternly required of NCTE to take a final decision within a period of four weeks and if no decision was taken, directed the Secretary NCTE to remain present before the Court. When the said directions were also not complied CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.410 OF 2011 :{ 7 }:
with and on the following date none had appeared on behalf of NCTE, bailable warrants were issued to ensure presence of the Secretary with a further notice requiring him to show cause as to why contempt proceedings be not initiated against him.
Thereafter this court on 23.3.2012 analysed the affidavit of Mr.Vikram Sahai and heard the counsel also and made the following observations:-
"I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. I have also heard Mr.Sahai on various issues which cropped up during the arguments. Mr.Sahai would file a comprehensive additional affidavit disclosing the stand of the NCTE in respect of the petitioning college and the students who were admitted in the year 2005-06 to the four years B.P.Ed. Course. The additional affidavit would contain an explanation of the notification dated 27.11.2007, Appendix 10 to that notification, letter Annexure R4/16 filed with the written statement of the fourth respondent in which NCTE states "This requires permission as well." The additional affidavit would also contain an explanation of the public notice dated 29.07.2009 and would also opine on the correspondence Annexures R4/12, R4/13 and R4/14 exchanged between the colleges and the NCTE; interconnection between the Panjab University and the NCTE; the difference between the integrated programme and an innovative programme; in which cases power and CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.410 OF 2011 :{ 8 }:
relaxation are exercisable under Regulation 12 of the Regulations framed under the Act and any other matter which Mr.Sahai would think important for a just decision of this case."
In Para 21 of the additional affidavit filed by Mr.Vikram Sahay, it is mentioned that while seeking information under R.T.I. Act, the said applicant had misguided the NCTE about the recognition granted to Government College, Sector 11, Chandigarh, for the conduct of B.P.Ed. Course, stating that the same was granted retrospectively. It is, however, clarified that NRC, NCTE, Jaipur, had granted recognition to the abovesaid Institution on 14.5.2008 for B.P.Ed. course for intake of 50 students. It is pointed out that it is apparent from the order that there is no mention of retrospectively recognition to this Institution. Counsel for the petitioners had referred to this part of the affidavit to urge that there was no clarity as to whether order dated 14.5.2008 had retrospective effect with effect from Session 2005-06. The Court thereafter required another additional affidavit and also asked the counsel appearing for respondent No.4 to file affidavit in this regard. Additional affidavit was accordingly filed on 25.5.2012. Reference is made to Section 16 of the Act, which deals with the grant of affiliation by the Examining Body for a new course or training by regular Institutions and provides as under:-
"Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no examining body shall, on or after the appointed day,-
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.410 OF 2011 :{ 9 }:
(a) grant affiliation, whether provisional or otherwise to any institution; or
(b) hold examination, whether provisional or otherwise, for a course of training conducted by a recognized institution, Unless the institution concerned has obtained recognition from the Regional Committee concerned, under Section 14 or permission for a course or training under Section
15."
It is further clarified that mere submission of the application by any Institution does not mean to grant the recognition from the Session from which the application was made. Thus, it is stated that order dated 14.5.2008 has prospective effect only. Further direction to clarify as to why inspection should not be carried out in respective Colleges so that these Colleges can determined there future course of action, it is submitted that Section 14 of the NCTE Act deals with recognition of the Institutions, offering training course in Teachers Education. Section 14(1) provides that every Institution offering or intending to offer a course or training in Teacher's Education on or after appointed day, may make an application to the Regional Committee for grant of recognition under the Act. NCT Regulation, 2009 (in vogue), the Regional Committee after receipt of application is to process the same in accordance with Regulation 7 inter-alia causing inspection of the Institution with a view to assess the level of preparedness of the Institution to commence the course. It is further pointed out that there is no pending application from the petitioner-College and NGKM Shahi Sports Colleges, Samrala. Guru CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.410 OF 2011 :{ 10 }:
Gobind Singh Khalsa College, Mahilpur, District Hoshiarpur, has withdrawn its application vide letter dated 2.12.2011 whereas MGKM Shahi Sports College, Samrala, has not made formal application to NCTE for grant of recognition of B.P.Ed. Four years integrated course and hence, there is no need to carry any further inspection for Session 2012-13.
In view of the above, the respondent-NCTE is clearly of the view that it is not possible for it to recognise a course with retrospective effect. The counsel appearing for NCTE, however, points out that the University can award a valid degree and for want of sanction by NCTE, such degree holders may not be entitled to work as teachers but for other purposes, especially of qualification, such degree may be considered valid.
That appears to be the the best solution in the facts and circumstances of the case. It will not be appropriate to direct NCTE to recognise this degree with retrospective effect. Obviously, students have been put to a great prejudice by the Institution who had admitted them without obtaining proper and requisite sanctions from all the authorities concerned. The University to an extent had also added to the miseries to these students by granting affiliation without awaiting the approval of the NCTE. The University did take an action to rectify the situation and ultimately even prohibited the petitioner- institution to admit the students but by then sufficient damage had been caused. To safeguard the interest of the students, direction is hereby issued to declare the result of such students, who were permitted to appear in the examination and have passed. This would CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.410 OF 2011 :{ 11 }:
be a legal and valid result. If there is any need to permit such students to appear through some unconditionally recognised colleges that may also be considered sympathetically in the case of the students of these institutions. The degrees so issued to the students ofcourse would be recognised in terms of law for the purposes of which it would be so relevant and not for any other purpose for want of recognition by NCTE.
The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of.
(RANJIT SINGH) JUDGE September 13, 2012 ramesh