Himachal Pradesh High Court
Sh. Balbir Kumar vs Gautam Group on 23 November, 2021
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Chander Bhusan Barowalia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
ON THE 23rd DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1780/2019
BETWEEN:
SH. BALBIR KUMAR,
S/O SH. DHANI RAM,
R/O VILLAGE SIDHPUR,
TEHSIL DHARAMPUR,
DISTRICT MANDI-175040, H.P.
.... PETITIONER
(BY SH. SANJEEV BHUSHAN, SR. ADVOCATE
WITH MR. RAJESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE.)
AND
1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
THROUGH SECRETARY (HOME) TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH.
2. NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION
(NCTE) (NORTHERN REGIONAL COMMITTEE),
G-7, SECTOR-10, NEAR METRO STATION,
DWARIKA, NEW DELHI-110075,
THROUGH ITS REGIONAL DIRECTOR.
3. HIMACHAL PRADESH SCHOOL EDUCATION
BOARD, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY,
DHARAMSHALA, HP-176213.
4. HIMACHAL PRADESH UNIVERSITY,
THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR,
SUMMERHILL, SHIMLA-05.
5. CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION
(CBSE), SHIKSHA KENDRA, 2, COMMUNITY
CENTRE, PREET VIHAR, DELHI-110092,
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY.
6. BLOOMS COLLEGE OF EDUCATION,
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:19:00 :::CIS
2
VILLAGE KOT, P.O. CHUNAHAN,
TEHSIL BALH, DISTRICT MANDI-175027,
H.P. THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT,
SH. PARVEEN KUMAR.
7. BLOOMS COLLEGE OF EDUCATION,
VILLAGE KOT, P.O. CHUNAHAN,
.
TEHSIL BALH, DISTRICT MANDI-175027,
H.P. THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT,
DR. FRANCINA, W/O PARVEEN KUMAR,
R/O 176/11, SUNDERNAAR,
MANDI, H.P.
8. BLOOMS COLLEGE OF EDUCATION,
VILLAGE KOT, P.O. CHUNAHAN,
TEHSIL BALH, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.175027,
THROUGH ITS FOUNDER MEMBER,
SH. PARVEEN KUMAR, S/O SH. SHIV KUMAR,
R/O 176/11, PURANA BAZAR,
DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.
..RESPONDENTS
(SH. ASHOK SHARMA, A.G. WITH
MR. RAJINDER DOGRA, SR. ADDL. A.G. FOR R-1)
(MR. B. NANDAN VASHISTA, ADVOCATE, FOR R-2)
(MR. VINOD CHAUHAN, ADVOCATE, FOR R-3)
(MR. NEEL KAMAL SHARMA, ADVOCATE, FOR R-4)
(MS. RITTA GOSWAMI & MS. KOMAL, ADVOCATES FOR R-5)
(MR. SHRAWAN DOGRA, SR. ADVOCATE WITH
SH. BHARAT THAKUR, SH. HARSH KALTA, SH. TEJASVI
DOGRA AND SH. DEEPAK SHARMA, ADVOCATES, FOR R-6
&7)
(SH. AJAY DHIMAN, ADVOCATE, FOR R-8)
RESERVED ON: 16.11.2021
___________________________________________________________________
This petition coming on for admission after notice this
day, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, passed the
following:
ORDER
The petitioner claims to have filed the instant petition, as pro bono, for grant of the following substantive reliefs:
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:19:00 :::CIS 3"(i) that appropriate writ, order or directions may very kindly be issued directing respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 to take appropriate action by further directing these authorities to immediately withdraw the .
recognition/affiliation granted to respondent No.6 for running the B.Ed. and D.El.Ed. course, in the interest of law and justice.
(ii) that appropriate writ order or direction may very kindly be issued to respondent No.1 to register appropriate proceedings including registration of FIR against the authorities running the respondent No.6 for committing various acts of criminal nature including committing the fraud on the various authorities, in the interest of law and justice.
(iii) that apart from this, the proceedings for committing a perjury by filing a wrong affidavit before this Hon'ble Court may also very kindly be initiated against the respondent No.6.
2 It is averred that the petitioner is a law graduate and being an active social worker has been raising social issues at various platforms. The petitioner belongs to District Mandi and is aggrieved by the mushroom growth of private educational institutions, which are being run contrary to the provisions of Act(s)/Rules/Guidelines. It is claimed that respondent No.6- Blooms College of Education is one such institute, which despite intervention of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, inspections carried out by the SIT and thereafter even complete exercise undertake ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:19:00 :::CIS 4 by this Court, has failed to rectify its deficiencies and has rather misled the authorities to grant affiliation and recognition to run the courses. Respondent No.6-college is being run under an .
umbrella of a society known as Blooms Educational Society. The society is running a school in the name and style of Saint Xavier's Residential School on the land and building, which respondent No.6 has been showing to the inspection teams time and again for professional courses being run by it by covering the sign board of the school with the flex banners of the college for getting recognition and affiliation to B.Ed. and D.El.Ed. courses.
3 Respondent No.5-CBSE, in its reply, has averred that in the year 2013, it received a complaint from one Bhagi Rath against the Saint Xavier's Residential School and looking to the seriousness of the matter, it sought an explanation from Saint Xavier's School vide letter dated 5.6.2013. On receipt of the reply, the complaint was forwarded to the Vigilance Unit for inquiring into the matter.
4 The Vigilance Unit constituted a committee of two members to conduct the inquiry. On 4.5.2011, the Inspection Committee visited the school campus and found the same to be closed after inquiring about the Principal, staff and students from the gateman present there and the committee inspected the premises from outside. In the interim report so submitted by the ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:19:00 :::CIS 5 committee, it was specifically observed that the sign board of the Saint Xavier's School as well as that of Blooms B.Ed. college have been placed together on the main gate. It was further observed in .
the report that the B.Ed. college and Saint Xavier's School were being run in the same campus. The report further stated that the Managing Committee of the school and college was directed to keep the relevant documents available for physical inspection on the next date. Thereafter, the inspection committee on 19.11.2020 conducted physical inspection of the campus and submitted its report (Annexure R-5/7) with the following observations:-
"The B.Ed. College & St. Xavier Residential School Mandi is being run in the same premises of the school campus.
It is therefore submitted that the St. Xavier Residential School is lacking in fulfilling the public school procedures and is not serious in maintaining the desired academic standards."
5 On 8.1.2021, this Court passed the following directions:
"This Court on 6.1.2021 passed the following order:
Heard in part. For continuity, list on 8.1.2021. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 to obtain specific instructions regarding running of respondent No.6-Institution without permission as is being stated in the reply.::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:19:00 :::CIS 6
Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on instructions, states that they are taking steps against the erring Institute. However, we are not impressed by this submission because specific direction passed by .
this Court was whether the Institute-respondent No.6 is still running despite there being no permission from the authorities including respondent No.2.
In such circumstances, we appoint Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Mandi, as Local Commissioner to inspect the Institute, i.e. Blooms College of Education and report whether said Institute is running and if so, whether it has requisite permission(s) as required under the law.
In addition to that, specific report be furnished by the Local Commissioner to the effect whether the school, B.Ed., and D.El.Ed. courses are also running from the same premises, as alleged.
The officers of respondent No.4-HPU, Regional Centre, Mandi, and any other officer/official, which the Local Commissioner, may deem appropriate, be associated and report in this regard be submitted to this Court within three weeks from today.
Respondent No.4 is also directed to inspect the institute-respondent No.6 and only thereafter will it proceed to allot seats of B.Ed. And D.El.Ed. Courses if the said institute qualifies and meets the requirements, as stipulated under the relevant rules.
List on 29.1.2021 before learned Vacation Judge. In the meanwhile, reply by respondent No.5 be also filed."::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:19:00 :::CIS 7
6 In sequel to the aforesaid order, the Secretary, District legal Services Authority, Mandi, inspected the institution and filed inspection report. The following points were observed during .
inspection:
"1. The building of the institution (Blooms Education Society) is on Khasra No.709, 711, 712, 714 & 715 as per Jamabandi for the year 2016-17 which has been leased by Sh. Parveen Kumar in favour of Blooms Education Society. The area of leased land is 8-4-18 bighas, considerable portion of which is lying vacant and is suitable for any kind of construction.
2.The total constructed area, on leased land, is not more than 3200 sq mtrs. and Saint Xavier Residential School & two courses of Blooms College of Education i.e. B.Ed., D.EI.Ed are running from the same premises. In fact Dr. Francina P. Dhiman, Principal Blooms College of Education in her statement has admitted as under. "Just adjacent to administrative block, there is a block, exclusively meant for B.Ed. There are two class rooms on ground and first floor (total four) and one multipurpose hall on the top floor. Size of the each class room is 60 sq.mt. Thereafter, there is another block in which there are eight class rooms measuring 50 sq.mt each. Four class rooms of the ground floor are used for class VIII-XII. Four class rooms on first floor are dedicated to the students of D.EI.Ed. Third block have eight class rooms, four in the ground and four on the first floor. Each class room has size of 45 sq mt. These eight rooms are meant for students of I to VIII. There are few shortcomings in the Institution especially infrastructure. These shortcomings are on account of non- availability of funds as there is dispute between my husband and me. I am General Secretary of the Society and my husband is the President of the Society. Deputy Commissioner, Mandi had appointed administrators to run the Institution, for one year, however during lockdown the tenure of the administrator expired and at present there are no ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:19:00 :::CIS 8 administrators and the institution is facing great hardship to purchase benches and necessary equipments for infrastructure. In fact institution has not paid salary to employees since April, 2020 despite the fact institution have more than 25 Lakh in the Society's account. Over and above this proposed third block is incomplete, as the administrators did .
not release amount for improving the infrastructure despite repeated requested. We want to develop the third block to the academic needs of the younger children especially to toddlers as well as the residential children as per future plan. Boundary wall is also incomplete on account of non release of funds by the administrators."
3. At present, there are 100 students in the B.Ed Course for the Academic Session 2019-21. 23 students of D.EI.Ed. for the Academic Session 2019-21 & 17 students for Academic Session 2020-22 are pursuing their education from this institution. 254 students are also studying in St. Xavier's Residential School. It is pertinent to mention that 18 students were allotted for B.Ed. Course for the Academic Session 2020-22 in the 1st round of counseling by the HPU, however, subsequently these 18 students were withdrawn and at present there is no student in B.Ed course for the Academic Session 2020-22.
4. Letter F.No.NRC/NCTE/RD/2019/ 204349 dated 3rd July 2019, produced by the HP University through Sh. Harikant Chauhan 02.02.2021 clearly reflects that Blooms College of Education has recognition from NCTE Jaipur to run B.Ed course (at Sr. No. 09) Annexure-VIII). Moreover, there is nothing to suggest that the said recognition has been withdrawn by NCTE as per Section 14(4) of the NCTE Act. In fact, official website of the NCTE is clearly displaying that the Blooms College of Education is the recognized Institute for B.Ed course and D.EI.Ed. By NCTE( Annexure-IX & X). Record further transpires that Blooms College of Education has ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:19:00 :::CIS 9 affiliation of HPU and this fact is also evident from the official website of the HPU where the University has displayed the list of 74 affiliated colleges of B.Ed and the name of Blooms College of Education is at Sr. No. 07 .
(Annexure-XI).
Thus, it is crystal clear from the record that the Blooms College of Education is running B.Ed course for the Academic Session 2019-2021 for 100 students and it has requisite permission (s) i.e. recognition from NCET and affiliation from examining body (HP University). Besides this, institute is also running the course of D.EI.
Ed. for 23 students of Academic Session 2019-21 & 17 students of the Academic Session 2020-22 and have requisite permission(s) i.e. recognition from NCTE and affiliation from the HP Board of School Education, Dharamshala. It is also clear from the record that St.Xavier's Residential School and Blooms College of Education (B.Ed. Course and D.EI.Ed) are running from the same premises i.e. buildings situated on Khasra No.709, 711, 712, 714 & 715( as per Jamabandi for the year 2016-17 and the constructed areas of the buildings on leased land is not more than 3200 meters.
Report is accordingly submitted for Your Lordship's Kind perusal and consideration, please."
7 Thereafter when the case came up before the Court on 23.3.2021, following order came to be passed: -
"Mr. B. Nandan Vashishta, Advocate, has placed on record instructions dated 3.3.2021, relevant portion whereof reads as under:::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:19:00 :::CIS 10
Sr. File No. Name and Course Decision of NRC No. address of the institution
30. HP-135 Blooms College B.Ed. The original file of the .
& HP- of Education, & JBT Institution along with other
96 Above State related documents, NCTE
Bank of Act, 1993, Regulations and
Patiala, Sunder Guidelines issued by the
Nagar, District NCTE from time to time,
Mandi, where carefully considered
Himachal by NRC and the Committee
Pradesh- made following
175002 observations:
r 1. SCN under Section 17
may be issued as per
direction of legal authority.
2. Inspection Under Section
13 may be got conducted
at NCTE HQ level.
3. University may be
written not to allot
students to the institution
for the session 2021-22 as
per Court Order.
Hence, show cause notice
under Section 17 of the
NCTE Act, 1993 be issued
to the institution to submit
their reply along with
supported documents
accompanied with
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:19:00 :::CIS
11
notarized affidavit of Rs.
100/- on Non-Judicial
stamp
paper by the authorized
.
representative of the
Management within 30
days from the date of issue
of show cause notice.
Mr. C. N. Singh, Advocate, on instructions, states that in case the respondent-University allots students to professional courses being run in Blooms College of Education, then his client intends to close down St. Xavier's Residential School that has been running along with B.Ed. And D.EL.Ed. College. His statement is taken on record. Let an affidavit to this effect be filed on the next date of hearing in the open Court.
List on 24.3.2021."
8 It would be noticed that on specific instructions from respondent No.7, its counsel had made a statement that in case the respondent-University allots students to professional courses being run in Blooms College of Education, then his client intends to close down St. Xavier's Residential School that is being run along with B.Ed. and D.El.Ed. college.
9 However, when the case was thereafter listed on 24.3.2021, learned counsel for respondent No.7 qualified his ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:19:00 :::CIS 12 statement as is evident from the order passed on that date, which reads as under:-
"Mr. C.N. Singh, learned counsel for respondent .
No. 7, on instructions states that before closing down the school, the petitioner will take all steps as are required for the same in accordance with the Himachal Pradesh Private Educational Institutions ( Regulation ) Act, 1997. His statement is taken on record.
The minutes of 332nd (Virtual) Emergent Meeting of the NRC, NCTE held on 18th March, 2021, in-so-far as the petitioner-institute is concerned, states that the University should be written not to allot students to the institution for the year 2021-2022 as per Court order.
However, we find that no such order has been passed by this Court till date. The only order which was passed on 8.1.2021 are some relevance to the issue in question only directs respondent No. 4 i.e. H.P. University to inspect the institute-respondent No.6 and only thereafter will it proceed to allot seats of B.Ed and D.Ei. Ed. Courses if the said institute qualifies and meets the requirements, as stipulated under the relevant rules.
Confronted with this, learned counsel for respondent No.2/ NCTE prays for and is granted a week's time to obtain instructions.
List on 31st March, 2021."
10 Thereafter, when the case subsequently came up before the Court on 8.4.2021, learned counsel for the respondent-NCTE stated that since respondent No.6-college had ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:19:00 :::CIS 13 prima facie violated the instructions/guidelines for running the institution in question, show cause notice was shortly being issued to the institution. Order dated 8.4.2021, reads as under:-
.
"Mr. B. Nandan Vashista, learned counsel for NCTE, states that since respondent No. 6 has prima facie violated the instructions/guidelines for running the Institution in question, therefore, show cause notice to this effect is shortly being issued to the Institution. His statement is taken on record.
List on 11.05.2021."
11 On 29.9.2021, the respondent-NCTE was directed to conduct a fresh inspection of respondent No.6-college and file its report.
12 As per inspection report, respondent No.6-college has been found to be eligible for running B.Ed. and D.El.Ed. courses.
However, the petitioner as also respondent No.8, who is none other than husband of respondent No.7, have filed detailed objections, which need to be noticed.
13 Adverting to the objections of the petitioner, it has been averred that inspection report submitted by the respondent-
NCTE is a bundle of lies as it seems that the inspection team had actually not inspected the institute and rather procured the report at the instance of respondent No.7, that too, for extraneous considerations. It has been further averred that the NCTE is actually playing a mischief with the Court by misleading ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:19:00 :::CIS 14 it only with a motive to help certain persons who are to be given undue advantage for running Blooms College of Education. It is stated that whenever there are certain complaints or .
shortcomings in running the institution, the inspection is conducted only under Section 13 of the NCTE Act. The NCTE deliberately withheld that report and thereafter sent another visiting team to the institution and now the inspection is conducted under Sections 14 and 15 of the NCTE Act. It is averred that inspection is conducted only for granting fresh recognition for the first time, whereas r this is not the fact situation obtaining in the case of Blooms College of Education.
In such circumstances, no credence be given to the report so submitted by the NCTE.
14 It has been reiterated that the Blooms College of Education has been showing the common infrastructure and building of the college and school to different inspecting teams. It is stated that for the last three years, B.Ed., D.El.Ed. college and the school are being managed by the Board of Directors as the society has been rendered defunct and the present inspection has been conducted in their absence and the inspection has been conducted only on the basis of information supplied by respondent No.7, which is absolutely wrong and false.
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:19:00 :::CIS 1515 Lastly, it has been averred that the appointment of the teachers has not been approved by Himachal Pradesh University, which is the affiliating University and that apart, the .
staff statement, as provided at page 58-59 of the reply by visiting team, discloses that one Dr. Rajni, at Sr. No.9 has been shown to be working in the Blooms College of Education, whereas she has been working in Government Sanskrit College Sunder Nagar for the last five months and in support of such contention, time table of the college, reflecting name of aforesaid Dr. Rajni, has been appended. In addition thereto, Ms. Asha Kumari shown at Sr. No. 12 has been actually staying with her husband in Delhi and Poonam Sharma shown at Sr. No.16 have never joined the College. As a matter of fact, there are only 4 teachers in place to run the courses.
16 Now, adverting to the objections filed by respondent No.8, it has been averred that false and fabricated report has been submitted by the NCTE. It is submitted that Principal of the College has given wrong information with respect to staff of the school and B.Ed. and D.El.Ed. college with the Blooms College of Education and school staff of St. Xavier's Residential School with the society. The names of teachers, lecturers and Associate Professors have been mentioned in the list of staff, who had left the college in the year 2016 and much prior to that. Names of ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:19:00 :::CIS 16 those persons have been mentioned in the list of the staff and teachers, who actually have never worked with the College and some of them are in government jobs. It is averred that the .
inspection has not been conducted in a fair manner and, therefore, action be initiated against the persons, who had inspected the college and against the Principal, who misled the court by supplying wrong information.
17 It is stated that salary has been enhanced by the Rs.80,450/-.
r It is to Principal without getting approval of the society from Rs. 18000/-
to further averred that there is an embezzlement of the funds of the society by the Principal, for which one criminal case under Sections 342, 506 read with section 34 IPC is pending against the Principal, which has been registered by the staff member, Julie, d/o Uday Ram. It has also been stated that the Principal of her own has appointed the employees without getting the approval of the society in its meeting and a compliant has also been submitted to the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi. Certain documents in support of allegations, as set out above, have also been appended with the reply filed by respondent No.8.
18 Noticeably, the allegation of the petitioner that Dr. Rajni, who has been shown in the rolls of the College, in fact is working in Government Sanskrit College, Sunder Nagar has not ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:19:00 :::CIS 17 at all been rebutted by respondent No.6 and as regards other two teachers, as mentioned above, a faint attempt has been made by respondent No.6 to claim that these teachers were teaching .
online.
19 As regards veracity and correctness of the report submitted by the NCTE, it has specifically mentioned in the report that total area of the college is 6355 sq. mts and the built up area for B.Ed. college of Education is 3546.3 sq. mts and an area of 500 sq. mts. has been earmarked for D.El.Ed. courses in the same premises. Whereas Special Investigation Team (SIT) that was constituted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court has, in its progress report No.7, observed that as against the requirement of 3500 sq. mts. of built up area, the Blooms College of Education is having only 2887.45 sq. mts, which was being used for B.Ed. and D.El.Ed. courses. Another built up area of 75 sq. mts. was being used as hostel.
20 As a matter of fact, the SIT had made recommendations for cancellation of recognition and affiliation of the institute as it lacked in infrastructural and instructional facilities and this Court vide order dated 12.12.2018 in CWP No. 1311/2017, titled as Court of its own motion vs. Gautam Group of Colleges and ors. has also observed that as against the required built up area of 3500 sq. mts., the institution was ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:19:00 :::CIS 18 having total built up area of 3140 sq. mts. Therefore, on what basis the inspection team has claimed the total built up area to be 3546.3 sq. mts. is not at all understandable and even .
otherwise forthcoming from the side of either of the respondents including NCTE and HPU.
21 It is established on record that there is serious dispute between respondent No. 7 and 8, who are husband and wife and they have not only matrimonial disputes inter se them, but also in the instant case. Therefore, it would not at all be safe or prudent for this Court to permit the college for any kind of intake for running of B.Ed. and D.El.Ed. courses or even permit to run the college.
22 We have no hesitation to claim that no credence can be attached to the inspection report submitted by the NCTE and the same is rather procured only to benefit respondent No.6- college.
23 Therefore, in the given facts and circumstances, we deem it proper to direct the NCTE to take strict action against members of the inspection team comprising of Dr. Jitender Kumar, Prof. MDU Rohtak and Dr. Ashok K. Sharma, DLRVST Murthal (Sonipat) and ensure that henceforth these two persons are not associated in any of the inspection. As regards the instant case, we are of the considered opinion that a combined ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:19:00 :::CIS 19 inspection of the respondent No.6-College by the NCTE, CBSE, HPU and H.P Board of School Education is required to be conducted. Ordered accordingly. Such inspection be carried out .
as expeditiously as possible and in no event later than three weeks.
24 The Registrar, Himachal Pradesh University shall be the coordinator of the team. The team shall inspect the documents of respondent No.6-college and physically verify the infrastructural and instructional facilities in the college by giving an advance notice, through e-mail, WhatsApp or any other electronic mode, to the petitioner, respondents No. 7 and 8. The fee and expenses of the inspection team are fixed at Rs.2,00,000/-, to be paid out of the corpus of the college/school, to the members of the inspection team equally, i.e. Rs. 50,000/-
each institute, and the same shall be released to the Registrar, HPU, on presentation of a copy of this order. Till such time, respondents No. 6 to 8 are restrained from admitting any students in B.Ed. and D.El. Ed courses.
25 The writ petition is disposed of, in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending application(s), if any.
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:19:00 :::CIS 2026 For Compliance, list on 14.12.2021.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) .
Judge
(Chander Bhushan Barowalia)
23.11.2021 Judge
(pankaj)
r to
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:19:00 :::CIS