Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Shri Meharishi Dadhich vs State (Higher Education )Ors on 14 July, 2017
Author: Alok Sharma
Bench: Alok Sharma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JAIPUR BENCH
ORDER
(S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12118/2016)
Shri Meharishi Dadhich Sanskrit Teacher Training College, Keshavpura, Kota,
running under Shri Meharishi Dadhich Siksha Samiti, through its Secretary R.K.
Dachich S/o Shri Ram Narayan Dadhich, by caste Brahmin aged about 45 years,
Registered Address 785, Dadabari, Kota (Rajasthan).
--- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary Higher Education, Government
of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Commissioner, College Education, Education Department, Government of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Director, Sanskrit Education Rajasthan, Jaipur, address second floor, block 6,
Siksha Sankul, JLN Marg, Jaipur.
4. Registrar, Jagadguru, Ramanandacharya Rajasthan Sanskrit University Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
5. Regional Director, North Regional Committee, National Council for teacher
Education, 4th floor, Jeevan Nidhi, LIC Building, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur.
--- Respondents.
Date of Order: July 14, 2017.
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA
Mr. R.P. Singh, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Indresh Sharma, for the petitioner.
Mr. S.K. Gupta, AAG for the State.
Mr. Gaurav Sharma, for respondent No.4
Mr. Rajkumar Suthar, for respondent No.5.
2
BY THE COURT:
This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 2-6- 2016 issued by the Commissioner, College Education, Government of Rajasthan (hereinafter `the Government') and seeking a direction to the Government to issue a no objection certificate (NOC) to the petitioner college for running the M.Ed. (Siksha Acharya) course for the academic session 2017-18.
The relevant facts of the case, briefly stated are that the Shri Meharishi Dadhich Siksha Samiti (hereinafter `the Samiti') running the Shri Meharishi Dadhich Sanskrit Teacher Training College, Keshavpura, Kota (hereinafter `the College') moved an online application to the Regional Director, North Regional Committee, National Council for Teacher Education (hereinafter `the Council') within the notified last date of 30-6-2015 along with the requisite fee for the petitioner College's recognition for a M.Ed. Course (Siksha Acharya) in the academic session 2016-17. The petitioner college was also issued a conditional no objection certificate (NOC) from the Jagadguru Ramanandacharya Rajasthan Sanskrit University (hereinafter `the University') vide letter dated 9-2-2016 stating that following the Council's recognition in the event of a NOC from the State Government it would grant affiliation, no doubt on its 3 requirements being complied with. Pursuant to the application for recognition being complete with the University's NOC, the Council inspected the college of the petitioner Samiti under Section 14/15 of the NCTE Act, 1993 (hereinafter `the Act of 1993) and NCTE Regulations, 2014 (hereinafter `the Regulations of 2014'). Thereafter the Council vide letter dated 1-3-2016 sought the comments of the Principal Secretary, Higher Education Government of Rajasthan in respect of the application for recognition of the M.Ed. Course (Siksha Acharya). No adverse comment was received. The council then in its 252nd meeting held between 19-4-2016 and 2-5-2016 considered the case of the petitioner college for recognition of its M.Ed. Course (Siksha Acharya) for the academic session 2016-17 and issued a letter of intent (LOI) under regulation 7(13) with an intake capacity of 50 students, subject to certain compliances. Recognition under Regulation 7(16) of the Regulations of 2014 followed on 2-5-2016. The petitioner Society then made a representation/ application to the Principal Secretary, Higher Education, Government of Rajasthan, Director, Higher Education and to the Vice-Chancellor of the Sanskrit University for issuing of NOC and grant of affiliation. The Commissioner, College Education Government of Rajasthan however refused vide the impugned order dated 2-6-2016 to issue the requisite NOC to the petitioner college for its M.Ed. Course academic session 2016-17. Hence this petition.
4
Mr. R.P. Singh Senior Advocate appearing with Mr. Indresh Sharma for the petitioner college submitted that the NRC, NCTE having recognized the M.Ed. Course (Siksha Acharya) of the petitioner college and the University having earlier issued a NOC therefor, the refusal of NOC by the State Government is wholly arbitrary and ultra vires the NCTE Regulations of 2014 aside of being in the cross hair of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. LBS B.Ed. College [Civil Appeal No.9193/2016, decided on 8-9-2016] wherein it has been held that once NCTE grants recognition to a teacher training course, such grant of recognition vis-a-vis the State Government and the affiliating body attains supremacy. Mr. R.P. Singh submitted that even otherwise the purported policy of the State Government inter alia limiting grant of recognition only to composite B.Ed. cum M.Ed. three year integrated course in pre existing teacher training colleges is based on its ipse dixit without disclosing the requisite underlying statistics. Neither any such details warranting opposition to the grant of recognition were communicated to the Council in response to its letter dated 1-3-2016 inviting comments on the petitioner college's application for grant of recognition for its 2 year M.Ed. Course (Siksha Acharya) for academic session 2016-17. Mr. R.P. Singh submitted that as the illegality of the impugned order dated 2-6- 5 2016 passed by the State Government has occasioned the petitioner college loosing academic session 2016-17, it be directed to now issue a NOC to the petitioner college's M.Ed. Course (Siksha Acharya) for academic session 2017-2018.
Mr. S.K. Gupta, AAG appearing for the State has emphatically submitted that the recognition by NRC, NCTE to the petitioner college's two year M.Ed. Course (Siksha Acharya) is wholly ultra vires the procedure prescribed under the Regulations of 2014. He submitted that the Regulations of 2014, particularly 7(4) to 7(6) mandate NRC seeking the comments/ recommendations of the State government on each application received for grant of recognition of a teacher training course for the reason that the input of the State Government reflects the local conditions which may or may not be conductive to the commencement of a teacher training course--not the least because of the lack of capacity of the State to absorb trained teachers in gainful employment--both in state run and private run teacher training colleges. The importance of the State's input is reflected from Regulations 7(5) and 7(6) which mandate two reminders of 45 days and 30 days respectively before deeming that State has no objection to grant of the recognition to the teacher training course in issue. Mr. S.K. Gupta submitted that in the instant case vide letters dated 21-12-2015 and 12-3-2016 both addressed 6 to the Chairman NCTE at New Delhi it was communicated that the State had taken a policy decision not to permit standalone M.Ed. Courses in the academic session 2016-17. Yet the State's communication and its policy formulation was overlooked in breach of Regulations 7(5) and 7(6) of the Regulations of 2014. neither of the two reminders warranted under the Regulations were sent. The policy of the State duly communicated was not even adverted to and considered by the Council before grant of recognition to the College's M.Ed. Course. Hence the State Government is not obliged to issue a NOC no matter that the NCTE has illegally granted recognition to the petitioner college. Mr. S.K. Gupta submitted that the very recognition to the petitioner college for its M.Ed. Course (Siksha Acharya) for academic session 2016-17 being ultra vires the Regulations of 2014, the judgment of the Apex Court in the LBS B.Ed college (supra) does not attract. The fact situation in the LBS B.Ed. College (supra) and the observations of the Apex Court therein cannot be applied in the present case. Mr. S.K. Gupta submitted that in any event the State Government's policy in its letters dated 21-12- 2015 and 12-3-2016 is not under challenge before this court and has to be reckoned for while deciding the petition. In the circumstances, Mr. S.K. Gupta submitted that the impugned order dated 2-6-2016 reflective of the State Policy in respect of grant of recognition to standalone M.Ed. College cannot be faulted with or set 7 aside. Mr. S.K. Gupta further submitted that even otherwise the petitioner college has no affiliation dependent as it was in terms of the Sanskrit University's NOC in the first instance, on the State Government having no objection to the commencement of the course.
Mr. Gaurav Sharma, appearing for the respondent University has submitted that counselling for admission in M.Ed. Course (Siksha Acharya) for the academic session 2016-17 was completed in June, 2016 and the academic session started by August, 2016. The prayer of the petitioner college cannot now be granted by sheer eflux of time. He further submitted that the University had informed the petitioner college that affiliation of its M.Ed. Course (Siksha Acharya) would be subject to its obtaining NOC from the State Government. In absence of the NOC from the State Government, the affiliation cannot be granted by the respondent University. The conditional offer of affiliation granted by the University to the petitioner college was in the circumstances cancelled vide letter dated 26-5-2016, and the Council so informed. Mr. Gaurav Sharma submitted that the Sanskrit University created by the State is bound by its policy formulations.
Mr. Rajkumar Suthar, appearing for the Council submitted 8 that the petitioner college's application moved online on 30-6-2015 for recognition of M.Ed. Course (Siksha Acharya) for the academic session 2016-17 was duly processed in accordance with Regulations of 2014. In accordance with 7.4 of the Regulations of 2014 a communication was sent to the State Government for its recommendation/ commence qua the petitioner college's application. No comments were received in opposition. The case of the petitioner college for its M.Ed. Course (Siksha Acharya) was then considered by the Council in its 252nd meeting held between 19-4-2016 and 2-5- 2016 and after due process recognition for the 2 year M.Ed. Course (Siksha Acharya) 2016-17 was issued on 2-5-2016. He submitted that in terms of LBS B.Ed. College (supra) decided by the Apex Court the said recognition holds supremacy vis-a-vis the affiliating body and the State Government. And it therefore be so held also by this court, submitted Mr. Rajkumar Suthar.
Heard. Considered.
LBS B.Ed college (supra) was a case decided holding that where recognition and affiliation had been granted by the NCTE to a teacher training institute under the NCTE Act, 1993 and Regulations framed thereunder, the State Government cannot obstruct the commencement of such course. The said judgment however left open the State Government's refusal where the recognition was 9 vitiated by illegality. In this context it has to be first seen whether the petitioner college aside of recognition from the Council has affiliation from the affiliating body--the University in this case. The answer from the facts on record is no. The University had no doubt issued a NOC at the time the petitioner college applied for recognition of its M.Ed. Course by the Council under the Regulations of 2014. But the NOC was conditional stating that the affiliation would follow a NOC for the purpose by the State. The University's NOC dated 9-2-2016 is not under challenge. The condition holds. The State has admittedly not issued a NOC for reason of its policy under letters dated 21-12-2015 and 12-3-2016 also addressed to the Chairman, NCTE New Delhi, whereunder a decision was taken by an exclusion, not to grant standalone M.Ed. Course permission in academic session 2016-17, but permission inter alia only to 3 year B.Ed. M.Ed. Teacher training courses. This has not been denied by the NRC/NCTE. The said policy is not under challenge. It therefore binds. Besides the recognition granted by the Council appears to ultra vires Regulation 7(5) and 7(6) of the Regulations of 2014. This because subsequent to NRC seeking the State Government's comments on the petitioner College's application under letter dated 1-3-2016, the two requisite statutory reminders were admittedly not sent. It is not so even the NRC's case. Deemed no objection of the State Government could not resultantly be presumed as it wrongly was. The two letters 10 dated 21-12-2015 and 12-3-2016 reflecting the State Government's policy of non grant of permission for recognition to M.Ed. Course were evidently overlooked by the Council when NRC recognised the petitioner College's 2 year M.Ed. Course for academic session 2016-17. The grant of recognition to the petitioner College's 2 year M.Ed. Course for 2016-17 was thus vitiated by fraud on the statute--as the Regulations of 2014 indeed are, and also legally unsustainable for non application of mind by the NRC overlooking communication of policy of the State Government under its letters dated 21-12-2015 and 12-3-2016.
I find no force in Mr. R.P.Singh's contention that the policy in the State Government's letters dated 21-12-2015 and 12-3-2016 is of no avail and no material relevant to the obligation of the State Government under Regulation 7(5) of the Regulations of 2014 i.e. to give reasons with statistics to justify opposition to grant of recognition of a teacher training course by the Council is reflected therein. Such an argument ought to have emanated from the Advocate of the Council. It has not. Besides, it is the State's case that sheer numbers of M.Ed. in the State of Rajasthan and their unemployment in substantial measures was a cause for the State Government's policy not to permit running of 2 year standalone M.Ed. Courses in Rajasthan. It has also been stated by Mr. S.K. Gupta, 11 AAG that not a single NOC for a 2 year M.Ed. Course was issued by the State Government for academic session 2016-17 or has even been thereafter.
The upshot of the above discussion is that the petition is without force and deserving of dismissal. So dismissed.
(Alok Sharma), J.
arn/ 12 All corrections made in the order have been incorporated in the order being emailed.
Arun Kumar Sharma, Private Secretary.