Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mrityunjay Jan Kalyan Samiti vs The Jiwaji University on 3 November, 2014
W.P.No.6712/2014 1
Mrityunjay Jan Kalyan Samiti
Vs.
Jiwaji University and others Others
03/11/2014
Shri R.B.S.Tomar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri R.S.Sharma, Advocate for the respondents.
Heard.
The petitioner has filed this petition against the order dt.29.10.2014 (Annexure P/1). By the aforesaid order, the petitioner has been informed by the University that the petitioner has not forwarded the order of this court in other connected petition in regard to NAAC, hence, it is not necessary to permit the petitioner to carry out the examination.
The point that whether accreditation from NAAC is necessary for conducting the course has been considered by the Division Bench of this court at Jabalpur vide judgment dt.13.5.2014 passed in W.P.21586/2013 and other connected Writ Petitions. The Division Bench has allowed the writ petitions and held that it was not necessary for the institution to obtain the accreditation from NAAC and on that ground without giving an opportunity of hearing, the recognition could not be withdrawn. The concluding part of the judgment is as under :-
"15. We have given our considered thought to these submissions. On one hand, it is clear that in terms of the Regulations W.P.No.6712/2014 2 framed in the year 2009, a cut off date is prescribed. As per the terms and conditions of NAAC for conducting any inspection, the institutions which have been granted recognition in the year 2009 itself, would not be completing the norms for the purposes of obtaining an Accreditation certificate from the NAAC and in that case they would not be entitled to make an application for grant of recognition to the NCTE. Further, indisputably, NAAC is not in a position to inspect all the institutions for the purpose of issuing Accreditation certificate, much less before the cut off date specified in the Regulations, Moreover, the recognized institutions are more than willing to comply with all the directions to be given by the Competent Authority for ensuring imparting of quality education. Thus, prescription of such a condition with a cut off date would be asking the concerned institutions to do something which is impossible for them and completely beyond their control. Rather, the failure should be attributed to Authority in discharging its statutory duty. That would certainly warrant an exercise of discretion on case to case basis to grant/continue recognition in exercise of power under Regulation 12 of NCTE Regulations 2009, by the competent authority. We say so because the validity of the provisions of Clause (5) of Regulation 8, has been upheld by the Apex Court in Swami Vivekanand College of Education and others Vs. Union of India and others [(2012) 1 SCC 642]. The provision is thus held to be intra vires, but since it is creating undue hardships because of failure of the Authorities W.P.No.6712/2014 3 themselves, in our considered opinion the power of relaxation ought to be exercised by the Competent Authority on case to case basis. At this stage, it would also be necessary to hold that before passing the orders impugned, opportunity of hearing should have been given to the petitioners and having failed to do so, the action of the respondents cannot be upheld.
16 : Resultantly, we allow the Writ Petition No.16805/2013, Writ Petition No. 21669/2013, Writ Petition No.21953/2013, Writ Petition No.220/2014, Writ Petition No.1571/2014, Writ Petition No.1998/2014, Writ Petition No.2066/2014, Writ Petition No.2067/2014, Writ Petition No.2068/2014, Writ Petition No.2070/2014, Writ Petition No.2071/2014, Writ Petition No.2072/2014, Writ Petition No.3262/2014 and Writ Petition No.5984/2014 and quash the order of respondents with liberty to them to initiate proceedings afresh against the petitioners after granting them an opportunity of hearing and to pass fresh orders. In case the petitioners make an application for grant of relaxation in terms of Regulation 12 of NCTE Regulations 2009, in any of the conditions prescribed under Clause (5) of Regulation 8 of the said Regulations, it would be necessary for the respondents to examine the same and to pass orders on the said application on case to case basis on its own merits.
17 : As a result of this order, Writ Petition No.19985/2013 stands disposed of. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs."W.P.No.6712/2014 4
Hence, the case of the petitioner be also considered by the University in regard to permission to conduct examination in the light of the order passed by this court quoted above. Petition is disposed of accordingly.
No order as to costs.
(S.K. Gangele) (Rohit Arya)
Judge Judge
SP