Gujarat High Court
Prantij vs National on 14 May, 2010
Author: S.J.Mukhopadhaya
Bench: S.J. Mukhopadhaya
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/3205/2009 8/ 31 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3205 of 2009
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3408 of 2009
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4571 of 2009
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4574 of 2009
TO
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4576 of 2009
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4594 of 2009
TO
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4596 of 2009
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4913 of 2009
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4917 of 2009
To
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4922 of 2009
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4996 of 2009
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5038 of 2009
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5089 of 2009
To
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5091 of 2009
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5395 of 2009
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5397 of 2009
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5571 of 2009
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5574 of 2009
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5611 of 2009
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5608 of 2009
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5663 of 2009
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5679 of 2009
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5710 of 2009
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5719 of 2009
To
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5721 of 2009
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5731 of 2009
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5735 of 2009
To
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5739 of 2009
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5753 of 2009
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5908 of 2009
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6319 of 2009
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6336 of 2009
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6339 of 2009
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6341 of 2009
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6353 of 2009
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6363 of 2009
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6378 of 2009
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6452 of 2009
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6555 of 2009
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6556 of 2009
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6585 of 2009
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6586 of 2009
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6599 of 2009
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6600 of 2009
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6906 of 2009
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7560 of 2009
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7561 of 2009
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7586 of 2009
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8011 of 2009
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8012 of 2009
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10840 of 2009
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10923 of 2009
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10924 of 2009
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1433 of 2009
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 11697 of 2009
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3377 of 2010
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3718 of 2010
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 4868 of 2010
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 4424 of 2010
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 6541 of 2009
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 8562 of 2009
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 4869 of 2010
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 4865 of 2010
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 4866 of 2010
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 4867 of 2010
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 4871 of 2010
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 4870 of 2010
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 7785 of 2009
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 4872 of 2010
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 5012 of 2010
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 5013 of 2010
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 5050 of 2010
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 5066 of 2010
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 5073 of 2010
To
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 5075 of 2010
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 5075 of 2010
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL
KURESHI
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To be
referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
PRANTIJ
TALUKA EDUCATION SOCIETY Petitioner (s)
Versus
NATIONAL
COUNCIL FOR TEACHER REGIONAL DIRECTOR- Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
SCA
Nos. 3205/2009, 7561/2009,3718/2010 CA No.5050/2010
MR
BP GUPTA for petitioner (s) : 1
MR AJ SHASTRI for Respondent(s) :
1,2
RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) :4
MR AMIT PANCHAL for
Respondent(s): 3
MR AJ DESAI, AGP FOR STATE GOVERNMENT.
SCA
Nos. 3408/2009,5735/2009, 5736/2009, 5737/2009, 5738/2009,
5739/2009,5753/2009 6336/2009, 6339/2009,6353/2009, 6378/2009,
6585/2009, 6586/2009, 6600/2009, CA Nos. 4868/2010,4869/2010,
4865/2010,4871/2010 4866/2010,4867/2010, 4870/2010,4872/2010.
MR VH DESAI for petitioner (s) : 1
MR AJ SHASTRI for Respondent(s)
: 1,2
RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) :4
MR VD NANAVATI for
Respondent(s):3
MR AJ DESAI, AGP FOR STATE GOVERNMENT.
SCA
Nos. 4571/2009, 4574/2009, 4575/2009, 4576/2009, 4913/2009,
5719/2009, 5720/2009, 5721/2009, 6555/2009, 6556/2009,
6599/2009,6906/2009, 7560/2009, 8011/2009 1433/2010, CA
Nos.7785/2009, 4432/2010
MS
SRUSHTI A THULA for petitioner (s) : 1
MR AJ SHASTRI for
Respondent(s) : 1
RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) :2,4
MR HRIDAY
BUCH for Respondent(s):3
MR AJ DESAI, AGP FOR STATE GOVERNMENT
SCA
Nos. 4594/2009 to 4596/2009, 11697/2009 CA Nos. 4424/2010 4426/2010
MR
SP MAJMUDAR WITH MR PP MAJMUDAR for petitioner (s) : 1
MR AJ
SHASTRI for Respondent(s) : 1,
RULE
SERVED for Respondent(s) :2,4
MR HRIDAY BUCH for Respondent(s):3
MR AJ DESAI, AGP FOR
STATE GOVERNMENT.
SCA
Nos. 4917/2009 TO 4922/2009, 5038/2009, 5395/2009, 8562/2009,
5397/2009, 10923/2009 10924/2009 , CA Nos. 5066/2010, 5073/2010
MR PRATIK Y JASANI for petitioner (s) : 1
MR AJ SHASTRI for
Respondent(s) : 1,
RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) :2,4
MR HRIDAY
BUCH for Respondent(s):3
MR AJ DESAI, AGP FOR STATE GOVERNMENT.
SCA
4996/2009,
MR SHIRISH JOSHI for petitioner (s) : 1
MR AJ SHASTRI for
Respondent(s) : 1
RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) :2,4
MR MITHUL
K SEHLAT for Respondent(s):3
MR AJ DESAI, AGP FOR STATE GOVERNMENT
SCA
nos. 5089/2009,5090/2009, 6319/2009, 6363/2009
MR RAMESH V SAVANIA for petitioner (s) : 1
MR AJ SHASTRI for
Respondent(s) : 1
RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) :2,3,4
MR AJ DESAI, AGP FOR STATE
GOVERNMENT
SCA
Nos. 5571/2009,5731/2009,6452/2009 CA no. 5012/2010, 5013/2010
MS MAMTA VYAS for petitioner (s) : 1
MR AJ SHASTRI for
Respondent(s) : 1
RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) :2,3
MR AJ DESAI, AGP FOR STATE GOVERNMENT
SCA
5574/2009,5663/2009, 6341/2009, 10840/2009, 3377/2010, Ca Nos. 5074
TO 5075/2010
MR HJ NANAVATI for petitioner (s) : 1
MR AJ SHASTRI for
Respondent(s) : 1
RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) :2,3
MR AJ DESAI, AGP FOR STATE GOVERNMENT
SCA
Nos. 5608/2009,5611/2009, 7586/2009
MR BS PATEL for petitioner (s) : 1
MR AJ SHASTRI for Respondent(s)
: 1
RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) :2,3
MR AJ DESAI, AGP FOR STATE GOVERNMENT
SCA
5679/2009,
MR KIRIT I PATEL for petitioner (s) : 1
MR AJ SHASTRI for
Respondent(s) : 1
RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) :2,3,
MR AJ DESAI, AGP FOR STATE GOVERNMENT
SCA
5908/2009
MR ABHISHEK MEHTA for petitioner (s) : 1
MR AJ SHASTRI for
Respondent(s) : 1
RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) :2,3,4
MR AJ DESAI, AGP FOR STATE
GOVERNMENT
SCA
5710/2009,
MR RR VAKIL for petitioner (s) : 1
MR AJ SHASTRI for Respondent(s)
: 1
RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) :2,3
MR AJ DESAI, AGP FOR STATE GOVERNMENT
SCA
8012/2009,
MR HJ DHOLAKIA for petitioner (s) : 1
MR AJ SHASTRI for
Respondent(s) : 1
RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) :2,3
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: /05/2010
CAV
JUDGMENT
(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) This litigation has a chequered history. Because of commonality of central issues, they have been grouped together for hearing. They have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgement. As is bound to be, individual facts in each petition are somewhat different. However, central issues involved are common.
All the petitioners are educational institutions. They had been previously granted recognition by respondent National Council for Teacher Education ( NCTE for short). Pursuant to such recognition granted to petitioners, all the petitioners had obtained affiliation with the concerned University for starting colleges. On the strength of such recognition and affiliation, all the petitioners were running their educational institutions. All petitions barring a few pertain to B.Ed. Colleges.
NCTE however finding that in large number of cases where recognitions were granted for starting new colleges, there were several irregularities, undertook comprehensive review of some 129 odd institutions which included all the petitioners through a team specially constituted for this purpose. Upon completion of the said exercise on the premise that several institutions did not fulfill the requirements for running the educational courses, individual show cause notices were issued to all of them. After considering replies, if any, filed by such institutions, the Regional Director of NCTE issued orders for withdrawal of the recognitions granted previously. The petitioners approached the appellate committee of NCTE challenging the order of withdrawal of the recognition. The appellate committee having dismissed the appeals, the present petitions were filed.
These petitions were entertained. Notices and rule were issued. Simultaneously, interim orders in the form of staying the orders of withdrawal of recognition have been granted. Such interim orders are continued from time to time and are in operation till date. In some cases, wherever need arose, directions at the request of petitioners have been issued for permitting the petitioners to admit the students and directing the authorities to allot number of students upto the intake capacity of the institution concerned.
It is not necessary to note individual facts in each case. However, by way of an example, we may notice facts arising in Special Civil Application No.3205/2009. Said petition has been filed by one Prantij Taluka Education Society. The petitioner is a trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act. The petitioner trust was desirous of starting a Self Finance B.Ed. college in district Sabarkantha. The petitioner trust therefore, approached the western region of NCTE for granting recognition/permission to start a Self Finance B.Ed. college. Such recognition was granted by NCTE for starting B.Ed. college from academic year 2001-2002. Such recognition was granted after due verification.
5.1 On the basis of recognition granted by NCTE, the petitioner obtained affiliation with North Gujarat University and since then the B.Ed. college started functioning. Subsequently in the year 2008, the petitioner also applied for recognition to start M.Ed. college. After following the procedure, such permission was also granted. Previously in the year 2006, the petitioner was also permitted to start PTC college.
5.2 Though B.Ed. college was being run by the petitioner trust since year 2001-2002, a show cause notice dated 4.8.2008 came to be issued by NCTE calling upon the petitioner to show cause within 30 days of the notice why the recognition should not be cancelled on the following grounds :
1)Institution does not have its own building.
2)Built up area is inadequate for running the PTC and B.Ed. Both courses.
3)Building is approved for school and not for the college.
5.3 The petitioner replied to the said show cause notice under representation dated 3.10.2008 and contended inter-alia that the petitioner institution fulfills all the norms laid down by NCTE.
5.4 NCTE however, by impugned order dated 29.11.2008 cancelled the recognition on the ground that reply of the institution to the show cause notice is unsatisfactory.
5.5 The petitioner challenged the said decision before the appellate committee of NCTE. However, appeal came to be dismissed by decision dated 20.3.2009.
5.6 Stand of NCTE with respect to this petitioner emerging from the documents on record and in particular affidavit filed is that pursuant to observations by Professor A.U. Patel Committee, directions were issued by the Headquarter of NCTE, under which directions, Western Region Committee had constituted a visiting team to visit the concerned educational institutions including the petitioner. During such inspection visit, deficiencies were noticed. These deficiencies were brought to the notice of the petitioner trust through show cause notice. After considering the reply filed, decision was taken by the competent authority which was also upheld by the appellate authority.
Facts in other petitions are along similar lines. All the petitioners, as already noted, were previously granted recognition by NCTE and affiliation by the concerned University pursuant to which educational institutions were started. Visiting teams of NCTE however, subsequently detected deficiencies which were in form of show cause notices brought to the notice of the concerned institutions. After considering replies, orders for cancellation of recognition were passed. Appeals were also dismissed.
These petitions are pending before High Court since quite sometime. They have been heard from time to time. At one stage, attempt was also made to have all the educational institutions inspected by a Committee constituted by High Court headed by retired High Court Judge. An interim order to this effect was also passed on 31.08.2009 in Special Civil Application No.4918/2009 and connected cases. However such formula did not work out for various reasons into which we need not go in this judgment. Suffice it to say, we have therefore, heard all the matters on merits.
In all these petitions, various kinds of shortcomings and defects have been pointed out by NCTE. We shall go into these deficiencies later. For the present suffice it to say that we propose to examine the rule position and give our interpretation to the same and thereafter, leave NCTE to examine each individual case, whether the institution concerned has fulfilled all the requirements within the time, if any, permitted for the said purpose.
Learned advocates appearing for the petitioners vehemently submitted that all the institutions fulfilled all the norms laid down by NCTE. It was pointed out that the recognitions were granted only after verifying that institutions fulfill necessary criteria. It was contended that the authorities have erred in holding that the institutions do not fulfill their requirements. In the alternative, they submitted that if there are any shortcomings, the institutions shall fulfill the same within a reasonable time that may be granted by this Court. It was pointed out that in some cases, grounds for cancellation of recognition were different from those indicated in the show cause notices and in some cases grounds for rejecting appeals were different from those adopted in the order in original canceling the recognition.
On the other hand, learned counsel Shri A.J.Shastri appearing for NCTE submitted that though initially recognitions were granted by NCTE to all these institutions, A.U. Patel Committee detected serious infirmities. NCTE therefore, decided to send inspection team to all the colleges for physical verification. Based on reports of the inspection committee, show cause notices were issued pointing out to the individual institutions the nature of defects.
10.1 It was pointed out that to maintain standards of education, NCTE has been framing regulations laying down infrastructural and other norms. The petitioner institutions do not fulfill such norms and their recognitions have therefore, been rightly withdrawn.
We have also heard counsel appearing for individual Universities who have more or less supported the stand of NCTE.
Before going into details of various shortcomings and defects pointed out by NCTE and its impact on the recognition or continued recognition of educational institutions, we record that in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, after deciding various issues we propose to give some reasonable time to all the petitioners to remove defects. Our reasons for the same would be forthcoming in the later portion of this judgment On the basis of various orders of cancellation, different defects recorded by NCTE can be broadly classified in following categories :
With respect to staff
i) If one or more posts are lying vacant
ii) Cases where employees are found to be ineligible or not appointed according to the regulations.
iii) Where employees in particular, teaching staff were at the time of their initial engagement qualified as per the then prevailing rules and regulations but are not eligible according to the subsequent regulations providing for higher eligibility criteria.
iv) Cases where principal is not appointed.
v) Where appointment of staff or principal is not approved by the University.
Defects with respect to infrastructure A) Regarding land and building
i) Land is held on lease for a period less than 30 years prescribed under the rules.
ii) Land is alloted for other purposes such as medical and health care but the institution is utilizing the same for running the B.Ed. College.
iii) Land is not registered in the name of the institution.
iv) The college is located in rented premises and institution does not hold the land or building either on ownership or even on lease basis.
v) Other infrastructural facilities related to land and building such as availability of total land, size of the classrooms and the total minimum constructed area required are inadequate.
B) Other Infrastructure
i) The institution does not have adequate library or laboratory facility as per the regulations.
3) Other defects
i) Institution failed to produce relevant documents before the NCTE though demanded.
ii) Two or more institutions are running in the same premises.
iii) Building plan is not approved by the Competent Authority or is not as per the NCTE norms.
iv) There are no valid documents of the property in the name of the trust or the institution.
v) The property is acquired through an unregistered sale deed.
vi) The property is enjoyed on lease, but the lease period has expired and there is no renewal of lease.
vii) Institution is situated in the commercial area.
We would be dealing with these questions hereafter. NCTE is regulating the standards of institutions through various statutes framed from time to time. In exercise of powers under Sub-section(2)of Section 32 read with Sections 14 and 15 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993, first set of regulations were made in the year 1995 called the National Council for Teacher Education (application for recognition, the manner for submission, determination of conditions for recognition of institutions and permission to start new course or training) Regulation 1995. (here-in-after referred to as Regulation of 1995 ). These regulations provided inter-alia for manner and method of making application for recognition of educational institutions, conditions for grant of such recognition and conditions for grant of permission to recognize institutions to start new courses or training. Under regulation 8, Regional Committee of NCTE was empowered to satisfy itself that the applicant institution has adequate financial resources, accommodation, library, qualified staff, laboratory and such other conditions required for the proper functioning of the institutions for the course or training in teacher education being offered. Regional Committee was required to ensure that every institution applying for recognition fulfills the conditions specified in Appendix III.
Regulations of 1995 were amended by amending Regulations of 1998 and thereafter, in the year 2001 also. In particular, in the Regulation of 2001, detailed criteria were laid down for recognition of educational institutions in teacher training programmes. Infrastructural facilities required for such institutions were as follows :
7.
Infrastructural Facilities
a) There shall be provision for adequate number of classrooms, hall, laboratory space for conducting instructional activities for approved intake of 100 students, separate rooms for the principal, faculty members, office for the administrative staff and a store. The size of instructional spaces shall not be be less than 10 sq. ft. per student.
b) There shall be a library equipped with text and reference books related to the prescribed courses of study, educational Encyclopedia, year books, electronic publications (CD-ROMs) and journals on teacher education.
c) There shall be games facilities with a playground. Alternatively, the playground available with the attached school/college may be utilized and where there is scarcity of space as in metropolitan towns/hilly regions, facilities for yoga, indoor games may be provided.
d) The building and outdoor space shall be provided in the land owned by the management/institution either on ownership basis or on long-term lease. However, to begin with, the Institute may provide these facilities in a temporary premises upto a maximum period of three years during which time the institution shall shift to its own permanent location.
Fresh regulations were made in the year 2002, called the NCTE(Form of application for recognition, the time limit of submission of application, determination of norms and standards for recognition of teacher education programmes and permission to start new course or training) Regulations, 2002. Regulation 8 pertained to the norms and standards for various teacher education programmes. Sub-section(3) thereof provides that these norms and standards shall also apply to the institution that have already been recognized by NCTE. Infrastructural facilities required under these norms for B.Ed. colleges were as under :
7.
Infrastructural Facilities
a) There shall be provision for adequate number of classrooms, hall, laboratory space for conducting instructional activities for approved intake of 100 students, separate rooms for the principal, faculty members, office for the administrative staff and a store. The size of instructional spaces shall not be be less than 10 sq. ft. per student.
b) There shall be a library equipped with text and reference books related to the prescribed courses of study, educational Encyclopedia, year books, electronic publications (CD-ROMs) and journals on teacher education.
c) There shall be games facilities with a playground. Alternatively, the playground available with the attached school/college may be utilized and where there is scarcity of space as in metropolitan towns/hilly regions, facilities for yoga, indoor games may be provided.
d) To provide these facilities, the Management/Institutions shall, at the time of making application, have in its possession adequate land/land and building on ownership basis free from all encumbrances. Govt. land acquired on long-term lease as per the law of the concerned State/UT will also be considered valid for the purpose. Pending construction of permanent building in the above land, the Institution may provide these facilities in suitable temporary premises up to a maximum period of 3 years, before expiry of which the institution should shift to its permanent building.
Fresh regulations were once again promulgated called the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms & Procedure) Regulations, 2005. Regulation 8 pertains to conditions for grant of recognition. Relevant portion of which reads as follows :
(1) An institution must fulfill all the prescribed conditions related to norms and standards as prescribed by the NCTE for conducting the course or training in teacher education. These norms, inter alia, cover conditions relating to financial resources, accommodation, library, laboratory, other physical infrastructure, qualified staff including teaching and non teaching staff personnel, etc. (5) No institution shall be granted recognition under these regulations unless it is in possession of required land on the date of application. The land free from all encumbrances could be either on ownership basis or on lease for a period of not less than 30 years.
In cases where under relevant State/UT laws the maximum permissible lease period is less than 30 years, the State Government/UT Administration law shall prevail.
(11) Whenever there are changes in the norms and standards for the course or training in teacher education, the institution shall comply with the requirements laid down in the revised norms and standards immediately but not later than the date of commencement of the next academic session, subject to conditions prescribed in the revised norms.
17.1 In Appendix VI of the said regulations, infrastructural facilities required for B.Ed. colleges were prescribed as follows :
7.
Infrastructural Facilities
a) There shall be provision for adequate number of classrooms, hall, laboratory space for conducting instructional activities for approved intake of 100 students, separate rooms for the principal, faculty members, office for the administrative staff and a store. The size of instructional spaces shall not be be less than 10 sq. ft. per student.
b) There shall be a library equipped with text and reference books related to the prescribed courses of study, educational Encyclopedia, year books, electronic publications (CD-ROMs) and journals on teacher education.
c) There shall be games facilities with a playground. Alternatively, the playground available with the attached school/college may be utilized and where there is scarcity of space as in metropolitan towns/hilly regions, facilities for yoga, indoor games may be provided.
d) To provide these facilities, the Management/Institutions shall, at the time of making application, have in its possession adequate land/land and building on ownership basis free from all encumbrances. Govt. land acquired on long-term lease as per the law of the concerned State/UT will also be considered valid for the purpose. Pending construction of permanent building in the above land, the Institution may provide these facilities in suitable temporary premises up to a maximum period of 3 years, before expiry of which the institution should shift to its permanent building.
Fresh norms were once again prescribed called the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations 2007. In these regulations also as in Regulations of 2005, it was provided inter-alia that :
(13) Whenever there are changes in the norms and standards for the course or training in teacher education, the institution shall comply with the requirements laid down in the revised norms and standards immediately but not later than the date of commencement of the next academic session, subject to conditions prescribed in the revised norms.
18.1 Infrastructural facilities required for educational institution were as follows :
5.0 Facilities 5.1.1 The institution must have at least 2500 sq mtrs. land whereupon built up area consisting of classrooms etc. shall not be less that 1500 sq. mts. Space in each instructional room shall be 10 sq.ft. per student.
Built up Area for running other courses in combination with B.Ed. Programme shall be as under :-
Only B.Ed. 1500 Sq. mts.
B.Ed.
plus M.Ed. 2000 Sq. mts.
B.Ed.
plus D.Ed. 2500 Sq. mts.
B.Ed.
plus D.Ed. and M.Ed. 3000 Sq. mts.
5.1.2 There shall be provision for not less than two class rooms, one multipurpose hall, three laboratories for conducting instructional activities for approved intake of 100 students, seminary/tutorial rooms, resource room for the education of children with disability, separate rooms for the Principal, for the faculty members, of the office and the administrative staff and a store. In every instructional room like classrooms, laboratories, library, etc. space shall not be less than 10 sq. ft. per student. One classroom shall comfortably accommodate 50 student teachers. The Multi-purpose Hall shall have a seating capacity for 150 persons. For additional intake proportional increase in the number of classrooms, tutorial rooms, etc. 5.1.3 There shall be games facilities with a playground. Alternatively, the playground available with the attached school/college may be utilized and where there is scarcity of space as in metropolitan towns/hilly regions, facilities for yoga, indoor games may be provided 5.1.4 Safeguard against fire hazard be provided in all part of the building.
5.1.5 The institution campus, buildings, furniture etc. should be barrier free.
5.1.6 Hostel for boys and girls separately and some residential quarters are desirable.
It can thus be seen that under different regulations, periodically NCTE has been prescribing norms and standards for granting applications for starting educational institutions and for granting recognition to such institutions. It cannot be disputed that before granting of recognition to new aspirant institutions, it is well within the right of NCTE to scrupulously scrutinize that the applicant institutions fulfills all the requirements of the staff, infrastructure, financial stability, etc. It is also not possible to dispute that in some of the petitioners at-least, all such requirements were not fulfilled. However before proceedings further, the main question that needs to be resolved in this petition is whether all norms and standards must be fulfilled by the educational institutions as per the revised requirements prescribed through regulations from time to time.
As is apparent from the regulations framed by NCTE, there are different kinds of requirements for starting an educational institution offering courses in teachers education. Such norms pertain to financial stability and financial resources of the institution, of requirement of adequate and qualified teaching and non teaching staff, of appointment of a full time principal after following necessary procedure, having such staff approved by the affiliating University, etc. Such norms also pertain to requirement of library and laboratory, requirement of sufficient number of books. Norms are also provided for sufficient infrastructure in the form of land, building, classrooms, teachers hall, etc. We are aware that in several regulations, particularly, in Regulations of 2005 and 2007, it is specifically provided that whenever there are changes in the norms and standards for the course or training in teacher education, the institution shall comply with the requirements laid down in revised norms and standards immediately but not later than the date of commencement of the next academic session, subject to conditions prescribed in the revised norms. Question however, is what would be true interpretation of all norms and standards for course or training in teacher education. Would it also involve requirement of land and building?
Perusal of various regulations framed by NCTE in this regard would reveal that there have been numerous and frequent changes in various requirements for starting new institutions for the teachers training. Such changes are in the financial resources required, in the library and laboratory required, in the physical infrastructure required, in qualification of staff including teaching staff required and other such requirements.
We are of the opinion that regulations particularly, Regulations of 2005 and 2007 which provide for the existing institutions to fulfill the revised norms and standards latest by the beginning of next academic session must be understood and interpreted in a manner that will further the object of such regulations and not defeat the purpose. We are of the opinion that any rigid interpretation of the said regulation as canvassed by the counsel for NCTE would be self-destructive and would be virtually impossible to implement. For example, regulations framed by NCTE from time to time make changes in qualification of teaching and non teaching staff. If the interpretation as canvassed by the counsel for NCTE is accepted, it would mean that such revised norms and standards must be fulfilled by the institutions with respect to existing staff also. In other words, a teacher who may have been employed by following procedure many years back on the basis of qualifications prescribed at the relevant time, would be rendered disqualified to hold the post and would have to be terminated. Such an interpretation of the regulations would lead to absurdity.
23.1 So also with respect to physical infrastructure such as requirement of land, building and areas of classroom etc., it can be easily seen that it would be impossible for any educational institution to fulfill such frequently changing requirements. As already noticed, such requirements are being changed from time to time. Such changes pertain to area of total land required, total construction required, requirement of per student constructed area, size of the classrooms, teachers hall and so on. Let us take a case of educational institution which has purchased sufficient land as per the then prevailing norms, has constructed its own building and obtained recognition from NCTE. After few years of running the institution, if NCTE suddenly requires that the institution must provide for more open space or more constructed area than previously prescribed, it would be impossible for the educational institution to fulfill such requirement of expansion if adjacent open land is not available or if there is no scope for adding further construction as per the prevailing building bye-laws of the Municipality. Only choice available to such institutions would be to shift its college to another place or to close it down completely. We must remember that such changes in regulations are made almost every other year.
Counsel for the NCTE submitted that all the institutions had given an undertaking that it will provide for infrastructural and other facilities as per NCTE norms, standards and guidelines from time to time. We must understand this undertaking in tune with the regulations. Undertaking cannot expand the scope of regulations which we have already interpreted in earlier portion of the judgment.
In our opinion, therefore, the expression changes in the norms and standards for the course or training in teacher education must be understood in its proper context. Such changes in norms and standards must be applied with respect to higher standards of education and other requirements that may have been prescribed. In any case, such changes of physical infrastructure cannot be applied to existing institutions who had been granted recognition after due verification and on the basis of norms and standards prevailing at the relevant time. Such changes also cannot be applied with retrospective effect to the teaching and non-teaching staff which would render them disqualified. Such changes can however, be applied for future engagement of teaching and non-teaching staff.
With above clarity in mind, we would like to address to various individual objections raised by NCTE noted here-in-above.
1) With respect to staff
i) If one or more posts are lying vacant :-
In such a case, the institution concerned must fill in the vacancies expeditiously.
ii)Cases where employees are found to be ineligible or not appointed according to their regulations :
Such ineligible appointments cannot be continued indefinitely and appointments must be made according to the procedure laid down. Any defect in this regard must be cured by the institution.
iii)Where employees in particular, teaching staff were at the time of their initial engagement qualified as per the then prevailing rules and regulations but are not eligible according to the subsequent regulations providing for higher eligibility criteria.
As already held, in such a case, amended regulations cannot be applied with retrospective effect. Existing staff if was qualified as per the norms prevailing at the time of recruitment, cannot be held to be disqualified by virtue of subsequent changes in the norms. However, it is clarified that for all future appointments, qualifications prescribed subsequently must be followed.
iv) Cases where principal is not appointed.
Institutions must fill up the post of principal and report to NCTE. Post of principal being crucial for any educational institution, cannot be left vacant for long.
v) Where appointment of staff or principal is not approved by the University.
Institutions must approach the affiliating University and have the staff including the principal's appointment approved.
2)Defects with respect to infrastructure A) Regarding land and building
i)Land is held on lease for a period less than 30 years prescribed under the rules.
Institution must obtain a registered lease for a period prescribed under the rules at the time when recognition was granted.
ii) Land is alloted for other purposes such as medical and health care but the institution is utilizing the same for running the B.Ed. College.
This objection to our mind is not material and not sufficient to cancel the recognition of a institution if otherwise all requirements are fulfilled. The purpose for which the land and building may have been leased to the institution is a matter of dispute, if at all, between the lessor and lessee and merely on this ground, it would not be appropriate for NCTE to cancel the recognition.
iii)Land is not registered in the name of the institution.
If the application of the concerned institution is considered by NCTE at the time when the ownership of the land and building was made compulsory, trust must hold the land under a registered document. If there is any defect, same must be cured.
iv) The college is located in rented premises and institution does not hold the land or building either on ownership or even on lease basis.
Regulations of NCTE do not permit running of colleges in rented premises. The institution must hold the land and building either on ownership or lease basis depending on the position of regulations at the time when such recognition was granted.
v) Other infrastructural facilities related to land and building such as availability of total land, size of the classrooms and the total minimum constructed area required are inadequate.
Institutions must fulfill norms regarding infrastructural facilities related to land and building as prevailing at the time when the recognition was granted. If there is any defect in such requirements, same must be removed. As already held earlier, subsequent changes in the requirements of norms in this regard would however not apply to the institutions which have already been recognized by applying the norms prevailing at the relevant time.
B) Other Infrastructure
i)The institution does not have adequate library or laboratory facility as per the regulations.
All the facilities required for imparting education such as adequate library and laboratory facilities are extremely important and essential to any educational institution. Such requirements must be met with as per the norms laid down by NCTE from time to time. All amendments, changes and higher requirements must also be met with by all the institutions. Such norms as are prevailing currently must be be met with.
3) Other defects
i)Institution failed to produce relevant documents before the NCTE though demanded.
Institution must produce all relevant documents as demanded by NCTE.
ii) Two or more institutions are running in the same premises.
As long as the timing of the two institutions do not overlap and the building area and the land etc. are adequate as per the NCTE norms, mere running of two institutions in the same premises cannot be a ground for cancellation.
iii)Building plan is not approved by the Competent Authority or is not as per the NCTE norms.
Building plan must confirm to the NCTE norms and must be approved by the competent authority.
iv) There are no valid documents of the property in the name of the trust or the institution.
Trust or the institution must produce valid documents of property as required under the norms either on ownership basis or on the lease, as the case may be.
v) The property is acquired through an unregistered sale deed.
If the property is stated to be acquired under a sale, the same must be registered as per the Indian Registration Act since it is a compulsory requirement.
vi) The property is enjoyed on lease, but the lease period has expired and there is no renewal of lease.
If the lease period has expired, the institution must have the same renewed under a valid document
vii)Institution is situated in the commercial area.
Nothing is pointed out to us to suggest that an institution located in commercial area cannot be permitted to continue. Such an objection therefore, would not enable NCTE to cancel the recognition.
It is clarified that above broad categories are based on different objections found in various orders of cancellation of recognition passed by NCTE. The list may not be exhaustive. If there are any defects not included in the above categories, the same will be governed by observations and interpretation of the Regulations that we have made in this judgment. The concerned institution and NCTE shall act according to such guidelines provided.
All the defects to the extent clarified above, must be removed by all the institutions. We are clearly of the view that educational institutions and trusts running such institutions must confirm to the norms set by NCTE and such confirmation must be before recognition is granted. In peculiar facts of these cases, however, we propose to give one last chance to all the petitioners to remove all the defects. Some of the defects are such which can be cured within a short time. Some however, such as shifting of college in the building owned by the trust may take longer time. We would however, provide uniform time limit for curing all defects to all the institutions. Though we are conscious that some of the defects may take considerable time for curing, one cannot lose sight of the fact that during pendency of this petition all the petitioners have enjoyed extension of more than one year. Such defects in fact ought to have been removed even before recognitions were granted. However, considering large number of institutions are involved and that cancelling the recognitions would amount to leaving large number of employees jobless and wasting of infrastructure and other facilities in which the institutions have invested considerable funds, we are inclined to give some extension to all the petitioners.
We once again clarify that the view that we take in this judgment is in peculiar facts of the case. It is true that an educational institution before it can start a Self Finance college, must fulfill all the norms and standards laid down by the governing bodies such as NCTE. It is equally true that with respect to the norms and in particular with those which have a direct bearing on the standard of education, there should be no compromise made. Facts of the present group of petitions are extremely peculiar. In all cases NCTE itself has granted recognition for starting Self Finance B.Ed./PTC/M.Ed. college. Such colleges had been running for several years in some cases since year 2001-2002. Many years thereafter, on the premise that such recognitions were granted without full verification of fulfillment of infrastructural and other norms, the Committees were formed for physical verification of such institutions. On the basis of reports of such Committees, after issuance of show cause notices, recognitions were cancelled. Appeals were also dismissed. These educational institutions approached this Court and have been enjoying interim protection since previous academic year. They have also been permitted to run their courses and admit students. One full academic year has passed while this Court has been hearing the petitions. Next academic year was about to begin. Further orders have been passed permitting these institutions to admit students for the coming year. The admissions granted to the students would therefore, have to be regulated. Even other-wise abruptly withdrawing the recognition of these institutions would result into teaching and non-teaching staff being rendered jobless. After giving guidelines, it would be necessary that NCTE should verify with respect to each educational institution whether the requirements as interpreted here-in-above are fulfilled or not. Thus this would consume considerable time. Considering all these aspects of the matter, we are of the opinion that some reasonable time may be permitted to all the institutions to fulfill all the requirements and norms laid down in statute to run their educational institutions. If they do so within the time so permitted, NCTE shall not disturb recognitions previously granted.
Under the circumstances, these petitions as well as Civil Applications are disposed of with following directions :
i) All the petitioners shall remove all the defects and confirm to all the norms of NCTE as applicable to the concerned institution as interpreted and explained here-in-above for which the petitioners shall have time upto 31.12.2010.
ii) Institutions after curing all the defects not later than by 7.1.2011, shall intimate to the NCTE that defects have been cured and invite the inspection team to carry out inspection.
For the above purpose, the concerned institution shall along with its communication to NCTE attach a draft of Rs. 10,000/- in favor of NCTE for one time cost of such inspection If any institution fails to send such a communication within the time permitted, its recognition shall automatically stand withdrawn without requirement of passing any order. Though students already admitted shall not be affected by such withdrawal, the institution will not be permitted to admit any students in the next academic year.
iii) Upon receipt of such a communication, NCTE shall depute a team of qualified persons to visit the institutions, verify the infrastructure and other facilities available as also inspect the documents with respect to such facilities.
iv) Upon inspection, if NCTE finds that all defects are cured, certificate to that effect shall be given to the concerned institution and its recognition shall be continued.
v) If upon inspection however, NCTE finds any of the defects still remaining, it will be open for NCTE to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after issuing show cause notice to the concerned institution/trust.
vi) In view of above directions, all the orders cancelling recognition of the institutions are set aside. It is clarified that quashing of orders passed by the NCTE is not on merits, but only to enable the institutions to fulfill all the requirements within the extended time.
(S.J.Mukhopadhaya,C.J.) (Akil Kureshi,J.) (raghu) Top