Chattisgarh High Court
Agrasen Mahavidyalaya vs Regional Director National Council For ... on 18 July, 2011
HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH BILASPUR
WRIT PETITION C NO 6461 OF 2010
Agrasen Mahavidyalaya
...Petitioners
Versus
Regional Director National Council for Teacher Education & Another
...Respondents
! Shri H B Agrawal Sr Advocate with MS Sareena Khan Advocate for the petitioner ^ Shri Bhaskar Pyasi Advocate for the respondents CORAM: Honble Shri Satish K Agnihotri J Dated: 18/07/2011 : Judgement (Delivered on this 18th day of July, 2011) (Writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India)
1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 15-9- 2010 (Annexure - P/14) passed by the respondent No.2 in an appeal preferred against the order dated 18-5-2010 (Annexure - P/12) passed by the respondent No.1 withdrawing recognition granted to the petitioner to conduct B.Ed. course for the academic session 2010-11 on the following grounds :
1. Approved building plan not submitted.
2. Land area is only 3360 sq.ft., which is inadequate as per the NCTE norms.
2. The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner, are that the petitioner institute was granted recognition for the academic session 2005-06 by order dated 9-8-2005 (Annexure - P/1) for approved intake of 100 seats under the provisions of section 14 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (for short `the NCTE Act, 1993'). The affiliation thereon was granted by the Pandit Ravi Shankar Shukla University, Raipur, on 2-3-2006 (Annexure - P/2). The said recognition continued till the withdrawal order dated 18-5-2010 was passed by the respondent No.1.
3. Shri Agrawal, learned senior counsel appearing with Ms. Khan, learned Advocate for the petitioner, would submit that a show cause notice dated 25-3-2010 (Annexure
- P/4) was issued to the petitioner institute pointing out following defects :
1. The institution is running B.Com, B.C.A., PGDCA & B.Ed. in the same building.
2. Approved building plan not submitted.
3. The land area is only 3360 sq.ft., as per the registered land deed which is inadequate as per the NCTE norms.
4. Shri Agrawal would further submit that the petitioner institute submitted its reply on 23-4-2010 (Annexure -
P/5) stating that B.Ed. course was conducted in two buildings, one constructed in the society's own land and the second building constructed by the society on a long leased land obtained from Jaitusao Mandir. The agreement of sale is Annexure - P/6. Thereafter, having considered the response of the petitioner, the recognition was withdrawn by order dated 18-5-2010. Thereagainst, an appeal was preferred before the respondent No.2. The same was dismissed by the impugned order dated 15-9-2010.
5. Shri Agrawal would next submit that the respondent No.1 had not understood the documents properly. There was also another rent note dated 10-6-1999 (Annexure - P/8) wherein it was shown that the land admeasuring 9300 sq.ft. was also available. The recognition could have been continued as under clause 11 repeal clause of the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms & Procedure) Regulations, 2005 (for short "the Regulations, 2005"), the recognition granted earlier would continue, as the repeal of the aforesaid regulations will not affect previous operation of any regulations so repealed or anything duly done thereunder.
6. Shri Agrawal would also submit that there is no grievance or complaint of the students and teachers against running of the B.Ed. course in the institution for the last 5 years. The withdrawal of recognition on the ground that several courses are being running in the same building is not sustainable, as the same is operated in other institutions also. The authorities have completely ignored the provisions of law, as specification of building or requirement of infrastructure is not for the old institute, but for recognition of new institutes only.
7. On the other hand, Shri Pyasi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, would submit that the petition deserves to be dismissed at the threshold on the ground that the original order dated 18-5-2010 was not challenged, only the order passed in appeal has been challenged. Even if the appellate order is set aside, the original order would continue.
8. On merits, Shri Pyasi would submit that the NCTE Regulations 2002 was framed wherein the recognition was granted. Thereafter, repeal clause under the Regulations 2005 is only to the effect that the recognition granted earlier would not be cancelled, but the requirement of infrastructure, building, staff, etc. is a pre-requisite for continuation of recognition, as if the same is not satisfied the standard of the education could not be maintained.
9. Shri Pyasi would further submit that the petitioner institute had committed breach of clause 8.11 of the Regulations, 2005, as the requirement under clause 5.1.1 of the revised norms and standards is that the institution must have at least 2500 sq.mts. land whereupon built up area consisting of class rooms etc. shall not be less than 1500 sq.mts. Space in each instructional room shall be 10 sq.ft. per student. On inspection, conducted by the respondent No.1 on 26-2-2010, it was found that the petitioner institute was not in possession of the required land and built up area. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued and after considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, the withdrawal order was passed on 18-5- 2010.
10. Shri Pyasi would next submit that the petitioner is in possession of 3360 sq.ft. land of khasra No.1817 in Raipur city under the registered sale deed dated 6-10-1975 and 9300 sq.ft. land under the unregistered rent agreement dated 10-6-1999 & 2700 sq.ft. land under the unregistered agreement dated 19-11-2001. The possession of land under the unregistered rent agreement is not permissible. In fact, the petitioner is in possession of only 3360 sq.ft. of land as against the requirement of 26900 sq.ft. (2500 sq.mts.).
11. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto.
12. The petitioner has filed two sale deeds dated 29-4- 2011 (Annexure - P/19) and 29-4-2011 (Annexure - P/20) allegedly executed in favour of the petitioner institute and further mutation in revenue records. It appears that these documents were not available when the inspection was done or the withdrawal of recognition order was passed. Thus, no fault can be found with the respondents, when the withdrawal order and thereafter, the impugned order was passed in appeal.
13. The contention of Shri Pyasi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents with regard to maintainability of the writ petition is frivolous, as it is well settled law that the order appealed against merges with the order passed in appeal, if the appellate order affirms or confirms, both the orders would stand or fail together. Since the first order has merged with the appellate order, it is not necessary to challenge the first order, which gave rise to filing of appeal. Only in review cases, if the main order is not under challenge, the order passed in review cannot question the main order.
14. The requirement as prescribed and stated by the respondents in the preceding paras has not been denied by the petitioner.
15. Clause 8 of the Regulations, 2005, inter alia, deals with conditions for grant of recognition. Sub-clauses (1) (5) (8) & (11) of clause 8 of the Regulations, 2005 read as under :
8. Conditions for grant of recognition :
(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 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.
(8) At the time of inspection, the building of the institution shall be complete in the form of a permanent structure on the land possessed by the institution in terms of Regulation 8 (5), equipped with all necessary amenities and fulfilling all such requirements as prescribed in the norms and standards.
(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.
16. After considering all the aspects of the matter, in the order dated 15-9-2010 the respondent No.2 held as under :
AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the institution was granted conditional recognition for D.Ed. course for the academic session 2005- 06 only subject to the college submitting the list of staff/faculty duly approved by the Registrar of the affiliating university before commencement of the academic session, vide WRC letter dated 09-08-2005. The said letter also indicated that formal order of recognition would be issued only after the receipt of the list of approved faculty/staff in WRC. No formal recognition order was issued by the WRC but the institution continued to run the B.Ed. course after obtaining affiliating from the affiliating university namely Pandit RaviShankar Shukla Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur. In the 129th meeting of the WRC held on December 22-23, 2009, the WRC decided to get inspection of the recognized institutions including the Agrasen Mahavidyalaya, Raipur under Section 17 of the NCTE Act, which provided that where the Regional Committee was, on its own motion or on any representation received from any person, satisfied that a recognized institution had contravened any of the provisions of the Act, or the Rules, Regulations, Orders made or issued thereunder or any condition subject to which recognition was granted, it might withdraw the recognition of such recognized institution for reasons to be recorded in writing. The VT report dated 26-02-2010 was negative and it, interalia, indicated that the building used for running the course was purely on rent basis, the ownership could not be established due to back of supporting documents, the institution was running four more course other than B.Ed., at different timings, the institution was not having qualified Head/Principal for B.Ed. course and the Management/Society was not clear whether they would continue B.Ed. course in the same premises or would shift to some other place fro which they were having resources.
The Council also noted that the claim made by the institution that it was permitted to conduct B.Ed.
course in two buildings at two plots i.e one plot of 3360 Sq.ft. with a built-up area of 6500 Sq.ft. and another plot of 21941 Sq.ft. with a built-
up area of 1003 Sq.ft. was not correct inasmuch as alongwith its application. It submitted a sale deed dated 01-10-75 in respect of land of 3360 Sq.ft.
in Sy.No. 1817 and the legal opinion obtained by the WRC at that time also indicated that, the Council was, therefore, of the view that the institution was not functioning in accordance with the NCTE norms and, thus, there was no ground to accept the appeal.
AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit and after considering oral arguments advanced during hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was no ground to accept the appeal and hence it should be rejected.
Accordingly, the appeal was rejected and WRC's order dated 18-05-10 was confirmed.
17. The Supreme Court, in Chairman, Bhartia Education Society & Another v. State of Himanchal Pradesh & Others1, observed as under:
"11. Section 14 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 ('NCTE Act' for short) relates to recognition of institutions offering course or training in teacher education.
Sub-section (1) thereof
provides that every
institution offering or
intending to offer a course or training in teacher education on or after the appointed day, may, for grant of recognition under the Act, make an application to the Regional Committee concerned in such form and in such manner as may be determined by regulations. NCTE Act came into force on 1.7.1995 and the appointed day under the said Act is stated to be 17.8.1995. A combined reading of sections 14(1) and (5), 15, 16, and 17(3) and (4) of NCTE Act make it clear that after the appointed day, no institution can commence or offer a course or training in teacher education without recognition by the NCTE and consequently, no student could be admitted to such course or training nor could be permitted to appear in any examination relating to such course or training.
21. Section 16 of NCTE Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no examining body shall grant affiliation whether provisional or otherwise, to any institution, or hold examination for a course or training conducted by a recognized institution, unless the institution concerned has obtained recognition from the Regional Committee of NCTE under section 14 or permission for a course or training under Section 15 of the Act."
18. Granting recognition to conduct academic course is within the statutory jurisdiction of respondents, as provided under the provisions of the NCTE Act, 1993 read with the Regulations, 2005. This Court cannot examine the facts and disputes in the instant case. The facts have been disputed only on the ground of certain documents, which were procured by the petitioner institute after the first order of withdrawal of recognition was passed on 18- 5-2010.
19. The High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot substitute the view taken by the experts on objective consideration. Thus, there is no merit in this petition.
20. As an upshot, the writ petition, being bereft of merit, is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed. However, it is open to the petitioner institute to approach the authorities again, if the institute complies with all the requirements for grant of recognition, in accordance with law, if so advised.
21. There shall be no order asto costs.
J u d g e