Himachal Pradesh High Court
Shimla Educational Society Trust And ... vs National Council For Teachers ... on 8 November, 2016
Bench: Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Tarlok Singh Chauhan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 1217 of 2016 Judgment reserved on: 25.10.2016 Date of decision: 8.11. 2016 .
Shimla Educational Society Trust and Anr. ...Petitioners.
Versus National Council for Teachers Education & Anr. ...Respondents. Coram of The Hon'ble Mr.Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice. The Hon'ble Mr.Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
rt Whether approved for reporting? Yes For the petitioners: Mr. Suneet Goel, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. B. Nandan Vashisth, Advocate.
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge Petitioner No. 1 is an educational trust, having established a Senior Secondary Public School and is also running B.Ed. College in the name and style of 'Shimla College of Education'. In order to introduce new professional course i.e. Diploma in Elementary Education (hereinafter referred to as the Course in question), it applied to respondent No. 2 i.e. Northern Regional Committee, National Council for Teachers Education (for short 'NRC'), initially in December, 2008, which application was rejected by respondent No. 2 vide letter ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:31:16 :::HCHP 2 dated 15.1.2009 constraining it to again apply, however, this application also came to be rejected on 16.5.2009 solely on .
the ground of delay. Thereafter, petitioners, time and again, applied to the respondents for grant of permission to run the course in question, but the said requests as also the appeal were rejected by the respondents on different counts till of 13.8.2010, the details of which have been given in the writ petition.
2. rt Left with no option, the petitioners preferred a writ petition being CWP No. 5944 of 2010 and during the pendency of this petition, respondent No. 2 carried out the inspection of the institution and in view of this development, the writ petition was disposed of vide judgment dated 23.4.2012 with a direction to respondent No. 2 to take appropriate action in light of the inspection report as also the action taken by the management of the institution.
3. The respondents again decided against the petitioners, constraining it to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which was accepted and the matter was again remanded to respondent No. 2 with a direction to conduct inspection of the institute afresh. The inspection was conducted in the first week of March, 2013, upon which ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:31:16 :::HCHP 3 respondent No. 2 issued show cause notice, dated 31.5.2013, calling upon the petitioners to submit a list of its teaching .
faculty members for the B.Ed. course, which the petitioners were already running. Petitioners filed reply to the show cause notice, which was considered by respondent No. 2 in its meeting held on 27th and 28th June, 2016, wherein it was of observed as under:-
"...Therefore, the NRC came to the conclusion that the institution is running the B.Ed. Course without rt approved faculty since the grant of recognition by the NRC, NCTE. It is a violation of the provisions of the NCTE Regulations. "
4. On the basis of the above observation, show cause notice was issued to the petitioners and the application for grant of permission to run the course was decided to be kept in abeyance. However, in the meeting held by respondent No. 2 on 28.1.2014, it was decided to withdraw the affiliation granted to the petitioners in respect of B.Ed. course.
This constrained the petitioners to file an appeal, however, no decision was taken on the appeal, the petitioners again moved this Court by filing a writ petition being CWP No. 1062 of 2014, which was disposed of vide order dated 1.5.2014 with ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:31:16 :::HCHP 4 a direction to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal within six weeks.
.
5. Subsequent thereto, the appeal of the petitioners was allowed and matter was remanded to respondent No. 2 whereafter, in the 235th meeting of respondent No. 2 held on 15.04.2015 to 18.04.2015, the recognition in respect of B.Ed.
of course was restored. As regards granting of recognition in favour of the petitioners for running the course in question, a rt letter of intent dated 24.4.2015, was issued in its favour. In compliance to the said letter, the petitioners requested the H.P. Board of School Education (for short 'Board') to constitute a selection committee in accordance with the letter of intent issued by respondent No. 2 for constitution of a selection committee for the selection of faculty/staff for running the course in question.
6. The Board, in turn, directed the Principal, district Institute of Education and Training, Shamlaghat to constitute a committee for the selection of faculty members. The said selection committee held meetings on 2.5.2015 and 6.5.2015 respectively and vide letter dated 14.5.2015 granted its approval of the teaching faculty and this committee recommended the names of ten (10) fresh teachers ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:31:16 :::HCHP 5 exclusively for D.EI.Ed. programme and also included list of six (6) teachers and Principal, already working in the B.Ed.
.
college for D.EI.Ed. programme.
7. The case of the petitioners for recognition was thereafter taken in the 238th meeting held between 20th to 31st May, 2015, however, certain objections were raised which of were responded to by the petitioners vide representation dated 4.6.2015. The case of the petitioners was thereafter rt taken up in the meeting of respondent No. 2 held on 30.6.2015 and 1.7.2015, wherein the recognition for running the course in question was again refused and against the said decision, petitioners filed the appeal before the Appellate Authority and also approached this Court by way of CWP No. 3279 of 2015. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 6.8.2015 with a direction to respondent No. 2 to examine the case of the petitioners.
8. The case of the petitioners was again considered in the 242nd meeting of respondent No. 2 held between 1st to 3rd September, 2015, wherein also recognition was not granted to the institution for running the course in question, against which, the petitioners preferred an appeal to the Appellate Authority. The petitioners also preferred writ petition, being ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:31:16 :::HCHP 6 CWP No. 3945 of 2015, before this Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 17th September, 2015, with a direction to .
the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal within a period of six weeks. When the appeal was not decided, a letter was written to the Member Secretary of respondent No. 1 for listing the appeal of the petitioners, but when no action was taken, of the petitioner filed CWP No. 4283 of 2015, which was disposed of vide order dated 30.11.2015, with the following directions:-
rt "Learned counsel for the parties stated at the Bar that during the pendency of the writ petition, appeal was heard, the matter has been remanded and the lis is pending before respondent No. 2. Their statement is taken on record.
2. In the given circumstances, we deem it proper to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to respondent No. 2 to decide the matter after hearing the parties within three weeks and report compliance before the Registrar (Judicial). The writ petitioners are at liberty to seek appropriate remedy at appropriate stage."
9. In compliance to the aforesaid orders, the case was again taken up by respondent No.2 in its 246th meeting held on 9th to 12th December, 2015 and was rejected on the basis of the earlier grounds.
10. This constrained the petitioners to again approach this Court by way of CWP No. 4755 of 2015 and vide judgment dated 22.3.2016, the decision taken by the Appellate Authority in the proceedings of the 246th meeting, in so far as it ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:31:16 :::HCHP 7 pertained to the petitioners was quashed and respondents were directed to pass orders afresh within a period of three .
months.
11. The respondents were further directed to take into consideration the decision made by the Member Secretary, National Council for Teachers Education on 16.11.2015 of whereby he had clearly observed that the petitioners have taken steps to remove all the deficiencies and the operative rt part of the decision reads thus:-
"AND WHEREAS Appeal Committee noted that the Letter of Intent under Section 8(13) was issued to institution on 24.04.2015. The appellant institution furnished to N.R.C. on 30.5.2015, a revised list of faculty approved by the duly constituted selection Committee of the Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education, Dharamshala. There is valid evidence that the appellant institution had taken steps to remove deficiency in the earlier select list. Committee also noted that the appellant institution vide its letter dated 22.06.2015 addressed to R.D., N.R.C. had furnished a further revised list of faculty approved by the Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education on 17.05.2015 in which names of faculty which were erstwhile noticed to be working as B.Ed. faculty were replaced by new faculty exclusively selected for the D.EI.Ed. course. Appeal Committee noted that the appellant institution as well as N.R.C. got entangled in leveling unnecessary allegations and counter allegation. The crux of the case is that the appellant institution was found fit for conducting D.EI.Ed. course subject to fulfillment of certain conditions and the institution has finally completed the formalities under intimation to the N.R.C. The refusal order dated 09.07.2015 is not justified and hence the matter deserved to be remanded to N.R.C. for taking note of the revised list of faculty and, if need be, after getting the overwriting (erasing) verified through the issuing authority. The NR.C. may thereafter take further action as per the Regulations."::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:31:16 :::HCHP 8
12. In compliance to the aforesaid directions, the .
respondent No. 2 vide its 252nd meeting held between 19.4.2016 to 2.5.2016, again rejected the case of the petitioners and same reads thus:-
"The Prof. Y.K. Sharma was not present at the time of this decision.
of The original file of the Institution alongwith other related documents, NCTE Act, 1993, Regulations were carefully considered by NRC and following observation was made:-
rt In compliance with the order of Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla, dt. 16.3.2016 in CWP No. 4755 of 2015, the applicant institution letter dt. 02.03.2016 was considered by the Committee and NRC decided the land for the proposed programme (D.EI.Ed. course) is on private lease basis which is contravenes the provisions of 8(4)(i) of the NCTE Regulations, 2014.
Hence, grant of recognition is refused.
Further, a complaint letter by Narendra Thakur, Counsellor, Kamla Nagar, Ward No. 6, Shimla was received in this office on 12.04.2016 against the institution may forward to Secretary, H.P. Board of School Education, Dharamshala, Kangra, for necessary action.
Hence, the Committee decided that the application is rejected and recognition/permission is refused u/s 14/15(3)(b) of the NCTE Act, 1993, FDRs, if any, be returned to the institution."
13. It is this order which has been assailed by the petitioners on the ground that the same is against the principal of natural justice and in complete violation of the order dated 30.11.2015 passed by this Court in CWP No. ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:31:16 :::HCHP 9 4283 of 2015 whereby the respondent No. 2 was specifically directed to decide the matter after hearing the parties. It is .
further claimed that the decision is also vitiated on the grounds that the respondents have rejected the case of the petitioners under Rule 8(4)(i) of the NCTE Regulations, 2014, whereas, petitioners have met all the objections as has of been raised by the respondents from time to time.
14. Lastly, it is averred that the respondents have rt adopted pick and choose policy in respect of the petitioners and they have been discriminated in as much as similarly situated institutions have been granted six months time to remove the deficiencies.
15. The respondents have filed their replies, wherein apart from setting out certain allegations against the faculty appointed by the respondents, it has been pointed out that the case of the petitioners has been rejected on two counts. Firstly that the land where the institute is situated is on a private lease basis, which is in contravention of the provisions of Clause 8(4)(i) of NCTE Regulations, 2014.
Secondly, a complaint had been received from one Narender Thakur against the petitioners.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:31:16 :::HCHP 1016. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material placed on record.
.
17. At the outset, we may observe that the petitioners appear to have been dragged into unnecessary and unwarranted litigation, which could have conveniently been avoided in case the respondents would have acted of fairly and impartially. We observe so because the complaint filed by Sh. Narender Thakur, Councilor could not rt have formed one of the basis for rejecting their case for grant of approval, more particularly, when the contents of the complaint have not even been spelt out.
18. That apart, admittedly, no inquiry was conducted on such complaint and even copy thereof was not supplied to the petitioners so as to enable them to make representation. Therefore, the action of the respondents is clearly in violation of natural justice and fair play.
19. Adverting to the other ground for rejection, which is regarding the land for the proposed programme, being on a private land and not in the name of the institute, suffice it to say that as per the recognition order placed in case of other institute, the respondent No.2 itself has ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:31:16 :::HCHP 11 granted six months time to have the land transferred as would be evident from clause 7 of the recognition order .
dated 2.3.2015 (Annexure P-11) wherein it is clearly provided as under:
"7. In case if the land is in the name of the Society/trust, the land is to be transferred within six months in the name of the institution, failing which action shall be initiated to withdraw the of recognition. It shall be essential on the part of the institution concerned to get the needful done in this regard and intimate about the same to the respective Regional Committee rt alongwith the new land documents within the stipulated time."
Therefore, this is clearly a case of invidious discrimination wherein the petitioners alone have been discriminated against, whereas other similarly situated societies/trusts have been granted six months time to have the land transferred in the name of institution.
20. Not only this, we in view of the earlier order passed by the appellate authority further find the action of the respondents to be unsustainable, whereby the respondents had already granted six months time to the petitioners to establish their ownership over the property through legally permissible documents and to show their ability to transfer the land and built up area thereupon in ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:31:16 :::HCHP 12 the name of the institution, as would be evident from the order dated 13.10.2015, relevant portion whereof reads thus:
.
"AND WHEREAS Committee noted that application for M.Ed.
course was made by Shimla Educational Society Trust on 30.12.2012 and the name of appellant college is Shimla College of Education. The land documents enclosed with the application consist of a Lease Deed. The lease is granted by Shimla Education Society in favour of the Shimla College of of Education. Committee further noted the relevant contents of clause 8(4) (i) & 8 (4) (iii) of the NCTE Regulations, 2014 which lay down as under: (i) No institution shall be granted recognition under rtthese regulations unless the institution or society sponsoring the institution 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 from Government or Government institutions for a period of not less than thirty years. In cases where under relevant State or Union territory laws the maximum permissible lease period is less than thirty years, the State Government or Union territory administration law shall prevail and in any case no building shall be taken on lease for running any teacher training programme, (ii) The society sponsoring the institution shall be required to transfer and vest the title of the land and building in the name of the institution within a period of six months from the date of issue of formal recognition order under sub-regulation (16) of regulation 7. However, in case, the society fails to do so due to local laws or rules or bye-laws, it shall intimate in writing with documentary evidence of its inability to do so. The Regional Office shall keep this information or record and place it before the Regional Committee for its approval.::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:31:16 :::HCHP 13
AND WHEREAS keeping in view the above provisions of NCTE Regulations, 2014, Appeal Committee is of the opinion that so long as appellant society is able to establish its ownership .
rights over the property through legally permissible documents and also able to transfer the land and built up area thereupon in the name of the appellant institution within 6 months after the grant of recognition, there is no objection to the appellant society's leasing out the land to the applicant college.
AND WHEREAS Appeal Committee, having considered of the submissions made by appellant and the relevant clauses of the NCTE Regulations, 2014 decided to remand back the case to N.R.C. with a direction to process the application as per Regulations, 2014.
rt AND WHEREAS after perusal of the memorandum of appeal, affidavit, documents available on records and considering the oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Committee concluded that the appeal deserves to be remanded to NRC with a direction to process the application as per Regulations, 2014.
NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby remands back the case of Shimla College of Education, Sanjauli, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh to the NRC, NCTE, for necessary action as indicated above." (underlining supplied by us)
21. The respondents could not have sat over the order passed by the appellate authority and it is only when the petitioners would have shown their inability or failed to comply with the terms of the appellate authority, could they have rejected the case of the petitioners.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:31:16 :::HCHP 1422. We are really at a complete loss to understand and as to how and why the respondents have once again .
rejected the case of the petitioners, that too, on the ground of violation of provisions of clause 8 (4) (i) of the Regulations.
Undoubtedly, the respondents are vested with the authority to grant or refuse the recognition but the same has to be in of accordance with law and the rejection cannot be left to the whims and caprices of the authorities (respondents), as rt is clearly reflected in the instant case.
23. It is unfortunate that the petitioners have repeatedly been compelled to approach this Court and within a span of five years have been constrained to file the seventh petition, earlier ones being:
1. CWP No. 5944/2010 decided on 23.4.2012
2. CWP No. 1062/2014 decided on 1.5.2014
3. CWP No. 3279/2015 decided on 6.8.2015
4. CWP No. 3945/2015 decided on 17.9.2015
5. CWP No. 4283/2015 decided on 30.11.2015
6. CWP No. 4755/2015 decided on 22.3.2016 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:31:16 :::HCHP 15
24. That apart, the petitioners have time and again been compelled to approach the appellate authority .
against the action/inaction of the respondents.
25. In view of aforesaid discussion, we have no hesitation in allowing the petition and accordingly the same is allowed. The decision taken by respondent No.2 in its of 252nd meeting held on 19.4.2016 to 2.5.2016 is quashed and set aside and the petitioners are permitted to start the rt course in question, i.e. D.El.Ed course for the session 2015-17.
However, this would be subject to the petitioners transferring the land and built up area thereupon in the name of the institute within a period of four weeks.
The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(Mansoor Ahmad Mir), Chief Justice.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan), Judge.
8.11. 2016 (awasthi/sanjeev) ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:31:16 :::HCHP