Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/9484/2011 26/ 26 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9484 of 2011
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. A.L.DAVE
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
=========================================================
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 ?
=========================================================
SHRI
YOGANANDA EDUCATION & CHARITABLE TRUST SANCHALIT - Petitioner(s)
Versus
NATIONAL
COUNCIL FOR TEACHERS' EDUCATION - WESTERN REGION & 3 -
Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
PRATIK Y JASANI for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR AJ SHASTRI for Respondent(s) : 1,
NOTICE
SERVED for Respondent(s) : 2 - 3.
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for
Respondent(s) : 2,
MR HRIDAY BUCH for Respondent(s) :
3,
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) :
4,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. A.L.DAVE
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date
: 07/10/2011
CAV
JUDGMENT
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA)
1) This
writ petition depicts extremely sorry State of affairs of a college
named Shri Nachiketa Mahila Shikshan (B.ed.) College, Rajkot run and
managed by Shri Yoganand Educational & Charitable Trust, Rajkot,
B/h. Indraprasth Hall, Mavdi Main Road, Rajkot, which is an
un-recognized educational institution imparting teacher education
i.e. B.Ed. Course. Over a period of time, we have come across so many
petitions preferred by such colleges whose recognition has been
cancelled by National Council for Teachers’ Education (for short
“NCTE”) on grounds like non-appointment of Principal,
inadequate teaching and non-teaching staff, lack of adequate
infrastructure etc. We are sad to note that ultimately the students
are the sufferers. We are reminded of an observation made by the
Supreme Court almost two decades ago in the case of State of
Maharashtra Vs. Vikas Saherbrao Roundable & Ors. (1992) 4 SCC
435, in which the apex Court observed as under:-
“2.This
court judicially noticed mushroom growth of ill equipped and
under-staffed unrecognized educational institutions in Andhra
Pradesh, Bihar, Tamilnadu and Maharashtra States and other states too
are no exceptions. Obviously the field of education is found to be
fertile, perennial and profitable business venture with least capital
outlay. This case is one such from the State of Maharashtra.
3. It
would appear that individuals or societies without complying with the
statutory requirements, establish educational or training
institutions ill equipped to impart education and have the students
admitted, in some instances despite warnings by the State Govt. and
in some instances without knowledge of the concerned State Govt., but
with connivance at lower levels.”
We
can take judicial notice of the mushroom growth of ill-equipped,
under-staffed and unrecognized educational institutions coming up
even in the State of Gujarat.
2) Facts
relevant
for the purpose of deciding this petition can be summarized as
under:-
2.1) The
petitioner – Trust, who runs a B.Ed. college, namely, Shri Nachiketa
Mahila Shiksan B.Ed. College, opposite Geeta Mandir, Geeta Mandir
Road, Nr. Bhakti Nagar Circle, Rajkot has preferred this petition
challenging the order dated 20th July 2011 passed by the
1st respondent-National Council for Teachers’
Education (NCTE) , Western Region, Bhopal. By the said order, the
recognition/permission granted in favour of the
petitioner-Institution has been withdrawn in terms of Section 17 of
the National Council for Teachers’ Education Act, 1993 (for short,
‘the NCTE Act’), substantially on the following grounds:-
The
Institution does not have registered land document. It is occupying
the land belonging to Shri Uma Education Trust.
The
Institution has submitted building plan of Shri Uma Education Trust
which is not even approved by the Rajkot Urban Development
Authority.
Land
use certificate submitted by the Institution which belongs to the
land of Shri Uma Education Trust.
The
Institution does not have its own land and building. It is running
in the premises of Shri Uma Education Trust.
Staff
profile has not been approved by the university.
Two
other Institutions belonging to other trusts are running in the same
premises.
The
building plan submitted by the Institution is that of the Shri Uma
Education Trust.
Merger
of Shri Uma Education Trust with Shri Jalaram Education Trust and
Shri Morvi Sarvajanik Kelvani Mandal was never permitted by the WRC.
The
college / trust did not possess land as per clause 8(5) of the NCTE
Regulations 2005.
2.2) Record
reveals that the recognition to run a B.Ed. College was granted in
favour of the petitioner-Institution vide order dated 27.09.2006 by
the National Council for Teachers’ Education under Section
14(3)(g) of the NCTE Act for conducting B.Ed. course with an intake
of 100 students. On 27.07.2008, a show-cause notice came to be
issued calling upon the petitioner to show-cause as to why the
recognition/permission should not be withdrawn in terms of Section 17
of the NCTE Act, as the following deficiencies came to the notice of
the National Council for Teachers’ Education.
(a) Land
area is inadequate.
(b) Built
up area is inadequate.
(c
) Size of the class rooms and multipurpose hall is inadequate.
(d) Staff
has not been appointed as per norms.
2.3) On
1st December 2008, the National Council for Teachers’
Education passed an order, withdrawing the recognition/permission on
the following grounds:-
(i) Building
plan is not approved. (Not as per the show-cause notice)
(ii) Staff
is not appointed as per the norms.
2.4) The
petitioner challenged the order of withdrawal by way of filing
Special Civil Application No.4575 of 2009. It appears that the
Division Bench of this Court earlier stayed the order of withdrawal
dated 1st December 2008 and, thereafter, by way of common
judgment and order dated 14.05.2010 quashed and set aside the order
passed by the National Council for Teachers’ Education with
certain directions as mentioned in paragraph 29 of the said judgment,
which reads as under:-
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 herein above for which the petitioners
shall have time upto 31.12.2010.
ii) Institutions
after curing all the defects not later than by 07.01.2011, 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 favour of NCTE
for one time cost of such inspection.
If
any Institution fails to send such a communication within the time
permitted, the 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 Institution, verify the infrastructure
and other facilities available as also insect 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.
2.5) As
per the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court, the
Institution was expected and obliged to take care of all the
deficiencies pointed out in the withdrawal order, on or before 31st
December 2010. It appears that the petitioner intimated the National
Council for Teachers’ Education on 20.12.2010 that all the
shortcomings and the deficiencies have been taken care of and invited
the visiting team of the National Council for Teachers’
Education to inspect the premises of the petitioner-college, by
depositing a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards inspection fees.
2.6) The
visiting team deputed by the National Council for Teachers’
Education inspected the premises of the petitioner-college and found
that all the deficiencies have been taken care of and opined that the
Institution may be permitted to continue.
2.7) Record
reveals that on 28.04.2011, the National Council for Teachers’
Education once again issued a show-cause notice, whereby it was
mentioned that after considering the visiting team’s report, the
following deficiencies are found in the college of the petitioner:-
a) The
college is being run in a residential flat as per the building plan
submitted.
b) Certified
copy of the registered lease deed is not submitted.
c) Two
members of the staff (as per the list attached) are not qualified.
d) The
land documents duly certified by the competent authority was not
submitted along with the application that was required as per the
section 7(d) of the NCTE Norms and Standards 2002 or as per section
8(5) of the NCTE Norms and Standards 2005.
2.8) It
appears that the petitioner-Institute sent a reply along with all the
documents which were demanded by the National Council for Teachers’
Education in its show-cause notice dated 28.04.2011.
2.9) As
the show-cause notice was issued upon the petitioner-Institute, the
University did not allot students to the petitioner and, therefore,
the petitioner had preferred Special Civil Application No.6509 of
2011 with a prayer to allot students to the petitioner-college. Since
there were fifteen such petitions challenging the action of the
University in not allotting the students, the Division Bench of this
Court, by a common judgment and order dated 14.06.2011, directed the
University to allot students to the petitioner-college for the
current academic year 2011-2012. It appears that for some reasons,
the allotment process was ordered to be cancelled by the University
as there were some lacuna on the part of University in allotment of
students to the quota of reserved category. The University,
thereafter, published a fresh advertisement for allotment of
students.
2.10) In
the meantime, an order dated 19.07.2011 came to be served upon the
petitioner-Institution, withdrawing the recognition/permission in
terms of Section 17 of the NCTE Act on nine grounds which are as
under:-
i) The
Institute does not have registered land document. It is occupying
the land belonging to Shree Uma Education Trust.
ii) The
Institution has submitted building plan of Shri Uma Education Trust
which is not even approved by the Rajkot Urban Development
Authority.
iii) Land
use certificate submitted by the Institution which belongs to the
land of Shri Uma Education Trust.
iv) The
Institution does not have its own land and building. It is running
in the premises of Shri Uma Education Trust.
v) Staff
profile has not been approved by the university.
vi) Two
other Institutions belonging to the other trusts are running in the
same premises.
vii) The
building plan submitted by the Institution is that of the Shri Uma
Education Trust.
viii)Merger
of Shri Uma Education Trust with Shri Jalaram Education Trust and
Shri Morvi Sarvajanik Kelvani Mandal was never permitted by the
WRC.
ix) The
college/trust did not possess land as per clause 8(5) of the NCTE
Regulations 2005.
2.11)
At that stage, the petitioner vehemently contended that the grounds
on which the recognition of the petitioner-Institute came to be
withdrawn were never a part of the show-cause notice dated 28.04.2011
and the order of withdrawal of recognition traversed beyond the
show-cause notice. In this background, this petition has been
preferred challenging the order and the action of the National
Council for Teachers’ Education in withdrawing the
recognition/permission to run the Institute. The notices were issued
upon respondent nos.2 and 3. On 24.08.2011, the Division Bench of
this Court passed the following order:-
“An
affidavit has been filed by the fifth respondent.
The
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner produced a
letter dated 19.8.2011 written by the Regional Director, National
Council for Teacher Education, Western Regional Committee, Bhopal to
the Director/Chairman of Shri Nachiketa Mahila Sikshan B.Ed. College
enclosing therein an inspection report dated 25.3.2011 to show that
the Inspection Team has given a favourable report in favour of the
institute and recommended to permit the petitioner-institute to run
B.Ed. course. It is alleged that in spite of such recommendation,
giving reference to order passed in some other college,
recommendation of the petitioner-institute has been cancelled.
While
we allow the petitioner to file the aforesaid letter along with a
report, enclosing with an affidavit, grant one day time to the
counsel for the NCTE to obtain instruction and state as to why the
respondents be not directed to allot students in favour of the
petitioner-institute.
Post
the matter on 26th August 2011 within five cases.”
2.12)
On 26.08.2011, the Division
Bench of this Court passed further order, which reads as under:-
“Learned
counsel appearing on behalf of National Council for Teachers’
Education [NCTE] prays for and is allowed time till 29th
August, 2011 to file affidavit enclosing copy of the latest report
and any other document if they intend to file.
In
the meantime, taking into consideration the report dated 25th
March, 2011 submitted with letter F.No. 61-1247/2011/RTI/80820, dated
19th August, 2011, issued by Regional Director, NCTE,
Western Region, Bhopal, we direct Saurashtra University to allot
students to the petitioner Institution, subject to the decision of
the case.
Post
the matter on 30th August, 2011 within ten cases.”
2.13)
It is the case on behalf of the petitioner-Institute that the
University allotted students to the petitioner-college and as of now
sixty one students are studying in the college of the petitioner.
2.14)
It appears that during the pendency of this petition, the National
Council for Teachers’ Education issued a fresh modified
withdrawal order against the petitioner, whereby the National Council
for Teachers’ Education relying on the visiting report,
withdrew the recognition of the petitioner college on the following
grounds:-
i) The
Institution neither had land on the date of submission of application
as per Clause 7(D) of the NCTE regulations 2002, nor does it have the
land even today. (NOT MENTIONED IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE).
ii) The
Institution is running in a flat of Multi Storied Residential
Building. (NOT MENTIONED IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE).
iii) Registered
lease deed of the flat was executed on 18.03.2011, that is beyond the
time limit of 31.12.2010 as prescribed by the Hon’ble High Court.
(NOT MENTIONED IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE).
iv) One
of the lecturers was not qualified as per the date of appointment.
(NOT MENTIONED IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE).
2.15)
In light of this development, the Division Bench of this Court, vide
order dated 30th August 2011, observed as under:-
“We
are not happy in the manner the Western Regional Committee passed
modified order dated 24.8.2011 while the matter was pending before
this Court. It is contrary to the inspection report circulated by the
same very Western Regional Committee on 19.8.2011 under the signature
of the Regional Director, Western Regional Committee, National
Council for Teacher Education, Bhopal.
In
the circumstances, we direct Dr H.S. Tripathi, Regional Director,
Western Regional Committee, National Council for Teacher Education,
Bhopal to appear in person along with the original record and explain
the matter on the next date. If it is found that he has wrongly
issued the earlier report by letter dated 19.8.2011, he will explain
why this matter may not be referred to the higher authority of
National Council for Teacher Education for taking appropriate action
against the erring officer.
In
the meantime, the Regional Director will send a new committee to
inspect both the premises with respect to defect as recently pointed
out by the National Council for Teacher Education, who after
inspection, will submit a fresh report.
Post
the matter on 7th September 2011 on the top of the list.
Let
a copy of this order be handed over to Mr AJ Shastri, who will inform
the officer of his appearance.”
2.16)
In light of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court
dated 30th August 2011, a new committee was constituted by
the National Council for Teachers’ Education who inspected the
premises of the petitioner-Institute and filed their inspection
reports. We called for the inspection reports prepared by the new
committee and we ordered that the original records which have been
dropped before the Court be kept ready for perusal of the Court. The
original report submitted in both the cases was kept in a sealed
cover. We perused the report which was kept in a sealed cover, and
the observations of the committee members are as under:-
“The
Hon’ble Court had directed to do the inspection with regards to the
defects pointed out in the withdrawal order. The team scrupulously
followed the court’s directions.
The
team had done the videography and photography of infrastructure,
instructional facilities, staff. The C.D. and album are enclosed.
The four corners of the land and building are picturised prominently
in the videography and the photography and also the equipments and
furniture in the rooms. The observations of the visiting team are
noted below:-
i) It
is true that the college is being run in a building of residential
use. The institution could not submit the building use certificate
for educational purpose as yet. The building plan clearly shows that
the constructed premise is meant for residential use. There is a
parking space shown in the map. The rooms are small in size. The
building is surrounded by residential buildings.
ii) The
Institution has now submitted the certified copy of the registered
deed. On close scrutiny of the lease deed, the team feels that the
lease deed of 30 years is only for constructed premise and, not for
‘Land’ and the building thereon.
iii) After
the perusal of the consolidated bio-data of teaching staff, there is
no provision of teaching all school subjects. There is no lecture
for ‘English’ and ‘Maths’. Original degree certificates and mark
lists were not submitted to the team for checking one teacher is not
M.Ed.
iv) Now,
the Institution had submitted the land documents duly certified by
the competent authority. But in the opinion of the visiting team,
the land on which the Institutional building stand is not on 30 years
lease period. As per NCTE Norms of 2005, the institution does not
possess adequate land or ownership or government land on long term
lease.
v) The
consolidated biodata of teaching staff is not approved by the
Saurashtra University, Rajkot. Only one individual biodata of the
Principal is approved by the University.”
S.no.
Name
of Member
Signature
of member
Date
1
Prof.
V.R. Savarkar
sd/-
6.9.2011
2
Dr.B.B.Singh
sd/-
6.9.2011
3
4
Representative
of Management.
3) We
have heard learned senior counsel Mr.Yatin N. Oza appearing with
learned advocate Mr.Pratik Jasani for the petitioner, learned
advocate Mr.A.J. Shastri appearing for respondent no.1, learned
advocate Mr.Hriday Buch for respondent no.3 and learned AGP Mrs.Krina
Calla appearing for respondent no.4-State.
4) Learned
counsel for the petitioner would submit that the National Council for
Teachers’ Education has, uptill now on three occasions,
inspected the college of the petitioner. He would submit that on all
the three occasions, the inspecting team did not find any deficiency.
He would submit that an order cannot traversed beyond the show-cause
notice. He would further submit that though it has been argued on
behalf of the National Council for Teachers’ Education that the
report dated 25.03.2011 is a false report, nowhere in the affidavit
dated 27.08.2011 it has been stated that the report of the visiting
team is false or it has not been believed to be a genuine one. He
would further submit that none
of the grounds mentioned in any of the order are such which would
come in the way of the petitioner to impart education to its
students. That none of the defects as pointed out by the National
Council for Teachers’ Education are of such a nature that
without taking care of the defects, college cannot function. He
would further contend that though the order made by the National
Council for Teachers’ Education is completely against the
report of its visiting team, explanations subsequently given by the
officer passing the order cannot be accepted by way of an affidavit.
He would further submit that though there is an alternative remedy
available for challenging the order passed by the National Council
for Teachers’ Education by preferring an appeal under Section
18 of the NCTE Act, the remedy cannot be said to be an efficacious
remedy as the Appellate Authority constituted under the Act does not
have any power to stay the order passed by the National Council for
Teachers’ Education and it cannot direct the University to
allot the students. He would further submit that the petitioner is
owning land on a long term lease basis for a period of thirty years.
He would further submit that the copy of the approved building plan
has been annexed suggestive of the fact that the petitioner is having
four class rooms, one multipurpose hall, one library, one psychology
lab, one science lab, one computer lab, one language, education and
technology lab, one Principal’s room, one staff room, one store room
and one office room. He would submit that since the grounds which are
relied upon by the National Council for Teachers’ Education in
cancelling the recognition/permission of the petitioner-Institute
does not fall within the ambit of the 2005 Norms and Regulations of
the NCTE, with which the petitioner-Institute is governed, the
impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside in the interest
of justice and equity.
5) He
would also submit that the order of withdrawal dated 19.07.2011 would
come into effect from the next academic sessions following the date
of withdrawal order and, therefore, the order will actually take
effect in 2012-13. As on today, the petitioner-Institute can be said
to be a recognized Institute and they may be permitted to impart
education to the students.
6) Per
contra, learned advocate Mr.Shastri appearing for the National
Council for Teachers’ Education submitted that the earlier
inspection which was carried out by the visiting team was not
properly carried out and in spite of number of deficiencies, the
inspecting team prepared a report favourable to the
petitioner-Institute. He would submit that the higher authorities of
the National Council for Teachers’ Education suspected some
mischief and they are also contemplating some actions against the
members of the visiting team who prepared a report contrary to the
position which was in existence. He would submit that as per the
order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, a new committee was
constituted to inspect the premises with respect to defect, and the
report has been submitted in a sealed cover before this Court. He
would submit that there are large number of deficiencies and,
therefore, it would not be in the interest of the students to permit
or allow such an institute to impart education for conducting B.Ed.
course. Learned advocate appearing for the National Council for
Teachers’ Education placed strong reliance on the judgment
rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Chairman, Bhartia
Education Society & Anr. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh &
Ors., reported in (2011) 4 SCC 527, more particularly the
principles initiated in paragraph nos. 9,11,13,15,18,19,22 and 24 of
the said judgment. The learned advocate also invited attention of
this Court to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Vikas Saherbrao Roundale, reported
in (1992) 4 SCC 435 and stated that while taking judicial notice of
mushroom growth of ill-equipped and under-staffed unrecognized
educational institutions in Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Tamil Nadu and
Maharashtra States and other states too, the Apex Court has observed
that the field of education is found to be fertile, perennial and
profitable business venture with least capital out-lay and without
complying with the statutory requirements, establish educational or
training institutions ill equipped to impart education and have the
students admitted. In the same case in paragraph 6, while referring
to the case of N.M. Nageshwaramma Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and
another, reported in 1986 (Supp) SCC 166, has observed that if the
Government is directed to permit the students admitted in those
institutions to appear in the examinations, the Hon’ble Court would
practically be encouraging and condoning the establishment of
unauthorized institutions and has observed that it is not appropriate
that the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Court under Article 32 or
Article 226 of the Constitution of India should be frittered away for
such a purpose. So the request to permit the students who had
training in unrecognized schools was deprecated by the Hon’ble Spreme
Court of India. In the said case the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
made the following observations:-
”
6. In
N.M. Nageshwaramma Vs. State of A.P. 1
this court held that the private institutions unauthorizedly
established were invariably ill housed, ill staffed and ill equipped.
If the Government is directed to permit the students admitted into
those institutions, to appear in the examination, we will practically
be encouraging and
condoning the establishment of unauthorized institutions. it is not
appropriate that the jurisdiction of the court either under Article
32 or Article 226 of the Constitution should be frittered away for
such a purpose. So the request to permit the students who had
training in unrecognized schools was deprecated by this Court.
7. In
A.P. Christians Medical Educational Society, Vs. Govt. Of A.P. wen
fervent request, with all persuasion by the senior counsel, Shri
K.K. Venugopal, to permit the students admitted in unrecognized and
unauthorized institution to pursue balance course was made, this
Court noted thus: (SCC p. 678, para 10)’we do not think that we can
possibly accede to the request made on behalf of the students. Any
direction of the nature sought for… would be in clear tansgression
of the provisions of the University Act and the regulations of the
University. We cannot by our flat direct the University to disobey
the statute to which it owes its existence and the regulations made
by the University itself. We cannot imagine anything more
destructive of the rule of law than a direction by the court to
disobey the laws.”
8. In
all Bihar Christian Schools Association Vs. State of Bihar 3
this court, when the ill-equipped and mismanaged schools wer taken
over by an Act whose validity was challenged on the anvil of Article
30 of the Constitution, held that even the minority institutions are
subject to statutory regulations and establishment and maintenance of
such an educational institution should be in conformity with the
statute and the State is entitled to regulate the establishment of
the educational institutions and the admission of the students in
those educational institutions. It was held that the educational
institutions of the minorities have no right to maladministration.
Any rule or direction issued by the Government to prevent
maladministration would be valid.
9. In
State of T.N. Vs. St. Joseph Teachers Training
Institute 4 the High
Court of Madras while dismissing the writ petitions filed by
unauthorized educational institutions, gave direction to admit the
students for the examination. This Court held that the direction of
admitting students of unauthorized educational institutions and thus
seeking direction for permitting the students to appear at the
examination has been looked with disfavour by this Court. It was
held that since the students of unrecognized institutions were
legally not entitled to appear at the examination conducted by the
Educational Department of the Government, the High Court acted in
violation of law in granting permission to such students for
appearing at the public examination. Accordingly, the appeal was
allowed and the direction issued was set aside.
10. In
students of Dattatraya Adhyapak Vidyalya Vs. State of Maharashtra
this court held thus:
“we
are coming across case of this type very often where allegations are
made that innocent students are admitted into unrecognized schools
and are made to suffer. Some courts out of compassion occasionally
interfere to relieve the hardships. We find that the result of this
situation is total indiscipline in the field of regulation.”
11. In
Andhra Kesari Educational Society Vs. Director of School Education
relied upon by the counsel for the respondents, no doubt this Court
directed the Government to consider whether the students in the
appellant’s college have undergone the necessary B.Ed. course and has
permitted them to appear in the ensuing examination and publish their
results. In that case, there was a long drawn history of the
recognition of the institute and that the direction was issued by
this Court in the special circumstances therein. Therefore, it
cannot be taken as a precedent, in particular, in the light of the
law laid down by this Court as stated supra.
12. The
ill-equipped and ill-housed institutions and sub-standard staff
therein are counter-productive and detrimental to inculcating spirit
of enquiry and excellence in the students. The disregard of
statutory compliance would amount to letting loose of innocent and
unwary children. The proceedings of the recent seminar held in Delhi,
as published by the Times of India Dated August 4,1992, would
demonstrate the admission by the teachers that they are
not properly trained to cope up with the growing needs of the society
and are unsuited to the duties they have to shoulder in imparting
teaching to the children. The teacher plays pivotal role in moulding
the career, character and moral fibres and aptitude for educational
excellence in impressive young children. Formal education needs
proper equipping of the teachers to meet the challenges of the day to
impart lessons with latest techniques to the students on secular,
scientific and rational outlook. A well-equipped teacher could bring
the needed skills and intellectual capabilities to the students in
their pursuits. The teacher is adorned as Gurudevobhava, next after
parents, as he is a principal instrument to awakening the child to
the cultural ethos, intellectual excellence and discipline. The
teachers, therefore, must keep abreast of ever-changing techniques,
the needs of the society and to cope up with the psychological
approach to the aptitudes of the children to perform that pivotal
role. In short teachers need to be endowed and energised with needed
potential to serve the needs of the society. The qualitative
training in the training colleges or schools would inspire and
motivate them into action to the benefit of the students. For
equipping such trainee students in a school or a college, all
facilities and equipments are absolutely necessary and institutions
bereft thereof have no place to exist nor entitled to recognition.
In that behalf compliance of the statutory requirements is insisted
upon, slackening the standard and judicial flat to control the mode
of education and examining system are detrimental to the efficient
management of the education.
The directions to the appellants to disobey the law is subversive of
the rule of law, a breeding ground for corruption and feeding source
for indiscipline. The High Court, therefore, committed manifest
error in law, in exercising its prerogative power conferred under
Article 226 of the Constitution, directing the appellants to permit
the students to appear for the examination etc.”
7) Learned
advocate appearing for the University also placed reliance on the
judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court mentioned in the affidavit of the
University in the case of National Board of Examinations Vs. G.Anand
Ramamurthy and others, reported in (2006) 5 SCC 515 and in the case
of Bihar Public Service Commission and others Vs. Kamini (2007) 5
SCC 519, in the case of University of Mysore Vs. Govinda Rao,
reported in AIR 1965 SC 491 and in the case of All India Council for
Technical Education Vs. Surinder Kumar Dhawan and others, reported in
2009 AIR SCW 3124, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 13
has made observations in respect of rule of statutory expert bodies
on education and role of Courts.
8) Having
heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having given our
anxious thoughts and considerations to the rival contentions, we are
of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief as
prayed for, keeping in mind the interest of the students. Firstly, we
have noticed that there are many disputed questions of fact.
Secondly, we cannot ignore the report of the second inspecting team,
which visited the premises on 6th September 2011, where
the members of the team have reported number of deficiencies, which
we have noticed and the same is incorporated in the earlier part of
the judgment. We cannot permit the students to continue in such an
institution, which has no basic infrastructure and does not fulfill
the 2005 NCTE Regulations and Norms. We have also been informed that
the students have been transferred to other recognized colleges, so
that their career is not put to stake.
In the above view of the matter, we are left with no other option
but to reject the petition. The petition is rejected with no order
as to costs. Notice is discharged.
(A.L.DAVE,
ACTG. C. J.)
(J.B.PARDIWALA,J.)
Vahid
Top