JUDGMENT
Rekha Kumari, J.
Page 2269
1. The above L.P.A. No. 428 of 2005 is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 12.4.2005 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 11350 of 2004 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant National Urdu Primary Education Teachers Training College (hereinfter referred to as the College) was dismissed.
2. It appears that through I.A. No. 577 of 2006, five intervenors Tauqir Ahmad and others claiming to be students of the College for the Sessions 1993-95 and 1994-96, have been added as intervenor-appellants. They have prayed for a direction to the respondent Bihar School Examination Board (B.S.E.B.) to issue marks sheet and certificates.
3. The case of the appellants is that the appellant College was established under the India Islamic Minority Educational and Development Society, Madhubani for imparting education to the students intending to appear at Primary Teachers Training examination. The State Government initially gave recognition to the College for two Sessions 1984-86 and 1985-87. Then, after inspection recognition was extended for the Sessions from 1986-88 till further orders. After obtaining recognition, the College started functioning. The respondent BSEB took the examination of the students of the College for academic Session 1984-86 to 1990-92 and published their results, but though the students of the sessions 1992-94 to 1995-97 completed their training course as well as practical course in their respective sessions, in spite of repeated requests and although the College was recognized for those sessions, the respondent BSEB did not take the examination of the students of the above sessions.
4. The further case of the appellant in the writ petition is that some social organisation considering the attitude of the Bihar School Examination Board moved this Court by way of P.I.L. Thereafter the BSEB through its communique No. 2/04, published on 8.1.2004 in daily “Hindustan”, invited claim of the Teachers Training Colleges for examination of those students who have completed Teachers’ Training Course in recognized sessions. The Principal of the College on 5.5.2004 made an application with proof for examination of the students of the college for the academic sessions 1991-93 to 1995-97 but the respondent BSEB pressed the Principal to Page 2270 make another application only for the Sessions 1993-95 and 1994-96 and for 100 students each for both the Sessions. Accordingly he made an application only for the session 1993-95 and 1994-96. The BSEB accepted the applications and the examination fees for 200 students instead of 500 students. The BSEB then asked for admission register, attendance register, counterfoil of admission fee, assessment answer books. The Principal complied with the above directions.
5. The grievance of the appellant in the writ petition is that in spite of the above fact, the respondent B.S.E.B. did not issue admit card to the students though the date and programme of the examination was already published. The appellant, hence, in the writ petition prayed to direct and command the BSEB to take examination of the students who completed their course during the Session 1991-93 to 1995-97.
6. During the course of argument of the writ petition, after referring to some documents, it was argued on behalf of the petitioner-appellant that some students of the College of the session 1993-95, 1994-96 were given admit cards by the respondent Board and were allowed to appear at their examination held from 20.5.2004 but their results were not published and as such prayer was made to publish their results.
7. The respondent Bihar School Examination Board opposed the prayer and filed a counter affidavit. Its case, in the counter affidavit, inter alia, is that in response to communique No. 2/04 published in the daily new paper, the college had applied for permitting the students of the College for the Sessions 1991-93 to 1995-97, but as the examination for the session 1991-93 and 1992-94 had already been held in the year 1994, the question of conducting the examination for those sessions did not arise. So far the students for the sessions 1993-95 and 1994-96, they were allowed to appear at the examination held from 20.5.2004 and as regards the students for the session 1995-97 they are not eligible to appear in the examination as the College is not recognized by the National Council of Teachers’ Education (NCTE). The case of the Board further is that the College was inspected by the District Superintendent of Education, Madhubani and his report was forwarded by the District Magistrate, Madhubani wherein it is reported that the college was non functional during the above sessions and was found closed.
8. The learned Single Judge considering the materials on record and the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties, was of the view that the petitioner-appellant has failed to show that it was granted any recognition by the State government for the above sessions. There was no sufficient material to show that the students of the college for the sessions 1993-95 and 1994-96 actually appeared at the examination commenced on 20.5.2004. The writ petition also suffered from unexplained delay, laches, negligence and acquiescence. He accordingly dismissed the writ petition.
9. The intervenors appellants in their affidavit and supplementary affidavit have asserted that they along with other students named in Annexures 1 and 1-A to their petition and belonging to sessions 1993-95, 1994-96 of the College, had appeared at the Primary Teachers Training examination in May, 2004 conducted by the Bihar School Examination Board but in view pf the impugned judgment though their results have been published, marks sheets and certificates etc. are not being issued.
10. It further appears that after passing of the impugned judgment, some persons claiming to be students of College for the sessions 1993-95 and 1994-96 filed Page 2271 writ petitions (C.W.J.C. Nos. 6890 of 2006, 6596 of 2006, 6546 of 2006 and 7507 of 2006) praying for a direction to publish their result, issue marks sheets, certificates etc. All these writ petitions had been tagged with this L.P.A. for hearing.
11. Learned Counsel for the parties were heard.
12. It appears from annexure-1 to the writ petition that the State Government had granted provisional recognition to the College for the session 1984-86 and 1985-87 and the College was directed to fulfil certain conditions as mentioned therein in the meantime with an ultimatum that if the conditions are not fulfilled, the recognition would be cancelled. Annexure-2 to the writ petition further shows that then after verification the recognition was extended by the State Government for the sessions from 1986-88 till further orders. Annexure-3 which is a letter dated 6.2.1997 from the Director Research and Training, Government of Bihar (Respondents) to the Bihar School Examination Board also shows that the name of the appellant College finds place therein as one of the institutions which was recognized till further orders. There is nothing to show that the recognition was ever cancelled by the State Government.
13. The learned Single Judge has held that in so far as the periods 1991-93, 1992-94, there is no evidence that the College was granted recognition by the State Government but in view of the above annexures I think it has to be accepted that the College had recognition of the State Government for the above sessions. However, the BSEB has asserted in their counter affidavit that the Board had already conducted the examination for the sessions 1991-93 and 1992-94 in the year 1994. This is not contradicted by the College in reply to the counter affidavit. No reason has also been assigned by the College as to why the students of the College for those sessions did not appear at the examination held in 1994. Obviously, therefore, the Board was justified in not allowing the students of the College for the sessions 1991-93 and 1992-94 to appear at the examination conducted from 20.5.2004. The examinations for the above sessions were conducted in the year 1994 and the writ has been filed after about 10 years on 17.9.2004. The learned Single Judge was thus correct in holding that the writ petition suffers from un-explained delay, laches and negligence on the part of the College.
14. In the case of L. Muthukumar and Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. the Apex Court has observed that writ of mandamus sought after six years delay, cannot be granted.
15. Learned Counsel for the appellant relied on a single Bench decision of this Court in the case of Edara Falahul Muslemin v. State of Bihar C.W.J.C. No. 4377 of 2004 disposed of on 12.12.2004 and submitted that in that writ on similar facts, the Court had permitted the students of Session 1991-93, 1992-94, 1995-97 and 1996-98 to appear at the ensuing examination conducted by the BSEB.
16. But in that case it was not considered by the Court as to why the students of those sessions did not appear at the examination held in the year 1994. The question of delay was also not taken into account. Besides this, it appears from Annexure-A to the counter affidavit of the Bihar School Examination Board in the writ petition that on the direction of the BSEB the District Magistrate, Madhubani got the school inspected by the District Superintendent of Education and his report dated Page 2272 20.3.2004 shows that he had inspected the College and besides other irregularities, he found that though the Principal claimed that the training was imparted for the sessions 1991-93 to 1995-97, he could not produce any document in support of his claim. Then though the Principal produced the attendance register of the month of April, 1992, he could not, on demand, produce any attendance register of the students for the sessions 1991-93 to 1995-97. No admission register could also be produced. It also appeared that the College used to realise Rs. 1100/- from each student but no document could be produced as to where the amount was deposited. There was no cash book.
17. Therefore, though on paper the College would be deemed to be recognized by the State Government for the sessions 1991-93, 1992-94, from the inspection report it appears that in fact it did not impart any training to the students during the above sessions and onwards. This feature also distinguishes this case from the case of Edara Falahul Muslemin (Supra), as in that case on the order of this Court, the District Judge, Patna had inspected the institution, who found that it fulfilled all the conditions.
18. Therefore, as regards the academic sessions for 1991-93 and 1992-94 even though the College was recognised the prayer of the appellant to direct the BSEB to conduct examination, cannot be allowed.
19. So far as the sessions 1995-97, it is pertinent to refer to Sections 14 and 16 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (for short 1993 Act). Section 14 of the Act reads thus:
14. Recognition of institutions offering course or training in teacher education.– (1) 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 this Act, make an application to the Regional Committee concerned in such form and in such manner as may be determined by regulations:
Provided that an institution offering a course or training in teacher education immediately before the appointed day, shall be entitled to continue such course or training for a period of six months, if it has made an application for recognition within the said per period and until the disposal of the application by the Regional Committee.
(2) The fee to be paid along with the application under Sub-section (1) shall be such as may he prescribed.
(3) On receipt of an application by the Regional Committee from any institution under Sub-section (1), and after obtaining from the institution concerned such other particulars as it may consider necessary, it shall —
(a) if it is satisfied that such institution has adequate financial resources, accommodation, library, qualified staff, laboratory and that it fulfils such other conditions required for proper functioning of the institution for a course or training in teacher education, as may be determined by regulations, pass an order granting recognition to such institution, subject to such conditions as may be determined by regulations; or
(b) if it is of the opinion that such Institution does not fulfil the requirements laid down in Sub-clause (a), pass an order refusing recognition to such institution for reasons to be recorded in writing.
Page 2273
Provided that before passing an order under Sub-clause (b) the Regional Committee shall provide a reasonable opportunity to in concerned institution for making a written representation.
(4) Every order granting or refusing recognition to an institution for a course or training in teacher education under Sub-section (3) shall be published in the Official Gazette and communicated in writing for appropriate action to such institution and to the concerned examining body, the local authority or the State Government and the Central Government.
(5) Every institution, in respect of which recognition has been refused shall discontinue the course or training in teacher education from the end of the academic session next following the date of receipt of the order refusing recognition passed under Clause (b) of Sub-section (3).
(6) Every examining body shall, on receipt of the order under Sub-section (4) —
(a) grant affiliation to the institution, where recognition has been granted; or
(b) cancel the affiliation of the institution, where recognition has been refused.
20. Section 16 of the 1993 Act reads thus:
16. Affiliating body to grant affiliation after recognition or permission by the Council –Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no examining body shall, on or after the appointed day —
(a) grant affiliation, whether provisional or otherwise, to any institution; or
(b) hold examination, whether provisional or otherwise, for a course or training conducted by a recognised institution, unless the institution concerned has obtained recognition from the Regional Committee concerned under Section 14 or permission for a course or training under Section 15.
21. Section 2(a) of the Act defines “Appointed Day” as the date of establishment of National Council for Teachers’ Education (N.C.T.E.) under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act. Admittedly the N.C.T.E. came into existence on 17.8.1995.
22. The above provisions of the Act is, therefore, clear that after the appointed day no institution existing on that day could continue a course or training unless it had made an application under Section 14 of the 1993 Act within six months from the appointed day, and no examining body (in this case the BSEB) could hold examination for any course or training conducted by such Institution.
23. The appellant has not shown any material that it had made application within six months from 17.8.2005 for recognition of the College under the Act. The Bihar School Examination Board, however, have annexed two letters dated 6.7.1999 and 27.8.1999/3.9.1999 (Annexure A series) which show that despite reminders since 22.4.1999 the appellant did not send necessary documents for recognition and as such its file was closed. But from the letters it does not appear that the application for recognition was made within six months from 17.8.2005. Therefore, the College could not validly continue any course or training after 17.8.2005 and the BSEB cannot hold examination of the students of the appellant College for the sessions 1995-97 even if it was recognized by the State Government.
Page 2274
24. In respect of sessions 1993-95, 1994-96 as already mentioned as the recognition granted vide Annexure-2 was not cancelled the recognition by the State Government would be deemed to continue and cover these two sessions also.
25. The appellants have also filed documents to show that after due verification by the BSEB the students of the College for the above session got permission to appear at their respective examinations. The intervenors and the writ petitioners have also filed admit cards to show that they had appeared at the examination. Their case also is that their results have been published. These facts are not denied by the respondents. The appellant has also filed Annexure-8 and Annexure-18, letters of the NCTE Eastern Regional Committee to show that they have nothing to say with regard to conducting of examinations prior to 17.8.1995 and the regulations became effective from Sessions 1996-97. But as already mentioned the provisions contained in Section 14 of the Act 1993 is clear that an Institution is entitled to continue its course or training for a period of six months, only if it has made an application for recognition (under the Act) within that period, and there is no material on record to this effect. Therefore, the institution could not validly continue its course or training after 17.8.1995. Consequently the students of the Sessions 1994-96 also had no right to appear at the examination and if the BSEB had allowed them to appear at the examination commenced on 20.5.2004, the same was illegal and even if the results have been published, they are not entitled to marks sheet, certificates etc.
26. Then, as regards the students for the sessions 1993-95 as also the sessions 1994-96 though the appellants have filed annexure-14 to show that by letter dated 13.5.2004, the BSEB had directed it to produce the admission register, attendance register, counterfoil of the admission fees, assessment books, and its case is that it had produced those documents and being satisfied, the B.S.E.B. had allowed the students of the Sessions 1993-95, 1994-96 to appear at their examinations, but as already mentioned that in March, 2004 the College was inspected by the District Superintendent of Education and his report shows that the College was non functional, atleast from the sessions 1991-93. The report also shows that the College was closed since 1997. The report of the Deputy Director (Education), Darbhanga (Annexure-A to the counter affidavit filed by the BSEB in the L.P.A.) also shows that on 29.4.1999 he had gone to inspect the College, but could not locate any such College, and from the staff of another College, namely, Millat Teachers Training College, he learnt that the College had functioned till 1988-89. These documents, therefore, go to show that the documents furnished by the College in compliance with Annexure-14 for securing the permission for the students to appear at the examinations commenced on 20.5.2004, were all created and not genuine. The college was not functioning and no training was imparted to the students of the Sessions 1993-95 and 1994-96 to enable them to appear at the examinations. So, even if the students for these sessions appeared at the examinations and the results have been published, they are not entitled to marks sheets, certificates etc.
27. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that as the College had valid recognition of the State Government before 17.8.1995 when NCTE came into force and the students of the sessions 1993-95 and 1994-96 had appeared at the examinations and their results have been published, they are entitled to get marks sheets, certificates etc. In support of his submissions, he had relied on the Division Page 2275 Bench decision of this Court in the case of B.N. Mandal University v. Mushtaque Alam and Ors. 2003 (4) PLJR. 197. He has relied on this decision also to defend the College for the students of the sessions 1991-93 and 1992-94.
In the above case the institution Ahmadia College was allowed to continue B.Ed. course and provisional recognition was granted for the relevant period. Subsequently, the recognition was cancelled. It was submitted therein that as there was valid recognition for all the relevant sessions, the students of those sessions be allowed to appear at the examination. The prayer was allowed by the Division Bench. In this case also, of course, it has to be taken that the College had temporary recognition till 17.8.1995. But as already discussed, in reality the College was non-functional atleast from the sessions 1991-93 and did not impart any training to the students from that session. Therefore, this case is distinguishable from the above case relied on by the learned Counsel. Besides this, the above decision shows that in case of the other College viz. Milia College, as on inspection it was found that no student was admitted during 1998-99, in spite of temporary recognition, the prayer to allow the students of that College for that session, to appear at the examination, was refused. This part of that decision, hence, goes against the case of the appellant.
28. The Supreme Court in the case of N.M. Nageshwaramma v. State of Andhra Pradesh has observed “The Teachers raining Institutions are meant to teach children of impressionable age and we cannot let loose on the innocent and unwary children, teachers who have not received proper and adequate training. True, they will be required to pass the examination but that may not be enough. Training for a certain minimum period in a properly organised and equipped Training Institute is probably essential, before a teacher may be duly launched.” Similar observation had also been made by the Apex Court in the case of L. Muthu Kumar (Supra).
29. Therefore, in this case when the College did not impart any training, only under the umbrella of temporary recognition by the State Government, the appellants and other writ applicants cannot be granted the reliefs sought for.
30. In the result, the L.P.A. and the writ petitions tagged with it are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.