Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/2591/2009 6/ 9 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2591 of 2009
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8831 of 2009
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
=========================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================
BHAUTIK
VIJAYBHAI BHATT - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 4 - Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance :
In
SCA No.2591 of 2009
MR
SI NANAVATI, SR. ADV. WITH VD PARGHI
for Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR
DEVANG VYAS, AGP for Respondent(s) : 1
MR AJ SHASTRI for respondent
No.2
MR YN OZA WITH MR. RAJESH K SAVJANI for Respondent(s) : 3
5.
In
SCA No.8831 of 2009.
MR YN OZA WITH MR. RAJESH K SAVJANI for the petitioner.
MR
AJ SHASTRI for the
respondents.
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 18/03/2010
CAV
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)
Issues
in these petitions overlap. They are, therefore, being disposed of
by this common judgment.
Special
Civil Application No.8831 of 2009 has been filed by Shreemati
Nathibai Damodar Thackersey Women’s University (herein after to be
referred to as SNDT University ) challenging the order dated 6th
March 2009 passed by the Regional Director of National Council for
Teacher Education (NCTE for short) as upheld by the order dated 13th
July 2009 by the Appellate Authority. By the said orders, the
authorities of NCTE have been pleased to hold and declare that the
NCTE has not granted recognition to SNDT University to start an
extension center at Maninagar, Ahmedabad to conduct M.Ed. Course and
therefore the University should discontinue such a course with
immediate effect.
Special
Civil Application No.2591 of 2009 has been styled as public interest
litigation. The petitioner therein has sought for a direction to the
SNDT University to forthwith stop M.Ed. College running at
Maninagar. He also prayed for certain consequential directions.
Before
adverting to the submissions of the advocates for the parties, brief
facts need to be noted.
SNDT
University is situated in the State of Maharashtra at Mumbai. It is
a University recognized under the University Grant Commission Act,
1956. SNDT University desired to start M.Ed. Course in the State of
Gujarat. The University had initially envisaged granting
affiliation to one Satyam College at Bharuch for running M.Ed.
Course. SNDT University had approached the NCTE with a letter of
intent in this regard. However, before NCTE granted recognition to
the said Satyam College for running a college at Bharuch, it appears
that the SNDT University permitted the said college to start
M.Ed.Course claiming that the said college was affiliated with SNDT
University.
Sometime
thereafter, in the year 2007-08, SNDT University shifted its
operation to Ahmedabad. This time, SNDT University claimed that it
had started its own extension center at Maninagar, Ahmedabad without
affiliating any college for the said purpose.
NCTE
in view of the above background, issued a show cause notice to SNDT
University and after giving an opportunity of being heard passed
the impugned order on 6.3.09 holding that NCTE has not granted
recognition to SNDT University to run its extension center at
Maninagar for M.Ed. Course. NCTE, therefore, directed SNDT
University to discontinue such course with immediate effect. In
the said order, it is recorded that without any recognition by NCTE,
students were admitted in Satyam College, Bharuch as well as at
Maninagar in Ahmedabad.
SNDT
University appealed against the said decision. The Appellate
Authority by its order dated 13.7.09 dismissed the appeal observing:-
And
whereas the Council noted that the Satyam College of Education,
Bharuch applied for grant of recognition in 2007 and without waiting
for NCTE’s recognition, the institution admitted students for the
session 2006-07; later the University discontinued M.Ed. Course in
Satyam College on its own and started M.Ed. Course in Maninagar as
an extention of M.Ed. Programme and admitted students for the
session 2007-08. The visiting team was sent to cause inspection of
Satyam College, but the University authority took the team to visit
Maninagar campus of SNDT, though the University did not apply for
grant of recognition at all. Subsequent to the inspection, WRC
issued a letter of intent to Maningar centre and this letter was
withdrawn by WRC on the ground that University admitted students
for the session 2007-08 at Satyam College of Education and for the
session 2007-08 at Maninagar centre without obtaining recognition
from NCTE in violation of the provisions of the NCTE Act. The
Council by considering all the above facts, came to the conclusion
that there was no justification in accepting the appeal and that it
should be rejected.
Above
orders passed by the NCTE are challenged by SNDT University in
Special Civil Application No.8831 of 2009. It is primarily the case
of the petitioner SNDT University that since M.Ed.Course at Maninagar
is being run by the University itself as an extension center, no
recognition from NCTE is required.
In
the public interest litigation, being Special Civil Application
No.2591 of 2009, the petitioner has averred, inter alia, that SNDT
University is running a college at Maninagar without any
recognition from NCTE. They have admitted students in a course which
is not recognized. Even otherwise, infrastructural facilities are
inadequate. Building area is not as per the required standard. There
are no class rooms, library, laboratory, etc. The said petitioner
has, therefore, prayed for direction to discontinue the said M.Ed.
Course with immediate effect.
In
the said petition, SNDT University has appeared and filed a
detailed reply contending primarily that being a University
recognized under the UGC Act, it does not require any permission or
recognition from NCTE before starting its own extension center.
Appearing
for SNDT University in Special Civil Application No.8831 of 2009,
learned counsel Shri YN Oza submitted that the stand of the NCTE is
untenable. He submitted that at Maninagar, SNDT University does not
impart M.Ed. Course through an affiliated college, but is running an
extension center. SNDT University being a recognized University
under the UGC Act, no permission from NCTE is required to run such
an extension center. Heavy reliance was placed on the decision in
the case of Bharthidasan University v. All India Council for
Technical Education, (2001) 8
SCC 676 wherein the Apex Court held that All India Council for
Technical Education Act does not require a University to obtain prior
approval of AICTE for starting a department or unit as an adjunct
to the university itself to conduct technical education courses.
On
the other hand, learned advocate Shri Shastri appearing for the NCTE
and learned counsel Shri Nanavati appearing for the petitioner in
public interest litigation contended that SNDT University cannot
start an education course in the State of Gujarat without recognition
from NCTE. Reliance was placed on a decision of the Kerala High
Court in the case of University of Calicut v. National
Council for Teacher Education,
AIR 2004 Kerala 295 wherein after taking into account the decision of
the Apex Court in the case of Bharathidasan University (supra), a
Division Bench of the Kerala High Court came to the conclusion that
term ‘institution’ used in section 2(e) of the National Council for
Teacher Education Act includes ‘universities’ and therefore, centers
run by the University for giving teachers training are bound by the
standard prescribed by the NCTE. The Bench refused to direct the
NCTE to recognize such
centers and courses run by the University without fulfilling the
standard prescribed by the NCTE.
We
have perused the material on record as well as the rules and
regulations applicable in the present case.
The
Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 has been enacted for the purpose
of effectively carrying out the objects of the Universities, to
promote more equitable distribution of facilities for higher
education, etc. The Maharashtra Universities Act makes detailed
provisions with respect to various Universities in the State of
Maharashtra. Section 105 of the Act makes special provisions for
SNDT University. In so far as the present matters are concerned, the
relevant portion of section 105 reads as follows:-
105.
(1) In Addition to the other provisions of this Act, and Statutes,
the provisions set out in this section shall apply to the Shreemati
Nathibai Damodar Thackersey Women’s University.
(2) The
territorial limits, within which the powers conferred upon the
university by this Act shall be exercised, shall comprise the State
of Maharashtra:
Provided
that, the university may, subject to such conditions and restriction
as it and the State Government may think fit to impose, admit any
women’s educational institution in any other territory to the
privileges of the university, with the approval of the Government
concerned.
Upon
perusal of sub-section (2) of section 105 of the Maharashtra
Universities Act, it becomes clear that the territorial limits
within which powers under
the said Act conferred upon the SNDT University shall be exercised
comprise the State of Maharashtra. Provision to sub-section (2)
of section 105, however permits SNDT University subject to such
conditions as may be imposed
by the State Government to admit any women’s educational institution
in any other territory to the privileges of
the university.
It
is thus clear that the territorial limits within which the SNDT
University has to exercise powers under the Maharashtra Universities
Act is State of Maharashtra. Outside the State of Maharashtra, SNDT
University may admit any educational institution to the privilege of
the University under certain circumstances. Thus proviso to
sub-section (2) of section 105 of the Maharashtra Universities Act
envisages only affiliation of women’s educational institutions by
SNDT University outside the State of Maharashtra subject to such
conditions as the State Government may impose and with the approval
of the Government concerned.
In
the present case, it is the case of the SNDT University that though
initially it had started course of M.Ed. at Bharuch through one
Satyam College, subsequently, the said M.Ed. Course is being run at
Maninagar through its own extension center. We are of the view that
in terms of the provisions contained in sub-section (2) of section
105 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, SNDT University was not
authorized to start its own extension center outside the State of
Maharashtra. Only power given to SNDT University under proviso to
sub-section (2) of section 105 is to enable the University to
affiliate women’s educational institutions outside the State of
Maharashtra subject of course to fulfilling certain conditions. In
that view of the matter, the whole question whether SNDT University
would require recognition/permission from
NCTE to run its own extension center becomes one of academic
interest. To put it differently, we are of the opinion that under
sub-section (2) of section
105 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, it is not open
for the SNDT University to start its own extension center outside the
State of Maharashtra and that therefore the argument that before
starting any extension
center by the University itself, no recognition from NCTE is
necessary need not be decided in these petitions.
We
are not oblivious to the provision made in sub-section (5) of
section 105 of the Maharashtra Universities Act which reads as under:
(5)
The university may, in the interest of women’s education, start or
conduct a college or research institution in any territory outside
the State of Maharashtra, with the approval of the Government
concerned.
Before,
however, availing of the said provision, the University must
establish that in the interest of women’s education, it had started a
college and that the same was done with the approval of the
Government concerned. No such case has been pleaded in the petition
or during the arguments before us. We have, therefore, proceeded to
examine the question within the parameters of sub-section (2) of
section 105 of the Maharashtra Universities Act.
To
conclude, we are of the opinion that SNDT University had no authority
to start its extension center at Maninagar, Ahmedabad. On the other
hand, if any course was to be run through affiliated college by SNDT
University, recognition thereof by the NCTE in terms of NCTE Act was
concededly essential. No illegality, therefore, can be found in the
orders passed by the NCTE. The question whether a University
starting a teacher education course as an extension of the University
would require recognition/permission of NCTE therefore need not be
gone into. In view of this conclusion, though we are of the view
that the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of University
of Calicut (supra) needs a
closer look in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of
Bharathidasan University (supra), we refrain from expressing any
final opinion on this issue
in these petitions.
In
the result, Special Civil Application No.8831 of 2009 filed by SNDT
University must fail. In view of this conclusion, no further order is
necessary in public interest petition.
Counsel
for the petitioner in Special Civil Application No.2591 of 2009,
however, submitted that the fees collected from students should be
refunded. Such a prayer is not made in the petition. Further, the
students have not made any such prayer. Such a request is therefore
turned down.
In
view of the above observations and findings, Special Civil
Application No.8831 of 2009 is dismissed. Special Civil Application
No.2591 of 2009 stands disposed of. Notice is discharged. Interim
reliefs, if any, vacated.
(S.J.Mukhopadhaya,
C.J.)
(Akil
Kureshi, J.)
(vjn)
Top