IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 28.03.2011 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.NO.21010 OF 2010 and M.P.No.1 of 2010 VSK College of Education under the Management of VSK Educational Trust rep. by its Chairman Dr.K.Puravi ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9. 2.The Regional Director, National Council for Teacher Education, Southern Regional Committee, First Floor, CSD Complex, H.M.T. Township, Bangalore-31. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records in respect of the impugned order issued by the 2nd respondent vide his proceedings in FSRO/NCTE/2010/18746 dated 6.5.2010 and quash the same and direct the 2nd respondent either to consider the old application of the petitioner which was closed by its proceedings dated 30.4.2009 as a fresh one or to receive fresh application from the petitioner for grant of recognition without reference to the ban imposed by the NCTE based on the recommendation of the first respondent State Government for the academic year 2011-12 and consequently to process such application in accordance with law for grant of recognition to the petitioner. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar For Respondents : Mr.A.Suresh, GA (R1) Mr.K.Ramakrishna Reddy (R2) O R D E R
The petitioner is VSK College of Education. When the petitioner approached this Court on earlier occasion by filing W.P.No.20837 of 2009 seeking to set aside the order dated 30.4.2009 passed by the first respondent NCTE and further directing the first respondent to grant recognition to the petitioner institution to run a B.Ed course from the academic year 2010-2011 without insisting on No Objection Certificate from the State Government, this Court by order dated 13.10.2009 disposed of the writ petition with the following directions:
“3.It is the case of the respondents that for the year 2009-2010 and 2010-2011, the first respondent has stopped giving recognition for B.Ed course due to various reasons. Even if fresh application can be directed to be filed by the petitioner, the same can be considered only for the year 2011-2012 only.
4.Considering the above said facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file fresh application for recognition to the first respondent with necessary charges and documents and in the event of filing of such application, it is for the first respondent to consider the same for the academic year for which the petitioner is eligible to start the B.Ed. Course. No costs. Consequently, M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2009 are closed.”
2.After the order was passed by this Court, the second respondent informed the petitioner by the communication dated 6.5.2010 stating that the request of the petitioner institution cannot be considered and the earlier application submitted by the petitioner, which was closed on valid ground, cannot be re-opened and the amount deposited by the petitioner was returned.
3.In the mean time, NCTE by the public notice dated July 2010 informed that the applications for recognition of Teacher Training courses for the academic year 2011-2012, except the States and Union Territory as indicated in the said notification can be submitted and the applications for the courses mentioned in para 2 will not be considered for the academic year 2011-12. Sl.No.12 refers to Tamil Nadu, wherein, it is indicated that no application will be accepted in respect of D.El.Ed., B.Ed., D.P.Ed., and B.P.Ed. Courses. Further, it is stated that the said restriction will not apply to the minority educational institutions established under Article 30 of the Constitution of India.
4.The petitioner has not challenged the said decision taken by NCTE. On the other hand, it has once again come forward with the present writ petition to challenge the communication sent by NCTE dated 6.5.2010. After setting aside the same, the petitioner seeks for a direction to the second respondent NCTE either to consider the old application which was deemed to be closed by the proceedings dated 30.4.2009 as a fresh one or to receive fresh application and to grant recognition to the petitioner without reference to the ban imposed by NCTE.
5.When the writ petition came up on 15.9.2010, notice was directed to be served on the learned standing counsel for the respondents.
6.Mr.K.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned standing counsel appearing for the second respondent NCTE produced a copy of the notification issued by NCTE dated 30/7/2009. In that notification, it is stated that initially NCTE, in consultation with State Governments/Union Territories, decided not to further recognise/permit institutions for conducting teacher training courses for the academic year 2010-2011, which includes the state government of Tamil Nadu and subsequently, in the second notification, it extended the ban upto the academic year 2011-2012.
7.In the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner in W.P.No.20837 of 2009, it sought for permission to run B.Ed. for the academic year 2010-2011 and it is well covered by the ban order imposed by NCTE. The efficacy of the ban being imposed and the power of NCTE to impose such ban came to be considered by the Supreme Court in National Council for Teacher Education and others v. Shri Shyam Shiksha Prashikshan Sansthan and others etc case vide judgement dated 31.1.2011 arising out of SLP Nos.17165 to 17168 of 2009. In that judgement, the question of competency of NCTE to make embargo on starting such institution on yearly basis, came to be considered and in para 24, the Supreme Court has observed as follows:
“24.The consultation with the State Government/Union Territory Administration and consideration of the recommendations/suggestions made by them are of considerable importance. The Court can take judicial notice of the fact that majority of the candidates who complete B.Ed., and similar courses aspire for appointment as teachers in the government and government aided educational institutions. Some of them do get appointment against the available vacant posts, but large number of them do not succeed in this venture because of non-availability of posts. The State Government/Union Territory Administration sanctions the posts keeping in view the requirement of trained teachers and budgetary provisions made for that purpose. They cannot appoint all those who successfully pass B.Ed and like courses every year. Therefore, by incorporating the provision for sending the applications to the State Government/Union Territory Administration and consideration of the recommendations/suggestions, if any made by them, the Council has made an attempt to ensure that as a result of grant of recognition to unlimited number of institutions to start B.Ed and like courses, candidates far in excess of the requirement of trained teachers do not become available and they cannot be appointed as teachers. If, in a given year, it is found that adequate numbers of suitable candidates possessing the requisite qualifications are already available to meet the requirement of trained teachers, the state Government/Union Territory Administration can suggest to the concerned Regional Committee not to grant recognition to new institutions or increase intake in the existing institutions. If the Regional Committee finds that the recommendation made by the State Government/Union Territory Administration is based on valid grounds, it can refuse to grant recognition to any new institution or entertain an application made by an existing institution for increase of intake and it cannot be said that such decision is ultra vires the provisions of the Act or the Rules…”
Therefore, the learned counsel for NCTE contended that the earlier application with re-inspection fee made by the petitioner is already determined and that is why, the NCTE by the impugned communication dated 6.5.2010 informed that the petitioner’s earlier application was treated as closed. The learned counsel for the petitioner also perused the copy of the order of this court dated 26.10.2009 in W.P.No.20322 of 2009 filed by Ravi College of Education wherein, an identical contention came to be rejected by this court.
8.Though Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this court, in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner, has given a positive direction vide order dated 13.10.2009 (extracted above), this court do not think to grant any positive direction to the NCTE and the NCTE shall decide the case of the petitioner in accordance with law and in the light of the rules.
9.Therefore, the attempt made by the petitioner to make the old application to be pending or a new application to be submitted without reference to the ban imposed by NCTE, cannot be granted, taking note of the fact that the same is not the subject matter of this writ petition. If any direction is issued to NCTE, it will be counterproductive and contrary to the statutory provisions exercised by NCTE. Hence, the writ petition is misconceived and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
rk
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Higher Education Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
2.The Regional Director,
National Council for Teacher Education,
Southern Regional Committee,
First Floor, CSD Complex,
H.M.T. Township,
Bangalore 31