LPA Nos. 676/2008, 677/2008, 712/2008, 713/2008, 714/2008,
715/2008, 716/2008, 717/2008, 718/2008 and 719/2008 Page 1
REPORTABLE
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LETTERS PATENT APPEAL Nos. 676/2008, 677/2008,
712/2008, 713/2008, 714/2008, 715/2008, 716/2008, 717/2008,
718/2008 and 719/2008
Date of Decision: 20th March, 2009
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Appellant
Through Mr. V.K. Rao, Advocate.
versus
AKASH COLLEGE OF EDUCATION & ANR. ..... Respondents
in LPA No. 676/2008.
Through Mr. Sanjay Sharawat,
Advocate.
NARAYANA COLLEGE OF EDUCATION....Respondent in LPA
No. 677/2008.
Through Mr. Sanjay Sharawat,
Advocate.
KESHAV COLLEGE OF EDUCATION ....Respondent in LPA
No. 712/2008.
Through None.
SHARDDHANATH TEACHER EDUCATION...Respondent in
LPA No. 713/2008.
Through Mr. Sanjay Sharawat,
Advocate.
AANASAGAR STC COLLEGE ...Respondent in LPA
No. 714/2008.
Through None.
BUDHA COLLEGE OF EDUCATION & ORS....Respondents in
LPA No. 715/2008.
Through Mr. Sanjay Sharawat,
Advocate for Respondent No. 3.
R.R. MEMORIAL COLLEGE OF EDUCATION...Respondent in
LPA No. 716/2008.
Through None.
LPA Nos. 676/2008, 677/2008, 712/2008, 713/2008, 714/2008,
715/2008, 716/2008, 717/2008, 718/2008 and 719/2008 Page 2
SRI SATYA SAI COLLEGE OF EDUCATION...Respondent in
LPA No. 717/2008.
Through Mr. Sanjay Sharawat,
Advocate.
MAHABIR COLLEGE OF EDU. FOR WOMEN...Respondent
in LPA No. 718/2008.
Through None.
MAHARAJ AGARASAIN COLLEGE OF EDU...Respondent in
LPA No. 719/2008.
Through None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT PRAKASH SHAH, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? Yes.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest ? Yes.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
These Letters Patent Appeals have been preferred by National Council for Teacher Education (hereinafter referred to as NCTE, for short) against different judgments passed by learned Single Judge allowing the writ petitions filed by educational institutions. By the impugned judgments, the appellant-NCTE has been directed to grant approval to the respondents-educational institutes for additional intake of students in B.Ed course.
LPA Nos. 676/2008, 677/2008, 712/2008, 713/2008, 714/2008, 715/2008, 716/2008, 717/2008, 718/2008 and 719/2008 Page 3
2. NCTE is a Council established under the provisions of National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 with the function to lay down standards and fix norms for educational institutes conducting and imparting teacher education and training programmes like B.Ed. NCTE in 2002 had framed regulations in a consolidated form for grant of recognition and permission for starting a course in training of teachers' education. Regulation 8 of the 2002 Regulations relating to conditions for grant of recognition, however, became subject matter of relaxation by amendments made in 2005 and 2006.
3. On 27th November, 2007, National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulation, 2007 (hereinafter referred to "2007 Regulations") was framed and they came into effect on publication in the Official Gazette on 10th December, 2007. 2007 Regulations prescribe eligibility criteria both for starting of a new institute, a new course or increase in intake of students in an existing recognized course.
4. Regulation 5(4) of 2007 Regulations stipulates that the cut off date for submission of applications for both new courses and additional intake, to the Regional Committee shall be 31st October of the preceding year to the academic session for which recognition has been sought. This obviously created difficulty as the 2007 Regulations were framed and notified after 31st October, 2007 and as LPA Nos. 676/2008, 677/2008, 712/2008, 713/2008, 714/2008, 715/2008, 716/2008, 717/2008, 718/2008 and 719/2008 Page 4 the stipulation fixing the last date of receipt of applications had been enacted for the first time. Educational institutes were taken by a surprise in so far as admission for the academic year 2008-09 was concerned. By the time 2007 Regulations were framed, last date for receipt of applications for academic year 2008-09 had expired.
5. We may record here that the NCTE by the Notification dated 1st July, 2008 has partly modified Regulation 5(5) of the 2007 Regulations in so far as time limit for making of the applications for recognitions/permissions for the academic courses for the year 2008- 09 are concerned. Educational institutes will be entitled to benefit of Notification dated 1st July, 2008, which reads as under:-
"Clause 5(5) of the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) regulation, 2007 is modified as under only for grant of recognition/permission for starting various teacher training courses for current academic session i.e. 2008-2009.
All complete applications pending with the Regional Committee shall be processed for the current academic session i.e. 2008-2009 in accordance with the provisions of relevant Regulations and maintaining the chronological sequence and final decision, either recognition granted or refused shall be communicated by 31st August, 2008."
6. 2007 Regulations, as per the respondent-educational institutes, have introduced and inducted stringent and stiff conditions for grant of recognition to new courses and increase in intake of student called LPA Nos. 676/2008, 677/2008, 712/2008, 713/2008, 714/2008, 715/2008, 716/2008, 717/2008, 718/2008 and 719/2008 Page 5 units in the recognized educational institutes. Regulations 8(2), 8(3), 8(4), 8(5) and 8(6) read as under:
"Conditions for grant of recognition: (2) In the first instance, an institution shall be considered for grant of recognition for only one course for the basic unit as prescribed in the norms & standards for the particular teacher education programme. An institution can apply for one basic unit of an additional course from the subsequent academic session. However, application for not more than one additional course can be made in a year.
(3) An institution shall be permitted to apply for enhancement of course wise intake in teacher education courses already approved after completion of three academic sessions of running the respective courses.
(4) An institution shall be permitted to apply for enhancement of intake in Secondary Teacher Education Programme-B.Ed & B.P. Ed. Programme, if it has accredited itself with the National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) with a Letter Grade B developed by NAAC.
(5) An institution that has been granted additional intake in B.Ed. and B.P.Ed. teacher training courses after promulgation of the Regulations, 2005 i.e. 13.1.2006 shall have to be accredited itself with the National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) with a Letter Grade B under the new grading system developed by NAAC before 1st April, 2010 failing which the additional intake granted shall stand withdrawn w.e.f. the academic session 2010-11.
(6) All the applications for additional intake in B.Ed. and B.P.Ed received on or before the date of this notification in the Gazette of India shall be considered as per the provisions of the Regulations 2005 notified on 13-1-06. However, LPA Nos. 676/2008, 677/2008, 712/2008, 713/2008, 714/2008, 715/2008, 716/2008, 717/2008, 718/2008 and 719/2008 Page 6 the provisions of Regulation 8(5) above shall also be applicable to them."
7. Several educational institutes filed writ petitions challenging vires of Regulations 8(2), 8(3), 8(4) and 8(6) and/or failure/rejection of their request for recognition of new courses or for enhancement of intake of students.
8. One of such writ petitions which was filed was W.P. (C) No. 1119/2008 titled Shiksha Parishad Kanya Gurukul, Julana Vs. National Council for Teacher Education. By an interim order dated 11th April, 2008 in the said case, NCTE was directed to consider the application of the petitioner therein for enhancement/additional intake of students to B.Ed course. The application was rejected for non- compliance and failure to meet the conditions of Regulations 8(2) and 8(3) of 2007 Regulations and other reasons. Subsequently on 21st May, 2008, the Division Bench in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1119/2008 recorded a concession made by NCTE that they would process the application filed by the petitioner therein without insisting upon eligibility requirement of three academic sessions and accreditation with National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC for short) provided other requirements were met. The said order reads "WP(C) NO.1119/2008 & CM NO.2184/2008 Learned Counsel for the Respondent Mr.V.K.Rao submits that a communication has been LPA Nos. 676/2008, 677/2008, 712/2008, 713/2008, 714/2008, 715/2008, 716/2008, 717/2008, 718/2008 and 719/2008 Page 7 sent by the respondent to the petitioner. He states that although in the said communication the eligibility criteria of having three academic sessions has been mentioned as also the requirement of having accreditation with NAAC. The respondent for the purpose of processing and approval of this application would not insist on these two criterion. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the accreditation from NAAC can be obtained in time i.e. before 01.04.2010 [Refer page 61 of the paper book].
Learned counsel for the respondent submits that there are requirements regarding building regulations for the specified number of seats which has to be complied with. He assures that a physical inspection would be carried out within a week. Petitioner would be at liberty at that point of time to satisfy the respondents regarding its compliance with the building regulations and/or give any undertaking with regard to the additional coverage, deletions or alterations as may be required within a time bound framework.
Renotify on 29th May, 2008."
9. The said writ petition was disposed of on 29th May, 2008 after recording that NCTE had carried out inspection and was satisfied. The question regarding challenge to the vires of Regulations 8(3) and 8(4) of the 2007 Regulation was left open. The order dated 29th May,2008 is as under:-
"WP [C] NO.1119/2008 & CM NO.2184/2008 & 7594/2008 Pursuant to the order passed on 21st May 2008 we are informed that an inspection has been carried out and an inspection report has been received by the Counsel which is in a sealed cover.
LPA Nos. 676/2008, 677/2008, 712/2008, 713/2008, 714/2008, 715/2008, 716/2008, 717/2008, 718/2008 and 719/2008 Page 8 Mr Sanjay Sharawat, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the inspection was carried out in the presence of Petitioner and they were satisfied with the inspection proceedings.
Mr. V.K.Rao, learned Counsel for the respondent says that the Regional Committee which was to consider the report has been dissolved by the Chairperson.
Let the inspection report be processed by the competent authority as in our view there can be no vacuum simply because the Chairperson has dissolved the concerned committee. If necessary the Chairperson can take decision itself. Matter be taken up expeditiously.
The question regarding challenge to the vires of Regulation 8(3) and 8(4) of National Council for Teacher Education Regulations is left open.
Writ Petition is disposed of with no order as to costs.
Order dasti."
10. Similar other writ petitions have been disposed of both by Division Benches and Single Judges on the basis of orders passed in W.P. (C) No. 1119/2008 titled Shiksha Parishad Kanya Gurukul, Julana Vs. National Council for Teacher Education holding, inter alia, that the NCTE will not insist upon compliance with Regulations 8(3) and 8(5) of the 2007 Regulations.
11. While disposing of the writ petitions, the Division Benches and the Single Judges have uniformly rejected the contention of NCTE LPA Nos. 676/2008, 677/2008, 712/2008, 713/2008, 714/2008, 715/2008, 716/2008, 717/2008, 718/2008 and 719/2008 Page 9 that, W.P. (C) No. 1119/2008 titled Shiksha Parishad Kanya Gurukul, Julana Vs. National Council for Teacher Education was decided on a concession given by NCTE in the said case and, therefore, should not be applied to other cases. The contention of NCTE that concession given was contrary to the 2007 Regulations was also rejected on the ground that the NCTE must follow the principle of parity and uniformity, specially as this was the first year after the 2007 Regulations had come into operation. It was also held that NCTE had power to relax the Regulations and if relaxation was granted in the case of Shiksha Parishad Kanya Gurukul, same relaxation should be granted in other cases.
12. In these circumstances, NCTE filed a review/clarification application in the disposed of writ petition No.1119/2008 filed by Shiksha Parishad Kanya Gurukul and the following Order was passed on 25th July, 2008:-
"RP NO. 253/2008 & CM NO. 10195/2008 IN WP[C] NO.1119/2008 We have heard learned counsel for the respondent/review petitioner in support of the review petition. In the interest of justice, we are disposing of review petition by allowing CM 10195/2008 i.e. application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
We have perused our orders dated 11th April, 21st May as well as 29th May, 2008. The orders are self explanatory and in our view, they do not call for or require any elaboration or clarification. Mr. V.K.Rao has been at pain to urge that the statement which he LPA Nos. 676/2008, 677/2008, 712/2008, 713/2008, 714/2008, 715/2008, 716/2008, 717/2008, 718/2008 and 719/2008 Page 10 made on 21st May, 2008 was following the order passed on 11th April, 2008 and it was without prejudice to the rights and contentions and was confined to the facts of this writ petition. Our orders dated 21st May, 2008 itself records him statement, relevant part of which is as under:-
".... He states that although in the said communication, the eligibility criteria of having three academic session has been mentioned as also the requirement of having accreditation with NAAC, the respondent, for the purpose of processing and approval of this application (emphasis supplied), would not insist on these two criteria."
In view of the foregoing and considering that even while disposing the writ petition on 29th May, 2008 it was recorded that "challenge to the vires of Regulation 8(3) and 8(4) of National Council for Teacher Education Regulations is left open", no further clarification as is sought is required.
Review petition stands disposed of."
13. NCTE has preferred Special Leave Petitions before the Supreme Court and notices have been issued. Interim stay has also been granted in cases where recognition has not been granted.
14. In LPA No. 715/2008 titled Budha College of Education and Others Vs. National Council for Teacher Education, LPA No. 716/2008 titled R.R. Memorial College of Education Vs. National Council for Teacher Education, LPA No. 718/2008 titled Mahabir College of Education for Women Vs. National Council for LPA Nos. 676/2008, 677/2008, 712/2008, 713/2008, 714/2008, 715/2008, 716/2008, 717/2008, 718/2008 and 719/2008 Page 11 Teacher Education and LPA No. 719/2008 Maharaja Agarsain College of Education Vs. National Council for Teacher Education permissions/approvals have already been granted. In these circumstances, therefore, the stay applications as filed by NCTE are dismissed. In other cases, where permission/approval have not been granted, the operation of the impugned Order directing grant of recognition/approval, is stayed.
15. The other issue which requires examination in the present appeals is in respect of interpretation of Regulations 8(2) and 8(3). This issue has arisen in LPA Nos.676/2008 and 677/2008 as NCTE has rejected the applications of the educational institutes, inter alia, holding that Regulation 8(2) of the 2007 Regulations is applicable even when an institute applies for additional intake of students in an existing recognized course. The applications filed have been rejected under Regulation 8(2) of 2007 Regulations observing:-
" With reference to your letter dated 15.05.08 and as per the cause (sic) 8(2) of the New Regulations promulgated on 10.12.2007:- "In the first instance, an institution shall be considered for grant of recognition for only one course for the basic unit as prescribed in the norms and standards for the particular teacher education programmed(sic). An institution can apply for one basic unit of an additional course from the subsequent academic session. However, application for not more than one additional course can be made in a year." (emphasis supplied) LPA Nos. 676/2008, 677/2008, 712/2008, 713/2008, 714/2008, 715/2008, 716/2008, 717/2008, 718/2008 and 719/2008 Page 12
16. Regulations 8(2) and 8(3) operate in different circumstances. The 2007 Regulations provide for recognition of an institute at the first instance, recognition of a new course in earlier recognized institute and increase in intake of students by a recognized institute in an earlier recognized course.
17. Regulation 8(2) applies when an application is made by an institute for obtaining recognition for first time. The said Regulation stipulates that the institute so applying will be granted recognition in one course for the basic unit and not in more than one course. After recognition is granted, the freshly recognized institute can apply for one basic unit of an additional or a new course but in the subsequent academic session. Therefore, if an institute is granted recognition in the academic session 2007-2008, it can apply for one basic unit of an additional course in the subsequent academic session in 2008-2009 and not earlier. The last part of the said Regulation stipulates that application can be made only for one additional course in an academic year. Therefore, an institute cannot apply for more than one additional course in an academic year.
18. Regulation 8(3), on the other hand, does not deal with recognition of an institute for the first time or recognition of an additional course for the first time in a recognized institute. Regulation 8(3) of 2007 Regulations deals with enhancement of the LPA Nos. 676/2008, 677/2008, 712/2008, 713/2008, 714/2008, 715/2008, 716/2008, 717/2008, 718/2008 and 719/2008 Page 13 course wise intake, i.e. increase in number of students, which can be admitted to an already recognized course in a recognized institute.
19. Thus, the field and the area of operation of Regulations 8(2) and 8(3) are different. Regulation 8(2) applies to an institute which seeks recognition for the first time in respect of a course. In such cases, the institute is entitled to undertake one course with intake of one basic unit only in the initial year when recognition is granted. Further, a recognized institute can apply and seek recognition for one additional course but in the subsequent academic year. Regulation 8(3) permits/allows educational institutes to apply for and seek permission for increase in number of units or students which can be admitted to course which are already approved. In this regard, we agree with the findings of the learned Single Judge interpreting Regulations 8(2) and 8(3). To this extent we do not find any merit in the present appeals filed by NCTE.
20. During the course of hearing, NCTE has stated that Akash College of Education and S.S. College of Education have withdrawn their application for grant of permission. If this is correct, the said institutes will not be entitled to benefit of this order. Accordingly, Appeals filed by NCTE on the question of interpretation of Regulations 8(2) and 8(3) of the 2007 Regulations are dismissed. However, all the Appeals on the question of compliance with LPA Nos. 676/2008, 677/2008, 712/2008, 713/2008, 714/2008, 715/2008, 716/2008, 717/2008, 718/2008 and 719/2008 Page 14 Regulations 8(2), 8(3), 8(4) and 8(5) are admitted. The stay applications in LPA Nos. 715, 716, 718 and 719/2008 are dismissed as NCTE has already granted approval/permission. In other Appeals where permission/approval has not been granted, the operation of the impugned Order/judgments is stayed. Liberty is granted to the parties to make an application for early hearing and disposal of the Appeals after the decision of the Supreme Court.
(SANJIV KHANNA) JUDGE (AJIT PRAKASH SHAH) CHIEF JUSTICE MARCH 20, 2009 VKR/P