Km. Nootan Shukla And Others vs State Of U.P. & Others
2013 Latest Caselaw 4517 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

A.F.R.
 
Court No. - 10
 

 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 20653 of 2008
 

 
Petitioner :- Km. Nootan Shukla And Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- M.D. Misra,R.S. Misra
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,B.D. Pandey,Girijesh Tiwari,Rakesh Pandey,Satish Mandhyan,Smt. Sunita Agarwal
 
With
 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 14587 of 2007
 

 
Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar Tripathi & Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- A. Chaturvedi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,B.D. Pandey,B.P. Pandey,Sunita Agarwal
 
With
 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 12457 of 2007
 

 
Petitioner :- Kamla Shankar And Others
 
Respondent :- D.D.U. University And Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- R.C. Dwivedi,Rajesh Yadav
 
Counsel for Respondent :- B.D. Pandey,B.D. Pandey,G.K. Singh,P.S.Baghel,S.C.,Sunita Agrawal,V.K. Singh
 
With
 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 63744 of 2006
 

 
Petitioner :- Chandra Bhushan Dubey
 
Respondent :- Vice Chancellor, Deen Dayal Upadhyaya, Gorakhpur & Ors.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- R.C. Dwivedi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- B.D. Pandey,Neeraj Tripathi,S.C.,Sunita Agarwal
 
With
 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 17966 of 2007
 

 
Petitioner :- Shahnawaj Khan And Ohers
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- A. Chaturvedi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,B.D. Pandey,Sunita Agarwal
 
With
 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 17969 of 2007
 

 
Petitioner :- Km. Mukul Singh And Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- A. Chaturvedi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,B.D. Pandey,Sunita Agarwal
 
With
 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3389 of 2007
 

 
Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Kushwaha And Another
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- A. Chaturvedi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,B.D. Pandey
 
With
 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4300 of 2007
 

 
Petitioner :- Sita Ram And Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- A. Chaturvedi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,B.D. Pandey,R. Tripathi,Sunita Agarwal
 
With
 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 19 of 2007
 

 
Petitioner :- Gorakhnath Shukla And Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- A. Chaturvedi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,B.D.Pandey,Sunita Agarwal
 
With
 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7869 of 2007
 

 
Petitioner :- Renu Joshi
 
Respondent :- V.C., D.D.U. University And Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- R.C. Dwivedi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- B.D. Pandey,S.C.,Sunita Agarwal
 
With
 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 20878 of 2007
 

 
Petitioner :- Km. Priya Singh
 
Respondent :- Vice Chancellor,Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Gorakhpur & Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Bikash Kumar Mishra,G.K.Singh,V.K. Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- B.D. Pandey,S.C.,Sunita Agrawal
 
With
 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 22573 of 2007
 

 
Petitioner :- Vibha Singh
 
Respondent :- Vice Chancellor, Deen Dayal Uppadhayay & Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- R.C. Dwivedi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- B.D. Pandey,S.C.,Sunita Agrawal
 
With
 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 22757 of 2007
 

 
Petitioner :- Naveen Kumar Mishra And Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- A. Chaturvedi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,B.D. Pandey,Sunita Agarwal
 
With
 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1474 of 2011
 

 
Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Tripathi And Others
 
Respondent :- D.D.U. University And Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Radha Kant Ojha,Ambuj Mishra
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Satish Mandhyan,S.C.,Sunita Agrawal
 
With
 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4148 of 2009
 

 
Petitioner :- Km. Shashi Devi
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy. Higher Education And Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Dwivedi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Smt. Sunita Agarwal
 
With
 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 12813 of 2011
 
Petitioner :- Braj Lal Sharma
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- K.D. Tiwari,Z.A. Siddiqui
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Smt. Sunita Agarwal
 
With
 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 12898 of 2011
 

 
Petitioner :- Alok Kumar Singh And Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Girijesh Tiwari
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Smt. Sunita Agrawal
 
With
 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 23952 of 2011
 

 
Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Sharma And Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- R.A. Prasad
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sunita Agrawal
 
With
 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 24296 of 2009
 

 
Petitioner :- Pragya Gupta And Another
 
Respondent :- V.C. Deen Dayal Upadhyay Gorakhpur University And Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Dwivedi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Smt. Sunita Agarwal,S.C.
 
With
 
Petitioner :- Nagesh Chaturvedi
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Z.A. Siddiqui,Sanjeev Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,B.D. Pandey
 

 
Hon'ble Arun Tandon, J.

This bunch of writ petitions has been filed by the students, who claim to have been admitted to the B.Ed. one year course in the Academic Session 2005-06 in one of the five Degree Colleges affiliated to Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur as detailed below. The petitioners have basically prayed for declaration of their result of the B.Ed. examinations of the said session/for issuance of the Degree of the said B.Ed. Course. According to the petitioners they were admitted in these Colleges as regular students. They had appeared in the B.Ed. examinations of 2006 conducted by the University. In case of certain petitioners, the results have been declared but mark-sheet/degree have not been issued.

It is the case of the petitioners that since they had appeared in the University examinations of 2006 as regular students, there is no reason to withhold their result/mark-sheet/degree.

The prayer so made by the petitioners appeared to be very innocuous at the first instance but when this Court went into the facts in detail and got an enquiry conducted, the Court's conscience has been shocked to known the manner in which the students, the management of the institution along with its Principal, the then Vice Chancellor of the University and its officers have conducted themselves in the matter of running of professional course of B.Ed. They have practically made mockery of the entire education pertaining to a professional course like B.Ed. They have practically flouted all the statutory provisions/guidelines framed by the National Council for Teachers Education (N.C.T.E.) in respect of the said B.Ed. Course.

Facts as on record of the writ petitions, the report of the Secretary (Higher Education), the report of the present Vice Chancellor of the University as well as the original records which have been examined by this Court as produced by the College/University, present a very disturbing picture and lead this Court to believe that not only admission were granted illegally, in fact no teaching was imparted for the B.Ed. Course. Only sham examinations were conducted by the University. Admissions, teaching, holding of examinations, declaration of results, issuance of mark-sheet qua the professional course of B.Ed. has only been a paper transaction. The motive prima facie appears to be money only.

This Court will, therefore, first record the facts in respect of each of the five Degree College involved separately.

(a) Veer Bahadur Singh Degree College, Harnahi Mahurao, Gorakhpur:

The College was granted recognition for the B.Ed. Course by the N.C.T.E. vide order dated 28.07.2005. (Copy of the same has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the affidavit filed by the Manager of the College). Clause 2 records that the institution was being granted recognition under Section 14(3)(a) of the N.C.T.E. Act by the Regional Committee with an intake of 100 seats w.e.f. 23.07.2005. Clause f of para 1 and paragraph 6 of the said order of recognition specifically record as follows :

"(1) (f) Non compliance of the above mentioned conditions shall cause action under Section 17(1) of the N.C.T.E. Act, 1993.

(6) If the institution contravenes any of the above conditions or any of the provisions of the NCTE Act, Rules, Regulations and/or order made or issued thereunder, the Regional Committee may withdraw the recognition under the provisions of Section 17(1) of the N.C.T.E. Act, 1993."

The College claims to have admitted 149 students in the very first year of its recognition i.e. 2005-06. According to the College such excess admissions beyond 100 was with the permission of the University authorities and for the purpose reference is made to a letter dated 02.02.2006, annexure-2 to the affidavit filed by the institution dated 13.07.2013. Under this letter the College had requested the Vice Chancellor to permit the institution to admit students against the remaining seats as only 36 students had been admitted after counselling. Thus, the statement that the students were admitted in excess of 100 with the permission of the University, on the face of it appears to be incorrect.

In the affidavit, reference has been made to Annexure-3 which is a letter from the Principal of the College to the Vice Chancellor of the University dated 05.03.2006. In the letter it is stated that admissions up to 100 seats had been completed on 18.02.2006, however, with reference to the letter dated 02.03.3006 certain further admissions have been granted. Information was being supplied accordingly. How could this letter establish that permission of Vice Chancellor to admit students in excess of intake permissible has not been disclosed. According to the College all these 149 students actually appeared in the final University Examinations of 2006 which were held in June, 2006.

At least two facts stand admitted (a) that admissions up to 100 was completed in the institution in the month of February, 2006 and thereafter further admissions were granted, which as per the letter of the College were completed on 15.03.2006 and (b) the final examinations of these B.Ed. students was held from 06.06.2006 onwards in which all these students are stated to have appeared.

Regulations framed by the N.C.T.E. mandatorily require class room teaching of 150 days and practical teaching in nearby schools of 30 days i.e. in all 180 days. Before this statutory period of actual teaching is completed, no students can appear in B.Ed. Examinations as a regular candidate.

Thus, the institution not only violated the maximum permissible intake of students, it continued to admit students up to March, 2006. It actually without imparting any education for the professional course of B.Ed., somehow or the other managed with the University to set up paper examinations. The word 'Paper Examination' is being used by this Court, consciously inasmuch as the present Vice Chancellor of the University has submitted a report before this Court after thorough investigation to the following effect:

Non of these students were provided any enrollment number nor roll number by the University. There exist no record of tabulation chart in respect of the valuation of their answer-sheets, only loose mark slips have been found. The Vice Chancellor has also reported that there are no records with the Confidential Section of the University with regard to who shall prepare the paper and who shall evaluate the answer sheets of the B.Ed. Examinations, 2006. Neither any Examiners were appointed nor it is known as to who had actually evaluated the answer-sheets and when.

(b) Vidyarthi Degree College, Jagdishpur, Bardeeha, Kushi Nagar:

The College was granted recognition by the N.C.T.E. under letter dated 28.07.2005 with an initial intake of 100 seats only for the B.Ed. one year course. Copy of the letter is enclosed as Annexure-2 to the affidavit filed on 13.07.2013 by the College. Letter contains specific stipulation qua the consequences in the event of non-compliance of the conditions of letter as well as in the event of violation of the provisions of the N.C.T.E. Act, Regulations, Rules and the orders issued like in the case of Veer Bahadur Singh Degree College (supra).

This institution is stated to have admitted 159 students as against the permitted intake of 100 students. According to the affidavit filed by the Manager of the institution dated 03.07.2013, it has been stated that 46 students were admitted with the permission of the Vice Chancellor as per the letter dated 02.02.2006, copy whereof is enclosed as Annexure-2 to the affidavit. This letter only mentions that 46 seats are still vacant and, therefore, permission may be granted to fill the seats. The Vice Chancellor is stated to have made an endorsement to act in accordance with the Rules applicable. Thereafter, on record is a letter dated 25.03.2006 which records that 29 students have submitted applications and under oral orders of the Vice Chancellor, admissions have been granted. These 29 students are in excess of 100 allotted seats, therefore, formal permission may be granted to the admissions made. This letter bears the endorsement dated 25.03.2006 as follows :

Þ;Fkk izLrko vuqerß.

Under which statutory provision such admissions have been granted is not known. The University denies grant of any such permission. It is apparent that admissions were made by the College not only in excess of the intake permissible but also up to the month of February and March, 2006. This College also managed things with the University authorities in suggesting that all these students had appeared in the examinations held in the year June, 2006.

As already noticed above, under the N.C.T.E. Act, minimum 180 days teaching is mandatory before any students can appear in the B.Ed. professional course as a regular student. As in the case of the first institution, the Secretary (Higher Education) as well as present Vice Chancellor of the University have filed their report categorically stating that the entire alleged examinations are sham. None of the students were allotted roll number and enrollment number by the University. The original answer-sheets pertaining to the said examination are not traceable. The preparation of the question paper, appointment of the Examiner as well as cross list, which are essential and permanent records pertaining to the University examinations are also not available. According to the present Vice Chancellor of the University, absolutely no records are available in respect of the examinations of the year 2006 except some loose mark slips.

(c) Chaudhary Mahaveer Prasad Memorial Mahavidyalaya, Hathiyawa, Bardpur, District Siddhartha Nagar :

The institution was granted recognition by the N.C.T.E. under letter dated 22.09.2004 with an intake of 100 students only for one year B.Ed. professional course. Copy of the letter is enclosed as Annexure-1 to the affidavit filed by the Manager of the institution dated 03.07.2013. This recognition letter also contains specific stipulation qua consequences which will follow for non-compliance of the conditions of the letter and for contravention of any of the provisions of the NCTE Act, Rules, Regulations and/or order made or issued thereunder i.e. the Regional Committee may in that event revoke recognition under the provisions of Section 17(1) of the N.C.T.E. Act, 1993. The College is stated to have admitted 277 students as against the permitted intake of 100 students. According to the College a request was made to the University on 22.01.2006 for permitting the College to admit 100 students under self-finance as no student was sent to the College after councilling. The Vice Chancellor is stated to have granted such permission on the letter itself, a copy whereof is enclosed as Annexure-4 to the present affidavit. The only endorsement made by the Vice Chancellor reads as Þfu;ekuqlkj vuqerß. Meaning thereby that the College was to act in accordance with the Rules and not de hors the same. It is then stated that on 25.01.2006, the College made another request to the Vice Chancellor to permit admission of additional 100 students which was also granted on the same day. For the purpose, reference is made to Annexure-5 to the affidavit wherein above the signatures of the Vice Chancellor, following words have been written :

Þfu;ekuqlkj vuqerß

Thereafter, there is a third letter dated 30.01.2006 by the College for permitting 40% additional students above 200 to be admitted in the B.Ed. Course 2005-06. On the said letter also the Vice Chancellor is stated to have made an endorsement Þfu;ekuqlkj vuqerß. These students are stated to have been admitted between 27.01.2006 to 30.01.2006 and then on 30.01.2006 itself making the total number of admitted students as 277.

This Court fails to understand as to how Þfu;ekuqlkj vuqerß"can be read to mean that the College can admit students beyond the legally sanctioned 100 seats and what meaning is to be attached to the endorsement of the Vice Chancellor quoted above, except that to act as per the rules applicable. Either the Manager understands no law and/or he is deliberately trying to mislead this Court. In respect of these 277 students similar procedure in collusion with the University is stated to have been followed for suggesting paper examinations.

As already noticed herein above, it is the categorical case of the University that none of the students were allotted any roll number, enrollment number, no answer-sheets are available with the University. The cross-list of the examinations is also not available. There is no record as who was appointed as the paper setter and who was appointed as evaluator. What is available with the University are certain loose mark slips. In respect of this College also, it may be recorded that admissions were granted till the month of January, 2006 and yet all the students are stated to have appeared in the University examinations said to have taken place in the first week of June, 2006. As already noticed herein above, under the N.C.T.E. Act/Regulations, minimum 180 days teaching is mandatory before any students can appear in the B.Ed. professional course as a regular student.

It may be recorded that the University had refused to hold examinations of these 227 students. The Committee of Management of the College filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 32456 of 2006 wherein an interim order was passed asking the University to permit the students to appear in the examinations but their results were not to be declared. The writ petition was got dismissed as withdrawn on 23.03.2007. With the dismissal of the writ petition, the interim order merged therein. Therefore, permission granted to appear in the examinations lost its life. Thereafter another writ petition no. 14587 of 2007 was filed for declaration of results by the students. The High Court passed an order that the result of the students admitted in excess of permitted intake i.e. 100, can not be declared. Thereafter Committee of Management filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 30200 of 2009 for declaration of results of the remaining students. On 18.06.2009 an interim order was passed for declaring the results and for issuing the mark-sheet. Against this order the University has filed Special Appeal No. 3905 (D) of 2009 wherein in paragraph 8 it has been stated that the University never issued the letter no. 123 dated 07.04.2006 and that this letter was in fact addressed to some other College. This letter according to the College had authorized it to admit the students.

(d) Prabha Devi Degree College, Khalilabad, Sant Kabir Nagar:

This College was granted recognition under letter dated 26.07.2005 with an intake of 100 students for the B.Ed. professional course w.e.f. 23.07.2005. The order of the N.C.T.E. contains specific stipulation that non-compliance to the conditions mentioned in the letter shall result in action under Section 17(1) of the Act and further any contravention of the provisions of the Act, Rules and Regulations would entail de-recognition under Section 17(1) of the N.C.T.E. Act.

As per the affidavit filed by the Manager of the institution dated 03.07.2013, 57 students were admitted in the institution after councilling, 15 were admitted under management quota. A request letter was sent to the Vice Chancellor to permit admission of 28 students against vacant seats on 20.02.2006. Such permission was granted by the Vice Chancellor and accordingly 28 students were admitted in terms of the letter dated 20.02.2006. For the purpose, reference is made to the document enclosed as Annexure-2 to the affidavit. The document bears the following endorsement :

Þ;Fkk izLrko vuqer--------22-06-2006ß"

It is then stated that 117 more students were admitted beyond the permitted intake of 100 with the permission of the then Vice Chancellor of the University between 06.03.2006 to 20.03.2006. For the purpose of establishing the permission of the Vice Chancellor certain documents have been enclosed as Annexure-3 to the affidavit which bear the endorsement of the Vice Chancellor in the following words:

"Approved and Allowed."

All these 217 students are stated to have appeared in the University examinations held in the month of June, 2006. As already noticed herein above, under the N.C.T.E. Act, minimum 180 days teaching is mandatory before any students can appear in the B.Ed. professional course examination as a regular student.

On behalf of the University it is categorically stated that there exist no record of allotment of roll number, enrollment number, tabulation chart in respect of the valuation of answer-sheets, only loose mark slips have been found. No other records pertaining to the examinations are available like in the case of other four institutions involved.

(e) Kisan Post Graduate Degree College

The college was granted recognition by the National Council for Teacher Education for the B. Ed. one year duration course with an intake of 100 seats only under letter dated 25.05.2005. Clause 2(f) of the letter of recognition stipulates that non-compliance of the conditions, as mentioned under the order, shall invite action under Section 17(1) of National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993. Similarly, clause 6 of the said letter provided that if the institution contravenes any of the provisions of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, Rules, Regulations and/or order issued thereunder, the Regional Committee may withdraw the recognition in exercise of powers under Section 17(1) of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993.

According to the affidavit of the manager of the college dated 03.07.2013, in the academic session 2005-06, 59 students were admitted through counseling by the University, 15 students were admitted under the management quota. Since 27 seats were vacant, a letter was sent to the Vice Chancellor to grant permission to fill in the said 27 seats. The Vice Chancellor is stated to have accorded such permission by making an endorsement on the letter. Copy of the letter dated 10.02.2006 along with endorsement of the Vice Chancellor has been enclosed as Annexure-2 to the affidavit filed by the manager on 03rd July, 2013. The endorsement of the Vice Chancellor records as follows:

Þfu;ekuqlkj ;Fkk izLrko vuqlkj&esfjV ,oa vkj{k.k ds fu;eksa dk ikyu Hkh lqfuf'pr fd;k tkosAß

It is then stated that on 06th March, 2006 a fresh application was made that 7 additional students, over and above the 100 intake, were desirous of admission and therefore permission may be granted to admit these 7 students also. On the said letter the Vice Chancellor is stated to have made an endorsement to the following effect:

Þ;Fkk izLrko fu;er% vuqLrAß

Copy of the letter is enclosed at page 32 of the affidavit. All these 107 students are stated to have appeared in the University examination.

Counsel for the University has denied the grant of any such permission and it is his case that in no circumstances any admission except through counseling could have been made. It is also stated that in fact University examinations as pleaded are only paper transactions. None of the students were allotted any roll number, enrollment number by University nor the answer-sheet of any of the student or tabulation sheet in respect of B. Ed. Examinations 2006 are available with the University.

As per the case set up by the management itself, at least following facts stand admitted (a) All the colleges had admitted students beyond the permitted intake of 100 and that too illegally through back door (b) admissions were granted up to the month of March, 2006 and the examinations are stated to have been held in the first week of June, 2006, when under the National Council for Teacher Education Regulations minimum 150 days of class room teaching and 30 days of practical teaching in neighboring school is mandatorily required and (c) There are no permanent record, as required, available with the University in respect of allotment of roll numbers, enrollment numbers, answer sheets, cross list etc qua these students.

Having noticed the facts as stand admitted on record, this Court may now refer to the various orders which have been passed in the present petition from time to time and the reports, which have been submitted by the authorities.

It may be recorded that this bunch of writ petitions was nominated to this Court under order of the Hon'ble The Chief Justice dated 30.07.2009, which stands recorded on the order-sheet of Writ Petition No. 20653 of 2008.

It may be specifically recorded that all the aforesaid institutions at best claim that they had temporary affiliation only from the University of Gorakhpur, which was valid for one year only.

In Writ Petition No. 12457 of 2007 this Court, after considering that the petitioner students have been misled by the University and the colleges and a situation has been created whereby their career has been put to jeopardy, as an interim measure directed that the colleges and the University shall deposit a sum of Rs. 25,000/- in respect of each students who was admitted beyond the permissible intake. Half of this money was to be paid by the University and the other half by the management i. e. Rs. 12,500/- each. Against the said order Special Appeal No. D-530 of 2007 was filed along with other special appeals. These special appeals were disposed of vide order dated 04.10.2007 without interfering with the interim direction.

For ensuring actual deposit a large number of orders were required to be passed by this Court. As on date the direction with regard to the deposit of Rs. 25,000/- in respect of each students admitted in excess of 100 intake permitted by all the colleges has been complied with. This deposit was made subject to the final orders to be passed in the present writ petition.

Under orders of this Court dated 23.05.2007 an enquiry was also directed to be held by the Secretary, Higher Education in the matter of excess admissions, so that the Court may know as to what had actually happened.

Secretary, Higher Education, U.P. Government submitted his report on 26.06.2007. In the report submitted by the Secretary besides these 5 colleges, as noticed above, an other institution namely St. Andrews College, Gorakhpur is also disclosed to have admitted 146 students as against permitted intake of 100 students.

The Secretary, Higher Education, after detail enquiry and after referring to the material facts collected, in last three paragraphs of his report has stated as follows:

Þ¼x½ mijksDr mfYyf[kr vU; ikap egkfo|ky;ksa ds fy, fu/kkZfjr dksVs ds vuqlkj izFker% dh x;h dkmUlfyax izR;sd fo|ky; dks 85 Nk=ksa dh lwph Hksth x;h vkSj 15 Nk= izcU/ku dksVs ls fy;s x;sA blds mijkUr xksj[kiqj fo'ofo|ky; ds dqyifr us bl egkfo|ky;ksa ds izcU/kra= ls lkWBxkWB djds dksVs ls vfrfjDr Nk= dks izos'k fn;s tkus ds vkns'k le;≤ ij fn;s ftlesa bu egkfo|ky;ksa ds izcU/kra= dk LokFkZ fufgr Fkk] LiLV gS fd fu/kkZfjr dksVs ls vf/kd Nk=ksa }kjk izos'k fy;s tkus dh u rks dksbZ vko';drk Fkh vkSj u gh dksbZ nckoA ijUrq fo'ofo|ky; izcU/ku vkSj egkfo|ky; ds izcU/kra= us tkucw>dj dksVs ls vfrfjDr Nk=ksa dks izos'k fnyk;kA bl ikWp egkfo|ky;ksa ds izcU/kra= }kjk ;fn dksVs ds vfrfjDr Nk=ksa dks izos'k u fn;s tkus dk fu.kZ; ys fy;k tkrk rks ;g leL;k mRiUu u gksrhA

¼?k½ dksVs ls vfrfjDr ftu Nk=ksa dks izos'k fn;k x;k vkSj mudh ijh{kk Hkh yh x;h mudk ijh{kkQy u ?kksf"kr fd;k tkuk mu Nk=ksa ds Hkfo"; ds lkFk f[kyokM gS blds fy, Hkh fo'ofo|ky; dk izcU/kra= ,oa egkfo|ky;ksa ds izcU/kd leku :i ls mRrjnk;h gSaA

¼M½ xksj[kiqj fo'ofo|ky; ds dqyifr }kjk bl ?kVuk ds mijkUr mu ikap egkfo|ky;ksa ds ch ,M ikB~;dze dh lEc}rk ,d o"kZ ds fy, lekIr fd;s tkus ds tks vkns'k tkjh fd;s x;s gSa tks ek= vkSipkfjdrk gSa ,oa Lo;a dks cpkus dk iz;kl gSAß

The Secretary, Higher Education has found that the colleges and the University had deliberately admitted students in excess of those permissible under law and there was an apparent collusion between the colleges and the University authorities. It has also been reported that there was personal interest behind the admission of students in excess of that permissible, so far as the colleges are concerned. It has also been stated that there was neither any pressure nor direction to admit students in excess of those permissible under the recognition letter. The Secretary opined that the colleges and University had played with the career of the students and both were responsible for the situation. The Secretary found that the order for cancellation of the affiliation of the colleges for one year by the University was only a formality with a motive to save itself.

The Vice Chancellor of the University on 22nd September, 2006 issued an order revoking the affiliation of these institutions for academic session 2006-07. The colleges filed Writ Petition No. 57198 of 2006, which was disposed of with a direction that the matter needs to be considered by the Chancellor of the University as per the provisions of the U. P. State Universities Act, 1973.

In the meantime, the power to consider the issue pertaining to the affiliation of colleges under the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 stood transferred to the State Government. The State Government on 01st February, 2008 passed an order cancelling the affiliation of all these 5 colleges for the year 2006-07 and 2007-08. Against this order dated 01.02.2008 another writ petition, being Writ Petition No. 1321(M/B) of 2008 was filed by the colleges before the Lucknow Bench, wherein an interim order was granted on 02.05.2008. The writ petition was finally decided on 19.08.2010 and the State Government was directed to decide the matter afresh.

This Court vide order dated 28.02.2011 required the University to produce the records pertaining to the allotment of enrollment number to the students as well as all other relevant records pertaining to the University examinations of 2006.

On 08.03.2011 the counsel for the University made a statement before this Court that absolutely no records are available with the University which could disclose that the students said to be admitted to B. Ed. Course were allotted any roll number, enrollment number by the University nor answer sheets of the B. Ed. Examinations 2006/original tabulation sheets are available with the University. It was specifically disclosed that if any student now comes up with the prayer for verification/issuance of the mark-sheet, it would be impossible for the University to do so.

This Court on 16.03.2011, therefore, passed a detail order requiring the Vice Chancellor to disclose (a) as to whether the original tabulation sheet pertaining to the B. Ed. Examination of 2006 was available or not (b) as to whether the answer-sheets of the students have been retained by the University and (c) on what basis mark-sheets and degrees have been issued to the students in pursuance to the order of the High Court dated 25.02.2009 and dated 28.04.2009, which were passed in Writ Petition No. 30200 of 2009.

The Vice Chancellor has filed an affidavit before this Court categorically stating that absolutely no permanent records in respect of the B. Ed. Examinations of 2005-06 are available with the University. This Court therefore directed that a first information report be lodged against all responsible. This Court further required the petitioners to explain that if original answer-sheet and original tabulation chart, wherein marks awarded to the students concerned had to be recorded, are not available, how could the result of any student could be declared.

No effective reply could be given. On the contrary the counsels for the petitioners prayed for exemplary compensation.

This Court also required the Vice Chancellor to verify as to which of the students in fact were admitted within the permitted intake of 100 and which of the students were admitted beyond the intake of 100 by the colleges concerned.

The Vice Chancellor has responded to the aforesaid directions by suggesting that there is no mechanics available with the University by which it can decide as to which of the student was admitted within the permitted intake and which of the student was admitted beyond the permitted intake.

This Court further required the Vice Chancellor to afford opportunity of hearing to the principal and management of the institutions in the matter of such determination and to submit fresh report. After the management/principal were granted liberty to file there explanation and affidavit in respect of the admission of the students, their appearance in the examination, this Court on 08.01.2013 noticed the following facts:

"Four affidavits have been filed today by :

a) Dr. Aniruddha Singh, Principal, Veer Bahadur Singh Degree College, Harnahi Mahurao, Gorakhpur.

b) Dr. Pramod Kumar Tripathi, Principal, Prabha Devi Degree College, Khalilabad, Sant Kabir Nagar.

c) Dr. Pramod Kumar Pandey, Principal, Vidyarthi Degree College, Jagdishpur, Bardeeha, Kushi Nagar.

d) Dr. Chandra Shekhar Singh, Principal, Kisan P.G. College, Paikauli Hata, Kushi Nagar.

Shri Girijesh Tewari, counsel appearing for the management of the institution and the Principal has handed over the original records as detailed below institution-wise :

i) Veer Bahadur Singh Degree College, Harnahi Mahurao, Gorakhpur :

Cross list as received from the Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur in respect of roll nos. 120451-120549 and 120552 dated 30.11.2006 containing signatures of the officers of the University including Examination Controller and the Vice Chancellor. A carbon copy of the nominal roll of the students admitted in the institution for the B.Ed. Course in respect of examinations of the year 2006 under the signature of the Principal of the institution containing no date has also been produced today before this Court in original. This nominal roll contains neither the roll number nor the enrollment number of the students concerned. The attendance sheets/verification list of the students having appeared in the examination have also been produced in original. In all these verification forms the earlier roll number as printed has been scored out and new roll numbers have been mentioned. The forms do not contain enrollment number of the student concerned.

Another file has been handed over to this Court which contains verification forms of candidates with roll numbers 20551 to 120600 as well as two forms with roll numbers 121378 and 121379. These students are also stated to have undertaken the examinations.

According to the petitioners the result of only 100 students has been declared.

The cross list has been marked as 'A' by this Court in red ink.

ii) Prabha Devi Degree College, Khalilabad, Sant Kabir Nagar:

Cross list has been produced in respect of the students with roll nos. 123221 and 123320. The cross list produced in original contains no date in the column provided for mentioning the date of result in any of the cross list nor it bears any date anywhere else. The cross list is stated to have been signed by Tabulators, Controller of Examinations and the Vice Chancellor. It is stated that the College is not possessed of any other document.

No other document has been produced which could establish that the roll numbers as mentioned against the students concerned was ever allotted by the University.

The cross list has been marked as 'B' by this Court in red ink.

iii) Vidyarthi Degree College, Jagdishpur, Bardeeha, Kushi Nagar :

It is stated that the original cross list is not available with the institution nor photocopy of the cross list is available. Only a nominal roll prepared by the Principal of the College in respect of students with roll numbers 123056 to 123214 has been produced before this Court. This nominal roll contains no date nor it contains enrollment number of any of the students. It is further stated that there is no document available with the College which could reflect as to what were the roll number allotted to the students concerned. However, he has produced the verification list of certain students which makes mention of the roll number but the column of enrollment number is blank.

iv) Kisan P.G. College, Paikauli Hata, Kushi Nagar :

Cross list has been produced in respect of students with roll numbers 122526-122626. It has been marked as 'D' in red ink by the Court. The cross list contains 09.11.2010 as the date and has been signed by the Controller of Examinations as well as by the Vice Chancellor. In many columns the figure mentioned are illegible, there is cutting and over writing at many places. He has also produced the nominal roll of the students with roll number 12256-122625. The nominal roll does not contain enrollment number of any of the students. He has also produced the verification form of the students which also does not contain any enrollment number.

The three cross lists which have been produced today before this Court marked as A, B and D with red ink by this Court are handed over to the counsel for the University today in a sealed cover. The Vice Chancellor shall verify from each of the signatory of the said cross list as to whether it bears their signatures or not. He shall also ask the Principal of all the Colleges to appear before him on a date to be fixed and to file their written undertaking as to whether at any point of time the University has alloted the roll numbers, enrollment numbers to the students of their college and if so under which document.

The Vice Chancellor shall thereafter submit his report to this Court along with the original cross list which has been handed over the counsel for the University today.

Before this Court are available the duplicate copy of the cross list which bears the signature of the Controller of Examinations in respect of five colleges as well as the marks slip in respect of one individual paper only i.e. Ist paper in respect of five institutions and marks slip of practical examination in one subject. These marks slip are being returned to the counsel for the University in five sealed envelopes today. The duplicate cross list in respect of all the five colleges has been separately sealed in another envelope and is being handed over to the counsel for the University. No other document is available with the Court now.

The said exercise shall be completed by the Vice Chancellor within four weeks and he shall file his report along with his personal affidavit before this Court on or before 11.02.2013.

Affidavits filed by the University as well as by the colleges are taken on record.

List on 11.02.2013."

It is also worthwhile to refer to the reports which were submitted by the Vice Chancellor dated 08.02.2013, dated 01.04.2013 and dated 29.04.2013. The reports are already on record of the present writ petition. In his report dated 08.02.2013 the Vice Chancellor, after considering the information supplied by the Principal of the aforesaid colleges, concluded as follows:

Þekuuh; U;k;ky; ds vkns'k ds vuqikyu esa egkfo|ky; ds izkpk;ksZa }kjk izosf'kr Nk=ksa dh fo'ofo|ky; }kjk vuqdzekad] ukekadu la[;k fdl izdkj fn;k x;k Fkk ds lEcU/k esa dksbZ [email protected][k izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k] izkpk;ksZa }kjk izLrqr i=ksa dh izfr esa dgk x;k fd vuqdzekad] ukekadu la[;k ds lkFk fo'ofo|ky; }kjk dksbZ dofjax ysVj egkfo|ky; dks ugha Hkstk x;kA egkfo|ky; ds izkpk;ksaZ }kjk izLrqr i=ksa dh izfr vk[;k ds lkFk layXu gSAÞ

He also recorded that some of the marks slip of Prabha Devi Mahavidyalaya Khalilabad, Santkabir Nagar, which were alleged to have been signed by Dr. Ajai Kumar Srivastava, Sri Bambeshwar Ram Tripathi, Dr. Vinod Kumar Srivastava, Dr. Rajendra Kumar Jaiswal on being approached had denied their signatures thereon.

In his report dated 01.04.2013 detail procedure, which is to be adopted in the matter of allotment of enrollment number, roll number to the students, submission of examination forms and the mode and manner in which the records are to be kept, has been explained.

The Vice Chancellor vide his report dated 29th April, 2013 has informed that the persons, who are stated to have signed the marks list, could not produce any document issued by the University authorizing them to act as such in respect of B. Ed. Examinations 2005-06. There is no record available with the University as to who were appointed as the paper setters, evaluators of the answer-sheets of the B. Ed. Examinations 2005-06. The Confidential Cell of the University has informed that there are no records qua appointment of examiners for the B. Ed. Course of 2005-06. On the opening of one sealed room pertaining to the B. Ed. Examinations 2005-06 at E.D.P. Cell it was found that absolutely no records were available therein. In such circumstances first information report has already been lodged. A detail report has been filed by the Vice Chancellor categorically stating that the examinations appear to be sham and there has been apparent collusion between the management and the then University authorities.

The Vice Chancellor has informed that the colleges and other staff of the institutions have committed criminal offence qua which they are being proceeded with. He has brought on record the copy of the first information report which was lodged earlier and the first information report which is proposed to be lodged in terms of the report of the Vice Chancellor dated 10.06.2013 and dated 01.07.2013 against all responsible.

Since this Court was prima facie satisfied that the colleges in collusion with the University authorities have made mockery of the B. Ed. Professional Course, called upon the colleges in the facts of the case under order dated 21.05.2013 to show cause as to why this Court may not direct that their recognition/affiliation in respect of B. Ed. Course itself may not be withdrawn for the fraudulent facts done by them. The colleges have filed their reply in form of an affidavit, which have also been noticed herein above.

Sri Girijesh Tripathi, Advocate, counsel for all 5 institutions referred to above, in reply submitted that twice the State Government and the Vice Chancellor had taken decision to cancel the affiliation of the institutions because of admission of excess students. On both the occasions writ petitions were filed by the Committee of Management before the High Court, being Writ Petition No. 57198 of 2006 decided on 01.02.2008 and Writ Petition No. 1321 of 2008 (MB) decided on 19.08.2010. Every time after setting aside the order impugned the matter was either remanded to the Chancellor or to the State Government.

It is stated that the State Government on 28.07.2011 has decided to grant permanent affiliation to all these 5 colleges and therefore no action need be taken against the colleges for admission of students in excess of intake permitted now.

He then submitted that the colleges did commit a mistake while admitting students in excess of the intake permitted but such excess admissions were made with the permission of the University. The colleges are ready and willing to compensate the students within reasonable limit only.

The petitioners before this Court had taken admission some times in January, February and March, 2006 with open eyes that their admissions were beyond the permitted intake and without being recommended through counseling. Therefore, they cannot be now permitted to contend that it was the management of the institution alone which was responsible for the situation.

Counsel for the University, after referring to the various orders which have been passed from time to time, has brought to the notice of this Court that so far as Chaudhary Mahaveer Prasad Memorial Mahavidyalaya, Hathsawa Biradpur, Siddharthnagar is concerned, it did not have any affiliation in the year 2005-06. However, the committee filed Writ Petition No. 32456 of 2006 wherein an interim order was granted by the High Court on 20th June, 2006 for the students admitted in the said college being permitted to appear in the University examinations but their results were not to be declared. This college admitted 277 students without any affiliation.

He further points out that the Writ Petition No. 32456 of 2006 got dismissed on 23.05.2007. Thereafter, writ petition was filed by the students, being Writ Petition No. 14587 of 2007, for declaration of their result, wherein the Court directed that result in excess of 100 students cannot be declared. Against the said order Special Appeal No. (530) of 2007 was filed, which was disposed of on 04.10.2007 with certain modification.

Thereafter four colleges filed another Writ Petition No. 30200 of 2009 for declaration of the result of the students admitted in excess of 100 students. An interim order was passed on 18th June, 2009 for declaration of the result of the students and for issuance of mark-sheet. Against this order Special Appeal No. (3905) of 2009 has been filed by the University and in paragraph 8 it has been stated that the colleges have enclosed a forged document in Writ Petition No. 30200 of 2009. The matter is pending in that regard before the Division Bench.

It has also been stated that in respect of the year 2006-07 the University had refused to hold examinations of students of the aforesaid colleges. The colleges filed Writ Petition No. 4486 of 2009 before the Lucknow Bench, wherein an order has been passed on 12.11.2010 to the effect that each of the colleges shall deposit a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-(Ten Lakh) with the University, which shall be used by the University for the welfare of the students and thereafter all formalities shall be got completed for appearance of the students in the University examinations. It is stated that each of these 5 colleges have deposited Rs. 10,00,000/- each with the University.

Sri Sanjeev Singh, Advocate and Sri R.A. Prasad, Advocate in respect of their Writ Petition Nos. 1135 of 2013, 12813 of 2011 and 23952 of 2011 have prayed either for declaration of their result or issuance of mark-sheet/degree with reference to the B. Ed. Examinations of 2005-06 in the alternative for payment of exemplary compensation.

This Court may first deal with the relief prayed for by the students in all the writ petition, namely for declaration of their results, issuance of mark-sheet/degree pertaining to B. Ed. Examinations of 2005-06.

In the year 2005 the provisions of THE NCTE (FORM OF APPLICATION FOR RECOGNITION, THE TIME LIMIT OF SUBMISSION OF APPLICATION, DETERMINATION OF NORMS AND STANDARDS FOR RECOGNITION OF TEACHER EDUCATION PROGRAMMES AND PERMISSION TO START NEW COURSE OF TRAINING) REGULATIONS, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'Regulations, 2002') were applicable.

Regulation 8 of Regulations, 2002 provides for norms and standards for various teacher education courses as indicated in the said Regulation. Norms and standards for Secondary Teacher Education Programme i.e. B. Ed. has been provided for under Appendix-7.

Appendix-7 clause 2 provides that B. Ed. Programme shall be of a duration of at least one academic year.

Clause 4 provides for the curriculum transaction and requirement of teaching staff. Clauses 4(a) and 4(b), which are relevant for our purposes, read as follows:

"(a) There shall be at least 150 teaching days in a year exclusive of period of admission, examination, etc. Besides, every teacher trainee shall be required to undergo internship-in-teaching (including practice teaching and skill development) for at least 30 days in nearby secondary/senior secondary schools.

(b) Apart from teaching of foundation courses, thee shall be provision for methodology of teaching two out of five school subjects at the secondary level (Regional Language/Mother Tongue, English, Mathematics, Science, Social Sciences), or discipline-specific subjects at the senior secondary level (Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics, Biology, History, Geography, Political Science, Economics, Commerce etc.)"

The Apex Court in the case of Mallikarjuna Mudhagal Nagappa & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka & Ors., reported in AIR 2000 SC 2976 has held that if admission has been granted to the students beyond the intake permitted under the statutory provisions, then the Court cannot help the petitioners. The Apex Court in the said case had specifically referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Renuka Singh; AIR 1994 SC 59 as also to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale, wherein it has been held has follows:

"Slackening the standard and judicial fiat 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 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."

Similarly, in the case of Medical Council of India vs. Madhu Singh and others, reported in 2002(7) SCC 258 while considering a matter in respect of admissions directed by the High Court during mid session, the Apex Court held that the High Court was in error in directing mid session admission. In conclusion it was held that there was no scope for admitting students midstream as that would be against the every spirit of statutes governing medical education. Even if seats are unfilled that cannot be a ground for making mid-session admissions. (Ref. Para-23).

What applies for medical education shall apply with equal force to B. Ed. Course, which is also a professional course and for which practical class room teaching and other activities are mandatorily to be held as per National Council for Teacher Education Regulations of 2002 quoted above.

This Court may further record that all the petitioners before this Court had been admitted in the aforesaid colleges through back door i. e. without being recommended through counseling. They claim to have appeared in the University examination for the B. Ed. Course held in the first week of June, 2006. None of the students are in position to disclose the enrollment number allotted by the University in his favour. Under the National Council for Teacher Education Regulations minimum 180 days teaching is mandatory before a student can appear in the University examinations as a regular student. Not one of the petitioners in any of these petitions has disclosed as to whether they had actually undergone 150 days of class room teaching and 30 days of practice teaching in nearby schools so as to become eligible to appear in the final examination of the B. Ed. Course. If the entire case, as pleaded by the petitioners/colleges, is taken to be correct and it is presumed that these students were admitted on or after 01.01.2006, they could at best complete class room teaching of 130 actual working days, after excluding the Sunday and holidays. While those admitted in February, 2006 could attend classes for only 110 days and those admitted in March, 2006 could attend classes for less than 90 days.

This Court cannot ask the University to declare result of such students, who have not completed class room teaching and practice teaching of mandatory period as per the norms of the National Council for Teacher Education, referred to above.

Under the National Council for Teacher Education Regulations, 2002 the B. Ed. Examination is to comprise of two parts (a) practice teaching (b) final examination. Evaluation in respect of (a) part is done with reference to the class room teaching and performance in disciplines during such teaching. There is no averment nor any other material evidence on record of these petitions to establish that the students had undertaken the practice teaching of 30 days and had participated in the required discipline or had been evaluated for the same and by whom so that the requirement of part (a) of the B. Ed. Examination could be satisfied.

From the reports of the Vice Chancellor, which have been noticed herein above in detail, it is apparent that absolutely no records are available with the University on the basis whereof it can be said that any valid examinations did take place in the year 2005-06 and that any permanent record is available with the University on the basis whereof it can be safely recorded that the particular student had received such number of marks after evaluation of this answers sheet by a competent examiner in the paper concerned. The Vice Chancellor has specifically reported that the permanent records of the University pertaining to the allotment of enrollment number, roll number, cross-list, wherein the marks awarded to each student in each paper is recorded, are completely missing. It is also not known as to who was appointed by the confidential section of the University to act as the paper setters/evaluators.

In these set of circumstances this Court is satisfied that there cannot be a mandamus asking the University to do an illegal act or to do an impossible task i.e. to declare result of students qua whom neither roll number nor enrollment numbers as allotted by the University are available nor the cross list, which are the permanent document of the marks awarded in each paper to the student concerned nor details of class room teaching/participation in the discipline and evaluation thereof, is available with the University.

Therefore, in the totality of the circumstances on record this Court refuses to grant any relief to the petitioners in the matter of declaration of their result, issuance of mark-sheet/degree.

This takes the Court to the larger issue which is involved in these petitions.

Can this Court permit these 5 colleges to go escort free and to ruin the entire education of the State. The answer has to be a being 'No'.

The colleges have to be dealt with in a manner so that it become an example to the other institutions and the University so as to ensure that in future teaching in professional courses like B. Ed. is not rendered sham. A system has to be created where professional degrees of B. Ed. are not awarded on mere asking, without actual teaching as per National Council for Teacher Education norms.

This Court must emphasis that the students, who qualify the B. Ed. Examinations, become eligible to be appointed as teachers in various categories of institutions where education up to Class-XII is imparted. Teachers are backbone of the entire education system. If the teachers themselves are permitted to hoodwink the process of learning in collusion with the management of the institution and the University authorities, then it cannot be expected that such teacher would impart quality education to the minor students. A person born of corrupt education will ultimately corrupt the entire education itself. Nothing can be worst for a democracy than a corrupt education system.

The Apex Court, realizing the fall of standard of moral education in India despite recording that there has been growth in educated youth in the country, in its recent judgment in the case of Maharshi Mahesh Yogi Vedic Vishwavidyalaya vs. State of M.P. and Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 6736 of 2004 decided on 03.07.2013 has held that the education has failed to achieve its objective. The relevant paragraph 40 of the judgment is being quoted herein below:

'40. With great respect, it will also have to be stated that bereft of improvement in the educational field when we pose to ourselves the question as to what extent it has created any impact, it will have to be stated that we are yet to reach the preliminary level of achievement of standardised literate behaviour. In fact, in the earlier years, though the literate level was not as high as it now stands, the human value had its own respected place in the society. It will be worthwhile to recall the control the elders could administer over the youngsters, de hors the lack of education. It is unfortunate that today education instead of reforming the human behaviour, in our humble opinion appear to have failed to achieve its objective. Instead we find troubled atmosphere in the society at large, which calls for immediate reformation with the efforts of one and all. Therefore, it has become imperative to see that the institution, the teachers, the parents, the students and the society at large can do for bringing about such a transformation. When by and large the development of education has been achieved and the percentage of literacy has considerably improved, at least to more than 60%, there should not be any difficulty for the educated mass to prevail upon every section of the society in order to ensure that the orderly society emerges, which would pave the way for a decent and safe living for every human being who is part of the society."

It is in this background that the Court did call upon the counsel for the five colleges to explain as to why their recognition for the B. Ed. Course be not cancelled under Section 17(1) of the National Council for Teacher Education Act for the facts as admitted on record.

The counsel stated that facts are already on record. Mistakes have been committed, for the said mistake the college may be directed to pay compensation to the petitioner students.

At least five facts stand admitted on record of these petitions (a) the colleges have violated the conditions of the recognition letter with impunity inasmuch as against 100 intake of students permitted, Vidhyarti Degree College, Kushinagar had admitted 159 students, Veer Bahadur Singh Mahavidyalaya, Gorakhpur 149, Prabha Devi Mahavidyalaya, Santkabir Nagar 217, Chaudhary Mahaveer Prasad Memorial Mahavidyalaya 277 students, Kisan Mahavidyalaya, Kushinagar 107 through back door i.e. de hors the procedure of counseling and without disclosing as to how they could cope with the requirement of infrastructure in terms of the National Council for Teacher Education Norms of 2002. (b) it is admitted on record that these colleges have admitted students in the months of January to March, 2006 under alleged orders of the Vice Chancellor of the University, when under the National Council for Teacher Education Act the University has only one role to play i.e. of examining authority. All other relevant conditions/procedure for the B. Ed. Course are regulated under the National Council for Teacher Education Act and Regulations framed there under. Therefore, even if there was an order of the Vice Chancellor, as alleged by the colleges, it would not infuse life in the illegal admissions. (c) these illegally admitted students alleged to have appeared in the University examinations for the B. Ed. Course held in the month of June, 2006, when some of them could at the maximum complete 90 days of actual class-room teaching, which is even less than half of the minimum required under the National Council for Teacher Education Norms of 2002. (d) There exists no record/evidence to establish that any actual class room teaching practice had been done and the students had participated in the required disciplines for being evaluated there for. (e) No permanent records are available with the University qua allotment of roll number, enrollment number, answer sheets, cross list and other essential steps for University examinations qua these students.

It was the case of the colleges themselves in Writ Petition No. 57198 of 2006 and Writ Petition No. 1321(MB) of 2008 before the High Court that since recognition has been granted by the National Council for Teacher Education for the B. Ed. Course and action for violating the National Council for Teacher Education Norms could be taken under the National Council for Teacher Education Act and not by the affiliating authority namely the University or State Government.

It is, therefore, proved on record that all the 5 colleges have not only violated the terms and conditions of the recognition letter and thereby violated clause 1(f) of the recognition letter, they have also violated the mandatory requirements of the regulations of 2002 framed under the National Council for Teacher Education qua minimum 180 days teaching to be imparted before examinations being conducted and lastly actual teaching in the professional being done as per the regulations. These violations are covered by clause 6 of the letter of recognition rendering them liable to be proceeded with under Section 17(1) of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993.

Section 17(1) of the National Council for Teacher Education Act reads as follows:

"17(1) Where the Regional Committee is, on its own motion or on any representation received from any person, satisfied that a recognised institution has contravened any of the provisions of this Act, or the rules, regulations, orders made or issued thereunder, or any condition subject to which recognition under sub-section (3) of section 14 or permission under sub-section (3) of section 15 was granted, it may withdraw recognition of such recognised institution, for reasons to be recorded in writing.

Provided that no such order against the recognised institution shall be passed unless a reasonable opportunity of making representation against the proposed order has been given to such recognised institution:

provided further that the order withdrawing or refusing recognition passed by the Regional Committee shall come in to force only with effect from the end of the academic session next following the date of communication of such order."

Normally this Court would have required the National Council for Teacher Education to initiate action in terms of section 17(1) for the admitted violation of the provisions noticed above, but since in the facts of the case the colleges had admitted the aforesaid violations either during arguments or in the affidavits filed by the manager, this Court feels that a case for an order under Section 17(1) is clearly made out.

This Court will not make payment of money in shape of compensation a substitute for compounding all evils specifically those relating to education. The stream of education must be left pure and should not be permitted to be corrupted by use of money.

This Court, therefore, with reference to the conditions of letter of recognition and the stipulations mentioned therein read with Section 17(1) of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 directs that recognition granted to all the aforesaid 5 colleges shall stand canceled from the next academic session i.e. .2014-15.

No student shall be allocated to the aforesaid colleges in the academic session 2014-15 and thereafter.

With the aforesaid directions all the writ petitions are disposed of. The money which have been deposited by the colleges and the University in terms of the order passed by this Court earlier, may be paid to the respective students, who are party before this Court and to those who were admitted to the course, as and when they make an application for the purpose duly verified by the Advocate or by some authority of the colleges concerned, through an account payee cheque drawn in the name of the student concerned within two weeks of the making of the application.

The State authorities are directed to proceed with the investigation in terms of the first information report already lodged against all responsible. Similarly, the Vice Chancellor shall also lodge the other first information report in respect of the loss of records of the University, as noticed herein above. Necessary action may be taken by the University within 4 weeks from today.

25.07.2013

Pkb/