Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sri. Venkateswara College Of ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 15 October, 2024
APHC010420502024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3330]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 21656/2024
Between:
Sri Venkateswara College Of Education ...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. Y ANUPAMA DEVI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. S PARINEETA
2. GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION
WRIT PETITION NO: 21851/2024
Between:
Sri. Venkateswara College Of Education, ...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
The Court made the following common order:-
As the issue in these two writ petitions is one and the same,
these writ petitions are being disposed of by way of this common
order.
2. These two writ petitions are filed to declare the action of 3rd and
4th respondents in not granting the recognition for annual intake of 200
students 4 units for admission into Bachelor of Education Courses for
the academic year 2024-2025 as arbitrary and the petitioner-colleges
unable to participate total 200 intake in admission process for regular
B.Ed., Course for the academic year 2024-2025 is illegal, arbitrary and
contrary to the provisions and violation of principles of natural justice
and consequently direct 3rd and 4th respondents to issue Formal
Recognition for another seats in addition to existing seats to the
petitioner-colleges for total annual intake of 200 students 4 units and
permit to participate in admission process for total intake of 200
students 4 units for the academic year 2024-2025 to the said courses.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-Colleges, learned
Government Pleader for Higher Education for respondent No.1, Ms
S.Parineeta, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2, Sri
V.Hemanth Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for respondent 3 and 4
and Sri Murali Lincoln, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.5.
4. The petitioner-colleges are seeking a direction from this Court
for respondents 3 & 4 to increase the number of additional intake seats
beyond the existing ones, which have not been considered, hence,
these writ petitions.
5. In this regard, it is appropriate to refer Sections 12 and 14 of the
National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993 which is extracted
here under:
Section 12 : Functions of Council. It shall be the duty of the
Council to take all such steps as it may think fit for ensuring
planned and co-ordinated development of teacher education
and for the determination and maintenance of standards for
teacher education and for the purposes of performing its
functions under this Act, the Council may--
(a) undertake surveys and studies relating to various aspects
of teacher education and publish the result thereof;
(b) made recommendations to the Central and State
Governments, Universities, University Grants
Commission and recognized institutions in the matter of
preparation of suitable plans and programmes in the field
of teacher education;
(c) co-ordinate and monitor teacher education and its
development in the country;
(d) lay down guidelines in respect of minimum qualifications
for a person to be employed as a teacher in schools or in
recognized institutions;
(e) lay down norms for any specified category of courses or
trainings in teacher education, including the minimum
eligibility criteria for admission thereof, and the method of
selection of candidates, duration of the course, course
contents and mode of curriculum;
(f) lay down guidelines for compliance by recognized
institutions, for starting new courses or training, and for
providing physical and instructional facilities, staffing
pattern and staff qualifications;
(g) lay down standards in respect of examinations leading to
teacher education qualifications, criteria for admission to
such examinations and schemes of courses or training;
(h) lay down guidelines regarding tuition fees and other fees
chargeable by recognized institutions;
(i) promote and conduct innovation and research in various
areas of teacher education and disseminate the results
thereof;
(j) examine and review periodically the implementation of
the norms, guidelines and standards laid down by the
Council, and to suitably advise the recognized
institutions;
(k) evolve suitable performance appraisal systems, norms
and mechanisms for enforcing accountability on
recognized institutions;
(l) formulate schemes for various levels of teacher
education and identify recognized institutions and set up
new institutions for teacher development programmes;
(m) take all necessary steps to prevent commercialization of
teacher education; and
(n) perform such other functions as may be entrusted to it by
the Central Government.
Section 14 : "Recognition of Institutions offering course or
training in teacher education.
(1) Every institution offering or intending to offer a course or
training the teacher education on or after the appointed
day, may, for grant of recognition under this Act, make an
application to the Regional Committee concerned in such
form and in such manner as may be determined by
regulations.
Provided that an institution offering a course or training in
teacher education immediately before the appointed day,
shall be entitled to continue such course or training for a
period of six months, if it has made an application for
recognition within the said period and until the disposal of
the application by the Regional Committee.
(2) The fee to be paid along with the application under Sub-
section (1) shall be such as may be prescribed.
(3) On receipt of an application by the regional Committee
from any institution concerned such other particulars as it
may consider necessary, it shall:--
(a) if it is satisfied that such institution has adequate
financial resources, accommodation, library, qualified
staff, laboratory and that it fulfils such other conditions
required for proper functioning of the institution for a
course or training in teacher education, as may be
determined by regulations, pass an order granting
recognition to such institution, subject to such
conditions as may be determined by regulations; or
(b) if it is of the opinion that such institution docs not fulfill
the requirements laid down in sub-Clause (a), pass an
order refusing recognition to such institution for
reasons to be recorded in writing:
Provided that before passing an order under sub-
clause (b), the Regional Committee shall provide a
reasonable opportunity to the concerned institution for
making a written representation.
(4) Every order granting or refusing recognition to an
institution for a course or training in teacher education
under Sub-section (3) shall be published in the Official
Gazette and communicated in writing for appropriate
action to such institution and to the concerned examining
body, the local authority or the State Government and the
Central Government.
(5) Every institution, in respect of which recognition has been
refused shall discontinue the course or training in teacher
education from the end of the academic session next
following the date of receipt of the order refusing
recognition passed under Clause (b) of Sub-section (3).
(6) Every examining body shall, on receipt of the order under
Sub-section (4),--
(a) grant affiliation to the institution, where recognition has
been granted; or
(b) cancel the affiliation of the institution, where recognition
has been refused.
6. On reading of the statutes it requires the Council to grant
recognition by taking note of adequate financial resources of the
educational institution, accommodation, library, qualified staff,
laboratory and such other conditions. The object of the Act is to
enhance the standard of the teachers who are to impart education at
various levels for providing physical and instructional facilities, staffing
pattern and staff qualifications.
7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila
Mahavidyalaya Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh1 and in State of
Rajasthan Vs. LBS B.Ed. College & Ors.2 held that the views of the
State Government are to be taken into consideration by NCTE, which
is the final authority and the decision taken by it would be binding on
the respective parties, State will have no further say in the matter and
decision of NCTE would prevail.
8. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court referred
above the decision of the NCTE prevails, that the NCTE has the
authority and jurisdiction to grant approval to institutions after
evaluating the infrastructure they provide. This principle also applies to
the increase the strength or number of seats of the institution. To allow
any additional seats the respondents have to follow guidelines and
regulations of the Council under the Act. The Council is vested with
powers to permit additional seats basing upon infrastructure
and accommodation, library, qualified staff, laboratory and such other
conditions and standards for the academic year 2024-25. The
decision of the Council under the Act is final.
9. To issue a direction or writ of mandamus, the petitioner-Colleges
must show that the actions of the State or its instrumentality or any
public authority or person whose actions demonstrably arbitrary,
(2013) 2 SCC 617
(2016) 16 SCC 110
capricious, irrational, discriminatory or violative of constitutional or
statutory provisions, otherwise, the Court cannot go into the wisdom of
the State policy. The decision is solely rests on wisdom of the Council
whether to permit additional intake.
10. Even assuming that the petitioner-colleges argue that the fact a
similarly situated college was granted permission for additional intake,
while the petitioner-colleges was not, is not a sufficient ground to direct
the respondents. In support of this proposition, this Court refers to the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Chandigarh Admn. v. Jagjit
Singh3, it was held that the respondent-authority has passed a
particular order in the case of another person similarly situated can
never be the ground for issuing a writ in favour of the petitioner on the
plea of discrimination. The order in favour of the other person might be
legal and valid or it might not be. Following the aforementioned
judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Usha Mehta vs. Government of
Andhra Pradesh4 , held that a mandate cannot be issued to the State
to commit illegality or pass a wrong order because in another case
such an illegality has been committed and wrong order was passed.
11. Hence, it is for the Council to consider the case of the petitioner-
colleges request, whether to permit the petitioner-institutions to
increase the intake capacity, for the relief prayed that a judicial review
(1995) 1 SCC 745
(2012) 12 SCC 419
can neither expand nor direct the Council to permit the petitioner-
institutions to allow giving admissions as requested. This Court cannot
determine in the exercise of the power of judicial review. The intake
capacity should be allowed or not be allowed is a matter for the
Council under the Act, which is based upon the infrastructure provided
by the petitioner-colleges. The petitioner-colleges are hereby directed
to approach the concerned authorities for their relief and this Court
cannot direct the respondents to permit or grant additional seats to the
petitioner-colleges that is for the State to consider as there is any
requirement to grant additional seats.
12. With the said observation, these Writ Petitions stand dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
___________________________________
JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHARA RAO
Date: 15.10.2024
KBN
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHARA RAO
WRIT PETITION Nos.21656 and 21851 of 2024
Date: 15.10.2024
KBN
