S S Mahita College Of Education vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2024 Latest Caselaw 9318 AP

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

S S Mahita College Of Education vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 15 October, 2024

APHC010427652024
                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
                               PRADESH
                                                       [3330]
                            AT AMARAVATI
                     (Special Original Jurisdiction)

          TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER
             TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                     PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

 WRIT PETITION NOs. 21849, 21877,22430 and 22526 of 2024

W.P.NO. 21849 of 2024
Between:
Sri Satyadeva College Of Education              ...PETITIONER

                              AND

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others      ...RESPONDENT(S)



W.P.NO: 21877 of 2024
Between:

Sri Venkateswara College Of Education           ...PETITIONER

                              AND

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others      ...RESPONDENT(S)



W.P.NO: 22430 of 2024

Between:

Dr.Zakir Hussain College of Education           ...PETITIONER

                              AND

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others      ...RESPONDENT(S)
                                   2




W.P.NO: 22526 of 2024

Between:

S.S.Mahita College of Education              ...PETITIONER

                             AND

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others   ...RESPONDENT(S)


Counsel for the Petitioner(s):

   1. Y ANUPAMA DEVI

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

   1. S PARINEETA

   2. GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

The Court made the following common order:
                                     3



 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

 WRIT PETITION Nos. 21849, 21877, 22430 and 22526 of 2024

COMMON ORDER:

As the issue in these writ petitions is one and the same,

these writ petitions are being disposed of by way of this common

order.

2. These writ petitions are filed to declare the action of the 3rd

and 4th respondents in not granting the recognition for annual

intake of 200 students for 4 units for admission into Bachelor of

Education Courses for the academic year 2024-2025 as being

arbitrary and causing the petitioner-colleges unable to participate

total 200 intake in admission process for admission into 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 the 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 for

4 units and permit to participate in admission process for total

intake of 200 students for 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, in all the writ petitions.

4. The petitioner-colleges are seeking a direction from this

Court for the 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 Section 12 and 14 of

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 Apex Court in the case of Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila

Mahavidyalaya Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh1 and 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,

(2013) 2 SCC 617

(2016) 16 SCC 110

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 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. That is 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, 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 argues that the

fact a similarly situated college was granted permission for

additional intake, while the petitioner-colleges was not, is not

sufficient ground to direct the respondents. In support of this

proposition, this Court refers to the judgment of the Apex Court

observed in Chandigarh Admn. v. Jagjit Singh3 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 request whether to permit the petitioners institutions to

increase the intake capacity for the relief prayed that a judicial

review can neither expand and direct the council to permit the

(1995) 1 SCC 745

(2012) 12 SCC 419

petitioners institutions to allow to give 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-

institutions 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-

institutions that is for the State to consider as there is any

requirement to grant additional seats.

12. With the said observation, the Writ Petitions stand

dismissed.

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending in

these Writ Petitions shall stand closed.

___________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 15.10.2024

Harin/SPP

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHARA RAO

WRIT PETITION Nos. 21849, 21877, 22430 and 22526 of 2024

Date: 15-10-2024

Harin/SPP