Ramesh Nivrutti Bhor And Ors. vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors.
2004 Latest Caselaw 1262 Bom

ORDER

H.L. Gokhale, J.

1. The first writ petition is filed by Ramesh Nivrutti Bhor and six others against Dr. Babasaheb Adhyapak Vidyalaya run by one Bahujan Samaj Prabhodan Shikshan Sanstha situated at Kotur in Taluka Akole District Ahmednagar (for short, hereinafter referred to as "the Institution"). There are in all nine respondents in the first writ petition, Principal amongst them being respondent No. 9 National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), respondent No. 8 Maharashtra Rajya Pariksha Parishad and the respondent No. 4 Education Officer (Education), Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar.

2. The second writ petition is filed by the Institution against two respondents i.e. NCTE and the State of Maharashtra.

3. In the first writ petition it is contended that the seven petitioners along with other students were admitted to the D.Ed, course run by the Institution in the year 2003-2004. They are seeking a direction that an appropriate arrangement be made to allow them to appear in the examination of the first year D.Ed, course to be held in November, 2004, from any other Institution. The case of these students is that they had paid the fees to the Institution but now their information is that this Institution does not have the necessary recognition. In fact, at Exhibit D to the first petition is the letter dated 18-3-2004 of the State Government in the School Education Department stating that the initial no-objection certificate of the State Government was obtained by this Institution by fabricating the signature of the officer concerned. The letter further states that on the basis of the fabricated papers, the NCTE was pursuaded to issue a letter dated 20-2-2004 granting provisional recognition for the year 2004-2005. This letter of the School Education Department addressed to the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar, informs the Zilla Parishad that the NCTE has been intimated that the application of the Institution to start the D.Ed, college should not be considered. The Zilla Parishad has been asked to register an offence against the Institution for fabricating the Government papers, fabricating the documents with bogus signatures of the Government Officers and on that basis, practising deception on the NCTE.

4. The petitioners in the first writ petition have contended that now they have come to learn that they have been cheated. What is material to note is that this letter of the Government is about the provisional recognition obtained by the Institution for the year 2004-2005. So far as the academic year 2003-2004 during which the petitioners - students attended the Institution is concerned, there does not appear to be any document on record to show that the Institution had even the provisional recognition either from the State Government or the NCTE or from the Maharashtra Rajya Pariksha Parishad (examining body). In the first writ petition, an advertisement is produced at Exhibit F showing that the Institution has referred to the letter dated 20-2-2004 of the National Council for Teacher Education and has stated in the said advertisement that the admission is going for the academic year 2004-2005 and the students may take the admission in the Institution. The petitioners students, therefore, state that they are innocent sufferers. Moreover, in the submission of Shri S.D. Kulkarni, learned Advocate for the petitioners in the first writ petition, the students should be protected and they should be allowed to appear in the examination from some other Institution.

5. The second writ petition is filed by the Institution referring to the letter dated 20-2-2004 at Exhibit C at page 20. This letter is addressed to the Director of the Maharashtra State Council of Educational Research and Training, Pune. It states that the Institution is expected to send the list of staff and the faculty members duly signed by the Director of the Council. The formal orders of recognition will be issued only thereafter. The second writ petition does not give any further information as to whether any communication was sent by the petitioner institution to the NCTE in response to this letter. Yet it is surprising to note that though the letter dated 20-2-2004 pertains to the academic year 2004-2005, the prayer in the second writ petition is that the admission of the students to the petitioner Institution for the academic year 2003-2004 be regularised.

6. Shri R. B. Salve, learned Advocate for the petitioner Institution in the second writ petition, submitted that this Institution was running the college from 1986 to 2000. In the meanwhile, the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993, came to be enacted and thereafter, it has become necessary to obtain permission from the NCTE as well as the State Government. He has submitted that the Institution has entered into the correspondence with the State Government and the Government is not taking any decision on the proposal submitted by this Institution. For this purpose, the letters dated 23-10-2002 and 3-3-2003 are annexed to the second writ petition. It is further material to note that the second writ petition is silent about the letter dated 18-3-2004 sent by the State Government to the Zilla Parishad and which seeks an action against this Institution.

7. Shri R. B. Salve, learned Advocate for the Institution has relied on the decision in the case of St. Johns Teachers Training Institute v. Regional Director, National Council for Teacher Education and Anr., and particularly para 21 wherein at the end it is observed by the Apex Court that till necessary regulations are made a decision should be taken by the State Government within four weeks failing which it shall be presumed that the No-objection Certificate has been granted. The decision has no application to the present case, inasmuch as, in fact the provisional permission/No-objection certificate from the State Government appears to have been fabricated by the Institution as per the letter dated 18-3-2004 of the School Education Department of the State Government. This being the position, such an Institution cannot be permitted to contend that its pending applications should be deemed to be entertained. The letter of the Government discloses its stand that the Institution resorted to fabricating the documents. That being so, no inference can be pressed into service against the Government that absence of decision on the alleged prior applications should mean that they are deemed to have been granted.

8. Shri S.D. Kulkarni and Shri R.B. Salve, learned Counsel have relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Andhra Kesari Education Society v. Director of School Education and Ors., AIR 1989 SC 183 and particularly paragraph 17 thereof. In the facts of the above case, had directed that since the students were admitted on the strength of interim order passed by the Apex Court they should not be made to suffer and therefore, a direction was given to the authorities to consider and satisfy themselves whether the students in that particular college had undergone the necessary training in third year course and direct them to appear in the examination. This very judgment has been referred to by the Apex Court in State of Maharashtra v. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale and Ors., . In paragraph 10 of the judgment, the Apex Court has unequivocally clarified that in Andhra Kesari Educational Society's case there was a long drawn history of the recognition of the Institution and that direction was issued by the Apex Court in the special circumstances of that case. Not only that but the Apex Court observed that that judgment cannot be taken as a precedent partly in the light of the law laid down in Vikas Sahebrao Roundale's case (supra). The Apex Court in no uncertain terms held that the students of unauthorized D.Ed, colleges are not entitled to seek directions from the Court to permit to appear in the examination or to accommodate in any other recognised institution to pursue further studies.

9. Shri S. C. Bora, learned Senior Advocate for the NCTE, has pointed out that the above principles of law have been reiterated thereafter also. He has drawn our attention to the decision in the case of Students of Dattatraya Adhyapak Vidyalya v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., wherein the Apex Court has noted that it is coming across cases of this type very often where grievances are made that innocent students admitted into unrecognised schools are made to suffer. It has disapproved interference by the Courts to relieve the hardship.

10. On the same line in the subsequent judgment in the case of Mallikarjuna Mudhagal Nagappa and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors., 2000 (7) SCC 23, the Apex Court has laid down that grant of a relief to fructify illegality is not permissible. This was a case where the students were admitted in excess of maximum intake capacity of the Institution and the Apex Court observed that they were rightly refused the relief.

11. Having noted all these submissions, it is clear that the entire basis of the claim of the Institution, according to the Government, is based on the fabricated documents. It has been laid down by the Apex Court in the case of S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. v. Jagannath (dead) by LRs. and Ors., that a person whose case is based on falsehood has no right to approach the Court and he can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation. Withholding vital documents and information from the Court amounts to fraud on the Court and the fraud avoids all judicial acts. Inasmuch as the entire basis of the claim of the Institution as well as the students is some kind of provisional recognition which the Institution claims to have received (that too, for 2004-2005) and when that basis is found to be based on fabricated document, obviously no relief can be granted to any such Institution or the students.

12. Shri S.D. Kulkarni, learned Advocate for the petitioners in the first writ petition, has drawn our attention to an interim order in Writ Petition No. 3339 of 2003 and other writ petitions passed on 5-4-2004 wherein in the facts of those cases the Division Bench of this Court at Bombay had permitted the students to appear in the examination without creating any equities. In the order it is not, however, disclosed as to what was the claim of the students or whether the Institution had tendered its documents properly or otherwise. Shri P. K. Joshi, learned Advocate appearing for the examining body informs that those writ petitions have been subsequently dismissed. That apart, so far as the facts of the present case are concerned, we do not find any merit in the claim of the Institution for regularising the admission of the students for the year 2003-2004 and consequently there is no merit in the claim of the students that since they have been cheated they should be accommodated elsewhere. It will be open to the students to take an appropriate action against the Institution if it is their case they had paid large amount to the Institution. It is upto them to take appropriate civil or criminal action.

13. The writ petitions are rejected.

14. Before we part, we cannot but, record our displeasure at the manner in which the present Institution started in the name of a greater social reformer has caused severe prejudice to the students from the weaker sections of the society. The Institution will pay costs of both the writ petitions quantified at Rs. 2,000/- each to the State Government, NCTE and the Maharashtra Rajya Pariksha Parishad, Pune.