Priyanka Prabhakar Jage And Ors. vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors.
2006 Latest Caselaw 690 Bom

JUDGMENT

Gokhale H.L., J.

1. Heard Mr. Gangal in support of this petition which is filed by some 50 students who took admission to the Diploma in Teachers Education (D.Ed.) Course in by Respondent No. 6 Training College under the management of respondent No. 5. The main grievance of the petitioners is that they were admitted to that course during the academic year 2004-05 when this institution did not have the recognition of the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE). Their forms for the examinations for the first year were permitted to be received under the orders passed by a Vacation Judge on 4th November, 2005 and they were permitted to give examinations. Now their prayer is that they be permitted to give the second year examination which is the final examination and that the respondents Nos. 1, 3 and 4 be directed to receive the forms and they may be permitted to give the final examination. It is submitted on their behalf that they took admission to this course under the impression that it is a recognised course. It is submitted by Mr. Gangal, Counsel for the Petitioners, that they have the requisite attendance and that the institution does have a necessary infrastructure and necessary teaching has been provided.

2. Mr. Joshi for respondents Nos. 5 and 6 supported this petition by submitting that these facilities were very much available. He pointed out that the institution has been given recognition for the subsequent academic year, i.e. 2005-06. It is stated in the reply filed by one Dr. G.M. Shinde, Chief Promoter of Respondents Nos. 5 and 6, that the institution initially applied on 26th November, 2003 to the State Government, but there was no proper reply and hence a fresh application was given on 19th August 2004. There was no communication and finally on 18th December, 2004 they received the reply that the NOC had been rejected by the State Government. It is stated that in the meanwhile the college had started imparting education from 1st November, 2004. It is in these circumstances as stated in this affidavit that the petition be entertained and the students be permitted to give the final examination now, and that the results of the first year examination be also declared.

3. We may add that when the matter came before this Division Bench, we permitted the students to fill their forms and by our order passed on 19th June, 2006 and 21st June, 2006, we directed the authorities concerned to permit the students to fill the forms for the second year examinations which will be held some times in November, 2006.

4. The Respondents have filed their replies and opposed this petition on facts as well as on law. The Petitioners have pressed into service Section 14 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 ("NCTE Act" for short) and particularly Section 14 Sub-section (5) thereof. It is submitted that Section 14(1) provides for institutions who are either offering or intending to offer a course for teachers education and that under Sub-section (5) if an application has been refused, the institution is expected to discontinue the course from the end of the academic session next following the date of receipt of the order refusing recognition. As far as this submission is concerned, reliance is placed on a Division Bench judgment of this Court, to which one of us (Gokhale J.) was a party, in the case of Ambika Shikshan Sanstha v. Vice Chancellor 2002(3) Bom.C.R. (N.B.) 41. What is material to be noted is that it was a petition by an educational society which was running the college imparting training to the teachers since 1993-94 and its courses were recognised by the 1st Respondent University at all material times. After the NCTE Act coming into force on 17th August, 1995, the Act required such institutions also to obtain recognition from NCTE. This institution applied for recognition on 6th July 1998 for the academic year 1999-2000. The application came to be rejected on 4th August, 1999. This problem concerning the students of the year 1999-2000 led to the filing of the petition. It was in the facts and circumstances of this case that the Court specifically observed in para 11 that Section 14(5) of the NCTE Act is an enabling provision. The Court further observed that the kind of situation always comes up whenever such regulatory mechanism is introduced. For those who are required to be governed under the new system certain problems are bound to arise. Sub-section (5) of Section 14 of the Act specifically states that if the application for recognition under the particular Act is rejected, the courses run by the institution would be permitted until the completion of the academic year. It was on this background that the Court permitted the batch of students of the year 1999-2000 to give the examination. It is material to note that from the subsequent years, the institution had already received the recognition. This is clear from that judgment.

5. The distinction made between the two types of institutions, namely those who are offering and those which are intending to offer has also been reflected in two Division Bench judgments of this Court. First judgment is in 2005(5) Bom.C.R. 792 : 2005(3) Mh.L.J. 19 : Writ Petition No. 1790 of 2004 in the case of Dhananjay Samaj Seva Sanstha v. National Council for Teacher's Education) decided on 16th March, 2005. In para 6 of the judgment, the Division Bench has observed as follows:

Sub-section (5) on the other hand makes it clear that when the institutions had applied and had been refused permission they were bound to discontinue the course or training in teacher education from the end of the academic session next falling the date of receipt of the order refusing recognition under Clause (b) of Sub-section 3. A reading of the Section would not be that an institution desirous of opening a course after the Act has come into force can admit students and continue to impart education until the application is rejected or putting it conversely to admit students even before recognition is given and if then recognition is granted to treat such recognition as if it was given on the date of application. To our mind such a direction in . respect of institutions which desires to start a course in teachers training after the Act has come into force would be defeating the very intent of the Legislature. At the highest the provisions can be read in respect of institutions which were already in existence meaning imparting education in teaching when the Act came into force and had applied for recognition. By no stretch of imagination is it possible to construe the Section so as to include institution which were not in existence when the Act came into force but after that have applied for recognition and before recognition is granted admit students to a course.

Further in para 7, the Division Bench made the following observations:

If we consider all these aspects it will be clear that this would mean that no institution be-fore it is granted recognition and before it is affiliated to a Body which conducts examinations can on their own either pending recognition or on the belief that they would be recognised admit students to a course. If they do so it is on their own risk.

This view of the Division Bench in the case of Dhananjay Sanstha has been followed by another Division Bench judgment in Writ Petition No. 3318 of 2004 in the case of (The Principal, Swami Samarth Adhyapak Vidyalay v. Director, Maharashtra State Council of Examination, Pune), decided on 5th May, 2005.

6. In our view Section 14 clearly makes a distinction between the institutions already offering the courses when the Act came into force and those intending to offer them thereafter. For the sake of record, we reproduce the Section which reads as follows:

14. Recognition of institutions offering course or training in teacher education.

(1) Every institution offering or intending to offer a course or training in 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 appointment date, 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 under Sub-section (1), and after obtaining from the 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, subject to such conditions as may be determined by regulations; or

(b)if it is of the opinion that such institution does not fulfil the requirements laid down 1 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 I 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.

In the circumstances, it is not possible to accept the contention of the Counsel for the Petitioners that the benefit of Section 14(5) of the NCTE Act would be available to an institution which has newly started the teachers training course and has applied for recognition thereof. As far as such an institution is concerned, this enabling provision can be of no avail to it.

7. It is material to note that under the Regulations known as NCTE (Forms of application for recognition, the time limit of sub mission of application, determination of Norms and Standards for Recognition bf Teacher Education Programmes and Permission to Start New Courses or Training) Regulations, 2002, it is laid down in Clause 7 that an institution seeking recognition to start a course has to make the application within a certain time provided thereunder. There is no dispute that as far as the present institution is concerned since courses are supposed to start in August or September of an academic year, it is expected to apply by 31st December of the previous year. In the instant case, what is material to note that the affidavit of Mr. Shinde states that the application was made on 24th November, 2003 to the State Government. It does not state that the application was made at that time to NCTE. As far as NCTE is concerned, the application is stated to have been made on 8th April, 2004 and since there was no reply, the college again applied on 1st December, 2004. If the application to NCTE was made on 1st December, 2004, it could not be construed as an application for the academic year 200405. It is also material to note that in the affidavit of NCTE, it has been specifically stated that the inspection of the facilities of the institution was carried out in May, 2005. Obviously when the inspection was going on, it was not expected of Respondent No. 5 institution to imagine that it already had the recognition to justify the admissions which were given from 1st November, 2004.

8. We are also informed that there is a particular format in which the applying institution has to give an undertaking as required under Appendix-7. The proforma is annexed to the affidavit of the institution. In Clause 2 thereof, it is clearly stated that the admission of students satisfying the eligibility conditions will be made either on the basis of marks obtained in the qualifying examination or in the entrance examination conducted by the State Government/University as per its policy. In Clause 4, it is to be stated that the admission to the course will be made only after recognition is granted by the concerned Regional Committee of NCTE. Thus, respondent No. 5 had given an undertaking for both the purposes. Firstly, it had undertaken not to give admission until recognition was granted and secondly the admissions were to be given as per the examination to be conducted by the State Government. In the instant case, there is no dispute that as far as the academic year 200405 is concerned, the admissions were not given as per the examination and the list drawn by the admitting body, i.e. the Director, State Council of Education - Respondent No. 4. Thus, it is clear that the admissions effected by Respondent No. 5 were clearly in breach of the necessary regulations and the undertaking given by Respondent No. 5. In a recent judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of NCTE v. Committee of Management , the Court has clearly observed in para 16 that the regulations having been validly framed, indisputably, were required to be complied with. The Council has a statutory duty to perform. It is an autonomous body. The High Court concerned in the matter was entirely wrong in arriving at the conclusion that the Council had no such power to lay down the form and manner in which the applications for recognition were to be submitted. We must also keep in mind the observations in another judgment in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale , where at the end of para 11, the Apex Court has observed that 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 ground for corruption and feeding source for indiscipline.

9. In the present case, we were informed that respondent No. 5 institution has admitted a number students from S.C./S.T. and OBC communities and that it is working for the benefit of the handicapped persons. That appears to be so from the list of students who are admitted. As far as the handicapped persons are concerned, however the number of handicapped persons is just as per the requirement, i.e. 3% and not more. There is no difficulty in saying that the students have suffered in this process. In fact, the brochure submitted by the institution has referred on the front page to a decision of the State Government dated 21st March, 2004. This decision does not in any way state that the State Government has recognised Respondent No. 5 institution. Obviously, wrong representations were made to the students concerned. They have paid fees to the tune of Rs. 12,000/- per year and therefore the petitioners submit that a sympathetic view be taken for them.

10. We quite appreciate the difficulties of the students. At the same time, in view of the legal position as explained above, it is not expected of this Court to grant any such relaxation. Respondent No. 5 institution owed a responsibility to the students whom they were admitting and it could not have presumed that it can go ahead with the admissions, no matter whether recognition was granted or not. Respondent No. 5 institution therefore ought to return the fees which have been collected from the 50 students. That is the minimum that they ought to do in the present case. That is the only relief we can grant to the petitioners and we direct respondent No. 5 institution to return the fees which have been collected from the 50 petitioners. They have undoubtedly lost two academic years. As far as their loss is concerned, it will be open to them to seek appropriate compensation in a proper forum. If so advised, they may as well file a criminal complaint if, according to them, a case for an offence has been made out. That will of course be for the petitioner students to take the necessary steps. Beyond this, it is not possible to grant any other relief or to make any observation in favour of the Petitioners.

11. Petition is disposed of there will be no order as to costs.

12. Under the interim order passed by this Court, the petitioners were permitted to give the first year examination. They have given the examination though results are not declared. They have also been permitted to fill the form for the second year examination. A request is made that the examination record be retained for a further period of 8 weeks. We grant this request.