Budha College Of Education & Ors vs National Council For Teacher ...
2008 Latest Caselaw 1208 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+ 1.          W.P.(C) 5131/2008 & CM 9827/2008, 10337/2008

%             Date of Decision : 01.08.2008

BUDHA COLLEGE OF EDUCATION & ORS            ..... Petitioner
                  Through: Mr. Sanjay Sehrawat, Advocate
        versus

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION ... Respondent
                  Through: Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Advocate


2.     W.P.(C) 5134/2008 & CM No.9829/2008 , 10336/2008

MAHARAJA AGRASAIN COLLEGE OF EDUCATION ..... Petitioner
                 Through: Mr. Sanjay Sehrawat, Advocate

                      versus

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION ... Respondent
                  Through: Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Advocate


3.     W.P.(C) 5135/2008 & CM No.9830/2008, 10303/2008

MAHABIR COLLEGE OF EDUCATION FOR WOMEN ..... Petitioner
                 Through: Mr. Sanjay Sehrawat, Advocate

              versus

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION ... Respondent
                  Through: Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Advocate



4.     W.P.(C) 5136/2008 & CM No.9831/2008, 10287/2008

R.R.MEMORIAL COLLEGE OF EDUCATION           ..... Petitioner
                  Through: Mr. Sanjay Sehrawat, Advocate

                      versus

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION .....Respondent
                  Through: Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Advocate




WP(C) No.5131, 5134, 5135 & 5136 of 2008            page 1 of 11
 5      W.P.(C) 5252/2008 & CM No.10032/2008

SHRI AANASAGAR STC COLLEGE                    ... Petitioner
                  Through: Mr. Sanjay Sehrawat, Advocate

                      versus

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHDER EDUCATION                ... Respondent
                             Through:Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Advocate

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers
   may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to Reporter or not?             No

3. Whether the judgment should be                 No
   reported in the Digest?

VIPIN SANGHI, J. (Oral)

1. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner

institutions who are running the one year B.Ed. course (D.Ed/STC

course in WP(C) No.5252/2008) duly recognized by the respondent

NCTE. These institutions were granted recognition/approval by the

respondent NCTE for academic session 2007-2008. At the relevant

time when the initial approval was granted Regulations framed by

NCTE dated 20.7.2006 were in force. Clause 8(3) and 8(4) of these

Regulations provided as follows:

"8. Conditions for grant of recognition (1)...........

(2)..........

(3) An institution shall be permitted to apply for enhancement of intake in a teacher education course

WP(C) No.5131, 5134, 5135 & 5136 of 2008 page 2 of 11 already approved after completion of three academic sessions of running the course.

(4) An institution shall be permitted to apply for enhancement of intake in Secondary Teacher Education Programme-B.Ed., & B.P.Ed. Programme, if it has accredited itself with the National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) with a grade of B+ on a nine point scale developed by NAAC."

However, there was relaxation in force in respect of the

requirement contained in Regulation 8(3) and 8(4). The notification

granting relaxation was issued on 20.7.2006.

2. The petitioners made application for enhancement of

their intake capacity by one unit (100 seats in B.Ed. course and 50

seats in D.Ed/STC Course) for the academic session 2008-2009.

These applications were made after 10th December 2007 and upto

January, 2008. By an identical order, the applications of all the

petitioners have been rejected. While doing so the respondent has

relied upon Clause 8(3) and 8(4) as contained in new Regulations

notified on 10.12.2007 which read as follows:

"8. Conditions for grant of recognition

(1)...........

(2)..........

(3) An institution shall be permitted to apply for enhancement of course wise intake in teacher education courses already approved, after completion of three academic sessions of running the respective courses.

(4) An institution shall be permitted to apply for enhancement of intake in Secondary Teacher Education Programme-B.Ed., & B.P.Ed. Programme, if it has

WP(C) No.5131, 5134, 5135 & 5136 of 2008 page 3 of 11 accredited itself with the National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) with a Letter Grade B developed by NAAC."

3. Regulation 5(4) of the Regulations notified on

10.12.2007 for the first time introduced a cut off date by which an

application was required to be submitted, and also prescribed the

date by which the respondent would send a final communication

either granting or refusing to grant recognition. The applications

were required to be submitted by 31st October of the year

preceding the academic session for which the recognition was

being sought. Therefore, for the academic year 2008-2009, the

application ought to have been submitted by 31.10.2007. Since the

new Regulations were themselves notified on 10.12.2007, that is

after the cut off date of 31.10.2007 the respondent issued a public

notice stating that "it is clarified that applications received even

after 31st October, 2007 could be processed for the next academic

session, 2008-09 subject to fulfillment of other conditions for grant

of recognition to the institution for a particular Teacher Training

course. However, no recognition/permission for the academic

session 2008-09 could be granted to an institution after 15th May,

2008. It is also clarified that this relaxation is only for the current

year and the cut off date of 31st October shall strictly be effective

from 31st October 2008 i.e. preceding the academic session 2009-

2010."

WP(C) No.5131, 5134, 5135 & 5136 of 2008 page 4 of 11

4. By identical orders as are impugned in these petitions,

the respondent rejected scores of applications filed by various

institutions. Some of the institutions approached this Court by

filing writ petitions challenging vires of the new Regulations which

came to be listed before a Division Bench of this Court. On

21.5.2008 in WP(C) No.1119/2008 Shiksha Parishad Kanya

Gurukul Julana vs. National Council for Teacher Education,

counsel appearing for the respondent Mr. V.K. Rao made a

statement that "The respondent for the purpose of processing

and approval of this application would not insist on these

two criterion." The criteria referred to were those contained in

Regulations 8(3) and 8(4) of the Regulations notified on 10.12.2007

as aforesaid.

5. The aforesaid writ petition came to be disposed of on

29.5.2008 since, in the interregnum, the inspection had been

conducted by the Regional Committee of the respondent of that

particular institution, which found the conditions satisfactory of

approval. Therefore, for the petitioner in W.P(C) No.1119/2008 the

respondent granted approval without insisting on compliance of

Regulations 8(3) and 8(4) of the new Regulations of 10.12.2007.

The question regarding the challenge to Regulations 8(3) and 8(4)

of the aforesaid Regulations notified on 10.12.2007 was left open.

The order dated 21.5.2008 in WP(C) No.1119/2008 and the

arrangement worked out thereby was followed in three other writ

WP(C) No.5131, 5134, 5135 & 5136 of 2008 page 5 of 11 petitions which were similarly disposed of on 11.6.2008 by taking

note of the concession earlier made by Mr. V.K. Rao, Advocate for

the respondent in WP(C) No.1119/2008. On this occasion Mr. Ravi

Sikri, Advocate appeared on behalf of the respondent NCTE. It

would, therefore, be seen that the concession did not remain

confined only to one petitioner in WP(C) No.1119/2008 but was

extended to three other petitioners in WP(C) No.4507/2008, WP(C)

No.450/2008 and WP(C) No.4512/2008. Another writ petition

being WP(C) No.4582/2008 was similarly disposed of on 26.7.2008.

Once again, the Court noted the concession made by the

respondent in WP(C) No.1119/2008 and gave a direction that the

respondent shall not insist on the eligibility criteria of having three

academic sessions as also the requirement of having accreditation

with NAAC as provided in Regulations 8(3) and 8(4) for the

purpose of considering the petitioners' application for

enhancement of intake capacity by one unit. Thereafter, two other

writ petitions were disposed of by this Court on similar lines being

WP(C) No.4625/2008 and WP(C) No.4674/2008 on 1.7.2008 and

10.7.2008 respectively.

6. When WP(C) No.4674/2008 was taken up for

consideration learned counsel for the respondent had urged that

the concession had been made in the aforesaid cases, and in

particular in WP(C) No.1119/2008, but that the respondent was

not willing to make a similar concession in WP(C) No.4674/2008.

WP(C) No.5131, 5134, 5135 & 5136 of 2008 page 6 of 11 Taking note of that submission, this Court had observed that the

mere fact that the respondent was not willing to make a similar

concession in that particular case could not be a reason to deny the

petitioner the same relief as other similarly situated institutions

had been granted, since the respondent was bound to maintain

consistency in its action and cannot treat similarly placed

organizations on different footing without any justification.

7. When these matters came up for hearing a few days

ago, learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Amitesh Kumar

stated that the respondent is moving an application for seeking

review of the order in WP(C) No.1119/2008 wherein the concession

made by Mr. V.K. Rao, Advocate had been recorded. It was then

urged that the said concession with regard to Regulation 8(3) and

8(4) not being insisted upon was made without instructions.

Accordingly, consideration of these petitions was adjourned for

today. In the meantime the review petition had been filed,

considered and stands disposed of by the Division Bench on

25.7.2008. An uncertified copy of the said order has been

produced by learned counsel for the respondent. The Division

Bench has, inter alia, observed that the order dated 21.5.2008 was

self explanatory and did not call for elaboration or clarification.

Therefore, the Division Bench has not accepted the submission of

the respondent that the said concession was made without

instructions and has not relieved the respondent, in that

WP(C) No.5131, 5134, 5135 & 5136 of 2008 page 7 of 11 particular case (i.e., WP(C) No.1119/2008), of the concession

made by it through its counsel.

8. To oppose these petitions Mr. Amitesh Kumar, learned

counsel for the respondent has relied on an order passed by the

Division Bench on 28.7.2008 in CM No.7998/2008 and CM

No.9289/2008 in WP(C) No.4108/2008 Brahaspati Mahila

Mahavidyalaya vs. National Council for Teacher Education,

of which he has produced an uncertified copy. He submits that

these applications were filed by the petitioner in that case to seek a

similar direction and for that purpose the petitioner had even

relied on the various orders passed by this Court as aforesaid. In

spite of that, the Division Bench declined to grant an interim

mandatory direction for processing the application of the petitioner

in that case, for additional seats.

9. Mr. Amitesh Kumar also relies on the decisions of the

Supreme Court in Tripura Goods Transport Association & Anr.

vs. Commissioner of Taxes & Ors. 1998(2) SCC 264; B.S.

Bajwa & Anr. vs. State of Punjab & Ors.; 1998(2) SCC 523,

Uptron India Ltd. vs. Shammi Bhan & Anr.; 1998(6) SCC 538

and Central Council for Research In Ayurveda & Siddha &

Anr. vs. Dr. K. Santhakumari; 2001(5) SC 60 to urge that a

concession in law, made by a counsel on behalf of a party, cannot

bind that party.

WP(C) No.5131, 5134, 5135 & 5136 of 2008 page 8 of 11

10. Having considered the submissions made by the

learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the

respondent cannot be allowed to treat the petitioners in these writ

petitions differently from the institutions whose petitions have

been allowed on the basis of concessions made by the respondent

through their authorized counsel on repeated occasions.

Pertinently, the concession was made first by Mr. V.K. Rao,

Advocate. It appears that thereafter neither Mr. Ravi Sikri nor Mr.

Amitesh Kumar deviated from the same as would be apparent from

the orders dated 11.6.2008 and 1.7.2008 referred to above. In my

view, the decisions sited by learned counsel for the respondent

have no application in the facts of these cases. This is so because

the Regulations whereby the respondent regulates the norms and

procedure for grant of recognition to institutions are framed by

the NCTE itself and are amended from time to time by the NCTE.

It is the NCTE which is the respondent in these petitions.

Pertinently even earlier, public notice in relation to clarification

with regard to the application of Regulation 5(4) has also been

issued by NCTE. Therefore, the NCTE has exercised its power to

relax its norms and Regulations from time to time. However, while

granting relaxation it cannot act discriminatorily between similarly

situated institutions. It cannot, therefore, be said that the

relaxation of Regulation 8(3) and 8(4) is illegal, beyond the

competence of NCTE or contrary to the regulations. It, therefore,

WP(C) No.5131, 5134, 5135 & 5136 of 2008 page 9 of 11 cannot be said that the concession made by counsel for the

respondent with regard to the relaxation of Regulations 8(3) and

8(4) as initially recorded in WP(C) No.1119/2008 could not have

been made; that the said relaxation could not bind the

respondent; and that the said concession was contrary to the

Regulations. So far as the order passed by the Division Bench on

20.7.2008 is concerned, from the said order it does not appear that

the Hon'ble Division Bench has gone into the effect of the

concession made by Mr. V.K. Rao initially, and the effect of the

same being followed by the Division Bench and the single Benches

of this Court repeatedly, as aforesaid. In my view, therefore, the

said order cannot be construed as a reversal of the view of this

Court, from the view which finds expression in all the aforesaid

orders.

11. Accordingly, following the decisions of this Court in

WP(C) No.1119/2008 and the various other writ petitions detailed

in paragraph 5 above, I direct that to process the applications of

the petitioners for approval for intake of one additional unit for

the B.Ed./D.Ed./STC course he respondents shall not insist upon

the eligibility criteria of having three academic sessions as also the

requirement of having accreditation with NAAC as contemplated

in Regulations 8(3) and 8(4) of the Regulations dated 10.12.2007.

The impugned communications in each of these petitions is

quashed. The respondent is directed to process the case of these

WP(C) No.5131, 5134, 5135 & 5136 of 2008 page 10 of 11 petitioners for additional intake of one unit for the academic year

2008-2009 strictly in accordance with the other Rules as

expeditiously as possible.

12. Counsel for the petitioners points out that in case the

recognition is not granted by 16.9.2008, t he petitioner would not

be in a position to admit students in the current academic session

2008-2009. The petitioners undertakes that from their side they

would cooperate with the respondent and there would be no delay

in fulfillment of whatever requirements the petitioners have to

meet. In case there is no delay on the part of the petitioners

individually the respondents would try to dispose of the

applications by 7.9.2008 so that they are able to commence the

course with enhanced intake from the academic session 2008-09 in

the event of the approval being granted.

Petitions stand disposed of.

Dasti to the parties.

                                               VIPIN SANGHI
                                                  JUDGE
August 01,      2008
aj




WP(C) No.5131, 5134, 5135 & 5136 of 2008                      page 11 of 11