Swami Vivekanand College Of ... vs Union Of India & Ors.
2009 Latest Caselaw 1600 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                      WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.8433/2009

                                        Date of Decision : 23rd April, 2009
      1.      Swami Vivekanand College of Education
              Tarkwari[Bhorani] Dist.Hamirpur
              Himachal Pradesh
              Through its Secretary Sh.Rajeev Sharma

      2.        Trisha College of Education
                Thain Rangas, 463 Nadaun
                Dist Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh
                Through its Secretary CA Rajeev Sharma

      3.       Kanya Gurukul College of Education
               Village Shadipur, Tehsil Julana
               District Jind, Haryana
               Through its Principal Sh Rakesh Vashist      ..... Petitioners

                                     Through: Mr.Sanjay Sharawat, Advocate

                                     versus

       1.     Union of India
              Ministry of Human Resource Development
              Government of India
              Department of School Education and Literacy
              Shastri Bhawan
              New Delhi-110001.

      2.      National Council for Teacher Education
              Through its Chairman
              Corporate Office at : Hans Bhawan, Wing-II
              Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg
              New Delhi-110001

      3.      University Grant Commission
              Through its Chairman
              Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg
              New Delhi-110002.




WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.8433/2009                                 Page 1 of 6
         4.    National Assessment and Accreditation Council
              Through its Director
              P.O. Box. No.1075, Nagarbhavi
              Banglore-560072.                      ...... Respondents

                                     Through     Mr. Saleem Ahmed, Adv. for
                                                 R-1.
                                                 Mr. V.K. Rao, Mr. Ayushya
                                                 Kumar and Mr. Saket Sikri,
                                                 Advs. for R-2 and R-3.

%       CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL

     1. Whether reporters of local papers may be Allowed to see the
        judgment?                                                          Yes

     2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?                             Yes

     3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?             Yes


MADAN B.LOKUR, J (ORAL):

Learned counsel for the Petitioner has challenged Clause 8(4) and 8(5)

of the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms &

Procedure) Regulations, 2007 issued vide notification dated 27th November,

2007 (notified on 10th December, 2007).

2. Clause 8 generally deals with the conditions for grant of recognition.

Clause 8(4) which is under challenge deals with an application for

enhancement of intake and reads as follows:-

"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 Letter Grade B developed by NAAC."

3. The Petitioners are colleges imparting teacher training courses. They

already have some "students" and were granted additional intake of

"students" as per the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition

Norms & Procedure) Regulations framed in 2005.

4. According to learned counsel for the Petitioner, the requirement

brought about in the Regulations of 2007 that an institution shall be

permitted to apply for enhancement of intake in the Secondary Teacher

Education Programme if it has an accreditation with the National

Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) is excessive delegation of

powers conferred on the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE)

under the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993. In this regard,

learned counsel refers to Section 12(k) of the Act which deals with the

functions of the Council. One of the functions of the Council is to evolve a

suitable performance appraisal system, norms and mechanism for enforcing

accountability on recognized institutions. It is submitted that performance

appraisal is an essential function of the NCTE and it cannot be delegated to

the NAAC.

5. Clause 8(4) that we have referred to above, merely puts a condition

for making an application which is that the applicant should have itself

accredited with the NAAC with a letter grade B developed by NAAC. This

is clearly not a delegation of power but only a condition that has to be met

before an application is made for enhancement of intake. This is quite clear

from the heading of Clause 8 of the Regulations also. It is not as if the

NCTE has abdicated its power of evolving a suitable performance appraisal

system.

6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner says that he is not challenging the

reasonableness or otherwise of the condition that has been placed and,

therefore, we need not go into that aspect of the matter. His argument is

confined only to excessive delegation of power and in our opinion it is

absolutely clear that Clause 8(4) merely puts a condition on the making of an

application and there is no delegation of any power or any essential function

of the Council.

7. We, therefore, do not find any reason to conclude that Clause 8(4) of

the Regulations suffers from any vice of excessive delegation.

8. The second contention of learned counsel for the Petitioner is with

regard to the validity of Clause 8(5) of the Regulations which reads as

follows:

"An institution that has been granted additional intake in B.Ed. and B.P.Ed. teacher training courses after promulgation of the regulations, 2005 i.e. 13.01.2006 shall have to be accredited itself with the National Assessment and Accreditation Council [NAAC] with a letter grade B under the new grading system developed by NAAC before 1st April, 2010 failing which the additional intake granted shall stand withdrawn w.e.f. the academic session 2010- 2011."

9. According to learned counsel for the Petitioner, the condition

requiring accreditation with the NAAC under a new grading system for the

academic session for 2010-2011 has a retrospective effect. Elaborating this,

it is submitted by learned counsel that earlier an additional intake was

granted to the Petitioner, which will be rendered nugatory if NAAC

accreditation is not granted. It is in this context that learned counsel for the

Petitioner says that Clause 8(5) is retrospective.

10. We do not agree with the submission of learned counsel for the

Petitioner. Having already obtained an additional intake of seats the

Petitioners can continue with it for the time being. However, if the

Petitioners are desirous of the additional intake continuing in the academic

session 2010-2011 and thereafter, a fresh accreditation with the NAAC is

required under a new grading system.

11. In other words, the additional seats already obtained by the Petitioner

are not being disturbed until the academic session 2010-2011. It is only

thereafter that a fresh accreditation is required under a new grading system

for continuation of the additional seats. This again is a condition imposed

on the continuation of the additional intake. This does not have any

retrospective effect. It is only an additional burden placed on the

continuation of an existing situation.

12. It is not the contention of learned counsel for the Petitioner that this

condition is unreasonable in any manner whatsoever. That being the

position, we do not think that the mere placing of an additional condition for

the future continuation of the additional intake in any manner can be said to

have any retrospective effect. It is true that the condition may have an

impact on existing seats in the future. However, the condition does not take

away the existing right of the Petitioner to continue with those seats until the

academic session 2010-2011. The effect is prospective and not

retrospective.

13. No other point has been urged by learned counsel for the Petitioner.

14. We find no merit in the writ petition. Dismissed.

MADAN B. LOKUR, J

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J APRIL 23, 2009 dn