Lord Krishna College Of Education vs Ncte & Anr
2009 Latest Caselaw 3372 Del

        THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Judgment delivered on: 26.08.2009

+      W.P.(C) 11068/2009

LORD KRISHNA COLLEGE OF EDUCATION                          ..... Petitioner


                                     - Versus -

NCTE & ANR                                                 ..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:-

For the Petitioner       : Mr Sanjay Sharawat
For the Respondent       : Mr V. K. Rao with Mr Ayushya Kumar

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL

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

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest?

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1. With the consent of the parties this writ petition is taken up for

disposal at the admission stage itself. It is also made clear that the

respondents do not admit anything contained in the petition which is

contrary to the record.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 07.08.2009 passed by

the National Council for Teacher Education whereby the petitioner's appeal

against the order dated 23.04.2009 passed by the Northern Regional

Committee, refusing recognition for conducting the B.Ed course, was

dismissed. The Northern Regional Committee had refused recognition to the

petitioner for conducting the B.Ed course for the Session 2009-10 on two

grounds:-

(i) The CLU has not been issued by the competent authority in the prescribed format;

(ii) The State Government recommendation was negative.

3. From the impugned order dated 07.08.2009 it appears that a document

dated 06.04.2009, which purports to be a CLU, was shown to the Council. It

is also recorded in the impugned order that the representative of the

petitioner admitted that this document had not been submitted to the

Northern Regional Committee. It, therefore, appears that the Council did

not consider the submission of the said document dated 06.04.2009 as

sufficient compliance of the requirements of submitting a Change of Land

Use certificate (CLU).

4. Insofar as the CLU is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner

submitted that the document dated 06.04.2009, which was submitted by

them, was not, in fact, a CLU at all. It was a letter from the District Town

Planner, Enforcement, Hisar indicating that the site of the petitioner's

college, which was comprised in Khasra No. 53/5/2, 54/1 in the revenue

estate of village Siwani Bolan, District Hisar, did not fall within the

controlled areas and / or urban areas of the said District. The letter further

indicates that in case, in future, the site of the petitioner's college fell within

the controlled areas, it would have to seek fresh permission under the

provisions of the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restrictions

of Unregulated Development Act, 1963. The learned counsel for the

petitioner further submitted that since the petitioner's site did not fall within

the controlled areas, a certificate had to be obtained from the Gram

Panchayat. It is the petitioner's case that the certificate of the Gram

Panchayat had been filed along with the application and was definitely

before the Northern Regional Committee. According to the learned counsel

for the petitioner, this aspect of the matter has been overlooked by the

Council while passing the order dated 07.08.2009.

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted

that it is an essential criteria that the Change of Land Use certificate must be

submitted along with the application. It is not sufficient that such a

certificate is produced before the Appellate Authority. However, the learned

counsel for the respondents submitted that as the record is not with him at

the moment, he is not able to confirm as to whether the petitioner had

furnished the certificate of the Gram Panchayat with regard to land use or

not.

6. With regard to the second ground for rejection and that is that the

State Government recommendation was negative, the learned counsel for the

petitioner submitted that such negative recommendations need not come in

the way of the Council for granting recognition for conducting B.Ed courses.

As an instance, the learned counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to

the Council's orders, both dated 07.08.21009, in respect of Guru

Dronacharya College of Education, Mohindergarh, Haryana and Shri

Ganpati Institute of Education & Technology, Mohindergarh, Haryana. In

the said orders, in respect of the other two institutions, it appears that the

Council has taken the stand that the NCTE had not taken any policy decision

not to grant recognition for conducting B.Ed course for the session 2009-10

and consequently the negative recommendation of the State Government did

not come in the way of granting such recognition. We may also note that

with regard to the submission of CLU, in both the orders in respect of the

other two colleges, the Council had accepted the certificates issued by the

Gram Sarpanch and found the same to be in sufficient compliance.

7. The learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that insofar as the

negative recommendation of the State Government is concerned, in the other

two orders, there is no mention of the statistical data whereas in the

petitioner's case statistical information has been provided indicating that

there are 51,000 seats in Haryana in the B.Ed course and the total number of

students who passed graduation every year is only about 42,000. As a result,

thousands of seats remained unfilled. Therefore, granting recognition to

further institutes would only add to the unfilled seats.

8. In response to this, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed

before us a copy of the letter received from Maharshi Dayanand University,

Rohtak pursuant to information sought under RTI Act, 2005 which indicates

that as per the record of the university, it has received 71,755 forms for

admission to B.Ed (Regular) Course 2009-10 upto 15.07.2009, which was

the last date for receipt of the application forms. According to the learned

counsel for the petitioner, this is a significant statistic in the sense that there

are 71,000 applicants for the B.Ed Course whereas there are only 51,000

seats available in Haryana. According to the learned counsel for the

petitioner, this figure gives a complete answer to what has been noted in the

impugned order dated 07.08.2009, which indicates that if further recognition

is granted to new institutions, thousands of seats would remain unfilled.

9. After considering the aforesaid submissions, we are of the view that

the impugned order ought to be set aside and the matter be remanded to the

Council for reconsideration. Consequently, we set aside the impugned order

dated 07.08.2009 and remand the matter to the Council for consideration

afresh particularly in terms of the submissions recorded above. We expect

that the Council shall consider the same and pass an order in accordance

with law within 10 days from today.

The writ petition stands disposed of.

Dasti.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

VEENA BIRBAL, J AUGUST 26, 2009 SR