Delhi High Court
Divine Mission Society (Regd.) vs National Counicl For Teacher ... on 24 November, 2014
Author: Manmohan
$~41 to 66
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 2889/2013
DIVINE MISSION SOCIETY (REGD.) ..... Petitioner
versus
NATIONAL COUNICL FOR TEACHER
EDUCATION & ORS. ..... Respondents
WITH
+ W.P.(C) 7422/2013
PRATAP COLLEGE OF EDUCATION ..... Petitioner
versus
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER
EDUCATION & ANR. ..... Respondents
WITH
+ W.P.(C) 7490/2013
RAO RAJ SINGH COLLEGE OF EDUCATION ..... Petitioner
versus
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER
EDUCATION & ANR. ..... Respondents
WITH
W.P.(C) 2889/2013 & connected matters Page 1 of 15
+ W.P.(C) 7491/2013
RAM COLLEGE OF EDUCATION ..... Petitioner
versus
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER
EDUCATION & ANR. ..... Respondents
WITH
+ W.P.(C) 7494/2013
ROYAL INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE
& MANAGEMENT ..... Petitioner
versus
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER
EDUCATION & ANR ..... Respondents
WITH
+ W.P.(C) 7495/2013
G.R. COLLEGE OF EDUCATION ..... Petitioner
versus
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER
EDUCATION & ANR ..... Respondents
WITH
+ W.P.(C) 7516/2013
SUNRISE COLLEGE OF EDUCATION ..... Petitioner
W.P.(C) 2889/2013 & connected matters Page 2 of 15
versus
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER
EDUCATION & ANR ..... Respondents
WITH
+ W.P.(C) 7569/2013
RAO RAM SINGH COLLEGE OF EDUCATION ..... Petitioner
versus
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER
EDUCATION & ANR ..... Respondents
WITH
+ W.P.(C) 7586/2013
SARASWATI DEVI COLLEGE OF EDUCATION..... Petitioner
versus
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER
EDUCATION & ANR ..... Respondents
WITH
+ W.P.(C) 7587/2013
MAHARISHI DAYANAND
COLLEGE OF EDUCATION ..... Petitioner
versus
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER
EDUCATION & ANR. ..... Respondents
W.P.(C) 2889/2013 & connected matters Page 3 of 15
WITH
+ W.P.(C) 7596/2013
MODERN INSTITUTE OF
TEACHERS EDUCATION ..... Petitioner
versus
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER
EDUCATION & ANR. ..... Respondents
WITH
+ W.P.(C) 7598/2013
SUNRISE COLLEGE OF EDUCATION ..... Petitioner
versus
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER
EDUCATION & ANR ..... Respondents
WITH
+ W.P.(C) 7829/2013
DRONACHARYA COLLEGE OF EDUCATION ..... Petitioner
versus
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER
EDUCATION & ANR ..... Respondents
WITH
+ W.P.(C) 7831/2013
MODERN COLLEGE OF EDUCATION ..... Petitioner
W.P.(C) 2889/2013 & connected matters Page 4 of 15
versus
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER
EDUCATION & ANR ..... Respondents
WITH
+ W.P.(C) 7837/2013
R.A.S. COLLEGE OF EDUCATION ..... Petitioner
versus
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER
EDUCATION & ANR ..... Respondents
WITH
+ W.P.(C) 7846/2013
NEW MODERN COLLEGE OF EDUCATION ..... Petitioner
versus
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER
EDUCATION & ANR ..... Respondents
WITH
+ W.P.(C) 7848/2013
BHAI SURENDER KUMAR MEMORIAL
COLLEGE OF EDUCATION ..... Petitioner
versus
W.P.(C) 2889/2013 & connected matters Page 5 of 15
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER
EDUCATION & ANR ..... Respondents
WITH
+ W.P.(C) 7849/2013
SWAMI DAYANAND COLLEGE OF EDUCATION..... Petitioner
versus
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER
EDUCATION & ANR ..... Respondents
WITH
+ W.P.(C) 451/2014
GIAN DEEP COLLEGE OF EDUCATION ..... Petitioner
versus
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER
EDUCATION & ANR ..... Respondents
WITH
+ W.P.(C) 452/2014
JANTA COLLEGE OF EDUCATION ..... Petitioner
versus
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER
EDUCATION & ANR ..... Respondents
W.P.(C) 2889/2013 & connected matters Page 6 of 15
WITH
+ W.P.(C) 453/2014
SWAMI VIVEKANAND COLLEGE OF
EDUCATION ..... Petitioner
versus
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER
EDUCATION & ANR ..... Respondents
WITH
+ W.P.(C) 454/2014
OM SHANTO COLLEGE OF EDUCATION ..... Petitioner
versus
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER
EDUCATION & ANR ..... Respondents
WITH
+ W.P.(C) 800/2014
RAM SAJAN PANDEY COLLEGE OF EDUCATION..... Petitioner
versus
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER
EDUCATION & ANR ..... Respondents
WITH
W.P.(C) 2889/2013 & connected matters Page 7 of 15
+ W.P.(C) 1284/2014
MEENAKSHI RAO COLLEGE OF EDUCAITON..... Petitioner
versus
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER
EDUCAITON & ANR. ..... Respondents
WITH
+ W.P.(C) 1650/2014
PRATAP COLLEGE OF EDUCATION ..... Petitioner
versus
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER
EDUCATION & ANR ..... Respondents
AND
+ W.P.(C) 1651/2014
MINERVA COLLEGE OF EDUCATION ..... Petitioner
versus
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER
EDUCATION & ANR ..... Respondents
Presence : Mr. Virender Rawat, Adv. for petitioner in Item No.41
Mr. Sanjay Sharawat and Mr. Ratish Kumar, Advs. for
petitioner in Item Nos.42 to 66
W.P.(C) 2889/2013 & connected matters Page 8 of 15
Mr. Arjun Harkauli, Adv. for R-1 in Item Nos.41-66
Mr. R S Rana, Addl.A.G., Haryana and Mr. Rahul
Bakshi, Addl. A.G., Haryana for R-2 in Item No.41
% Date of Decision : 24th November, 2014
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)
1. The present batch of writ petitions has been filed challenging the
communication dated 20th March, 2013 issued by respondent No.1 whereby
Regional Committees were directed/instructed to reject and return all
applications for recognition of B.Ed and D.El.Ed. courses on the ground that
the State of Haryana had given a general negative recommendation.
2. Mr. Sharawat, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners have suffered legal injury in two aspects, namely, the authority
authorised under the Act has not taken the final decision in the matter and
further the application has not been processed in accordance with law. He
further submits that NCTE could not have directed the Regional Committees
to reject all applications only on the basis of a general negative
recommendation made by the State Government and that too without notice
to the petitioners.
3. Mr. Sharawat points out that in identical facts, the Madhya Pradesh
High Court has allowed writ petitions filed by similar institutes. The
judgement of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Shri Virendra Kumar Singh
Education Society Vs. State of M.P. & Ors., WP(C) 9097/2012 decided on
14th December, 2012 is reproduced hereinbelow :
"1. Because the controversy involved in this petition,
has already been decided by Division Bench of
Principal Seat at Jabalpur in the case of Shri Hargovind
Laxmi Narayan Samaj Vs. National Council for Teacher
Education and Others [Writ Petition No. 9984 of 2012,
decided on 17/07/2012] and as the learned Government
Advocate has not disputed the aforesaid proposition,
hence, with the consent of learned counsel for the
parties, the matter is being disposed of finally. The
petitioner has challenged the order dated 07-06-2012
(Annexure P/1). The application of the petitioner in
regard to grant permission for Diploma in Elementary
Education (in short 'D.El. Ed') Course has been rejected
vide communication dated 07-06-2012 (Annexure P/1)
on the ground that the Government, State of Madhya
Pradesh had given negative recommendation for
opening of new D. El. Ed. Course. The aforesaid point
has been considered by Division Bench of Principal Seat
at Jabalpur vide order dated 17-07-2012 in the case of
Shri Hargovind Laxmi Narayan Samaj (supra). The
Hon'ble Court has held as under:-
For the aforementioned reasons, the
challenge to the validity of the provisions of
Regulations 7(2) and (3) of the 2009
Regulations is hereby repelled. However,
under Regulation 7(3) the Regional
Committee is required to take into
consideration the recommendation made by
the State Government or the Union Territory
administration while disposing of the
application for grant of recognition. In the
instant case, from perusal of the order dated
12.06.2012 passed by the NCTE we find that
the application submitted by the petitioner
for grant of recognition to run the Diploma
in Elementary Education course is rejected
merely on the ground that there is negative
recommendation for opening new course of
Diploma in Elementary Education. Under
the NCTE Act and the Regulations framed
therein, the Regional Committee is the
competent authority to decide the
application. The Committee is required to
take into consideration the recommendation
of the State Government but the same cannot
be the sole ground for rejection of the
application by the committee. The Committee
is required to apply its mind and to decide
the question with regard to grant of approval
to run a course by taking into account the
recommendation made by the State
Government.
In view of the preceding analysis, the order
dated 12.06.2012 passed by the Western
Regional Committee of the NCTE is hereby
quashed. The Committee is directed to send
for comments of the State Government as
well as Rajya Shiksha Kendra and to decide
the application submitted by the petitioner to
run the Diploma in Elementary Education
course afresh by taking into account the
recommendations sent by the State
Government and Rajya Shiksha Kendra. The
aforesaid exercise shall be completed within
a period of one month from today. It is made
clear that this Court has not expressed any
opinion on the merits of the case.
With the aforesaid directions the writ
petition is disposed of.
C.C. as per rules.
2. In this view of the matter, petition of the petitioner is
allowed. The impugned order Annexure P/1 dated 07-
06-2012 and the decision of the Western Regional
Committee in its 162nd meeting held on 10th May, 2012
in regard to the petitioner, are hereby quashed. The
Committee is directed to send for comments of the State
Government as well as Rajya Shiksha Kendra and to
decide the application submitted by the petitioner to run
D.El.Ed. Course afresh by taking into account the
recommendations sent by the State Government and
Rajya Shiksha Kendra. The aforesaid exercise shall be
completed within a period of one month from today. It is
made clear that this Court has not expressed any
opinion on the merits of the case.
3. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is
disposed of. C. C. as per rules."
4. He also draws this Court's attention to a similar judgment and order
passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Sunshine International
College of Education and others Vs The National Council for Teachers
Education and others, WP(C) 16473/2013 decided on 6th August, 2014.
The said order is also reproduced hereunder :
"1. The petitioners have sought for the recognition of
the Teachers Training Institutes was responded to the
public notice issued by the National Council for
Teachers Education (NCTE) within the time prescribed.
The Regulations stipulate a manner of consideration of
applications and provides for a State role for its
recommendation. The Regulations also contemplate the
situations when the State does not give the objection and
when the Regional Committees established by NCTE
will undertake the task of inspection and taking a
decision with reference to starting of a Teachers
Training College.
2. Before the arguments got fully underway, the counsel
appearing on behalf of the NCTE has drawn my
attention to the orders passed by the Supreme Court in
the case titled Rashtrasant T.M.S. & S.B.V.M.C.A. VID
and others Versus Gangadar Nilkant Shende and others
on 10.9.2013, where the Supreme Court has adverted to
the Commission appointed by the court with former
Chief Justice of India Justice J.S. Verma to make his
recommendations and that order brings out the fact that
the recommendations have been received and the
Supreme Court has granted time to notify the new
Regulations by 30.11.2013. This date has been extended
by the subsequent order passed on 3.7.2014 upto
30.11.2014. The Supreme Court has stated in its order
dated 10.9.2013 that the persons desirous of
establishing Teachers Education Colleges/Institutes
shall make a fresh application in accordance with the
new Regulation and all the pending applications shall
also be decided in accordance with the new Regulations.
It would, therefore, be only appropriate that the
applications filed by the petitioners in all these writ
petition, which ought to be taken as pending, shall be
considered in the light of the Regulations that is framed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that even in
the last two years, after initial public notice issued by
the NCTE, approval has been granted by the NCTE
itself to some new colleges. In my view, the grant
already issued cannot be a ground for consideration of
the petitioners' cases in the light of the direction of the
Supreme Court in the case, referred to above. I will not,
therefore, give any direction for recognition to be issued
till Regulations are framed and the petitioners' cases
shall be considered only under such new Regulation. No
further directions are necessary.
4. The writ petitions are disposed of with the above
observations. It is hereby clarified that the applications
which are said to have been filed by the petitioners and
rejected in view of the State objection subsequently that
no new private training institutes shall be opened, shall
no longer be used against the petitioners and their
claims will be considered on their own merits when new
Regulations are made in 2014."
5. Mr. Harkauli, learned counsel for the respondents states that the
Supreme Court in SLP No. 4247-4248/2009 vide order dated 10th
September, 2013 has directed that all pending applications have to be
decided in accordance with new regulations, which the respondent-NCTE is
yet to notify.
6. This Court is of the view that after filing of an application, an
institution is legally entitled to have it processed by the statutorily
designated authority strictly in accordance with the statutorily prescribed
procedure. The input of the State Government as a stake holder under the
current rules is certainly relevant but it cannot be accepted as 'gospel truth'
and that too, without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.
7. Keeping in view the aforesaid as well as the judgment/orders of the
Madhya Pradesh and Punjab & Haryana High Courts as well as the order
dated 10th September, 2013 passed by Supreme Court in SLP No. 4247-
4248/2009, present writ petitions are disposed of with a direction that the
petitioners shall apply afresh in accordance with new regulations if required
and the same shall be considered by the NCTE/NRC for the year 2015-16 in
accordance with new regulations which are to be notified in compliance with
the directions of the Supreme Court. If any deficiency is found, the same
shall be communicated to the petitioners, who shall remove the deficiency
within the given time. In case, the deficiencies are removed within the given
time, the application shall be processed in accordance with Rules and
Regulations. If the deficiencies are not removed, the applications shall stand
rejected. With the aforesaid observations, the present batch of writ petitions
is disposed of but without any order as to costs.
MANMOHAN, J
NOVEMBER 24, 2014
vld
