Sainath College Of Education vs National Council For Teacher ...
2015 Latest Caselaw 6032 Del

           *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                               Date of decision: 18th August, 2015

+                              W.P.(C) No. 7497/2015
       SAINATH COLLEGE OF EDUCATION               ..... Petitioner
                   Through: Mr. Sanjay Sharawat, Adv.
                                           versus
       NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEAHER EDUCATION
       AND ORS                                  ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Gautam Narayan, ASC (GNCTD) for R-2.

Ms. Latika Chaudhary for Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Adv. for R-3.

                                            AND
+                              W.P.(C) No. 7508/2015
       OJAS COLLEGE OF EDUCATION                  ..... Petitioner
                   Through: Mr. Sanjay Sharawat, Adv.
                                           versus
    NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION
    AND ORS                                   ..... Respondents
                 Through: Mr. Gautam Narayan, ASC (GNCTD)
                           for R-2.
                           Ms. Latika Chaudhary for Ms. Avnish
                           Ahlawat, Adv. for R-3.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

1. The grievance of the petitioner Institutes in both the petitions is that

though they applied well within time for grant of recognition for

commencing imparting education in D.El.Ed. course / programme in the

year 2015-16 but the respondent no.1National Council for Teacher

Education (NCTE) caused delay at each and every stage and now has finally

vide decision taken in the meeting held from 20 th to 22nd July, 2015 though

held the petitioner Institutes entitled to recognition but owing to the last date

prescribed by the Supreme Court of 3rd March extended in this year till 31st

May, 2015 in Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya Vs. State of U.P

(2013) 2 SCC 617 for grant of recognition having expired, have granted

recognition to the petitioner Institutes not from the Academic Session 2015-

16 but w.e.f. the Academic Session 2016-17.

2. These petitions have been filed seeking directions, (i) for an inquiry

against the Chairperson, Member Secretary and Regional Director of the

respondent no.1 NCTE as well as against the Director of the respondent no.3

State Council of Educational Research & Training (SCERT) in terms of

paras 87.4 and 91.2 of Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya supra;

(ii) for grant of recognition to the petitioner Institutes for the Academic

Session 2015-16 instead of Academic Session 2016-17; (iii) to the

respondent no.3 SCERT to grant affiliation to the petitioner Institutes for

D.El.Ed. course for Academic Session 2015-16; and, (iv) to the respondent

no.3 SCERT to include the name of the petitioner Institutes in the

counselling and to permit the petitioner Institutes to admit students to the

Academic Session 2015-16 in the D.El.Ed. course.

3. The petitions came up first before this Court on 7th August, 2015

when notice thereof was issued.

4. Though no replies have been filed by either of the respondents but the

counsel for the respondent no.1 NCTE states that the NCTE has no objection

to conducting an inquiry into the allegations of delays and the same will be

done.

5. The counsel for the petitioner Institutes, the counsel for the

respondent no.1 NCTE and the counsel for the respondent no.3 SCERT have

been heard.

6. The counsel for the petitioner Institutes states that the respondent no.2

Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD) would have no

role in the facts of these cases.

7. I have enquired from the counsels as to which authority would be the

appropriate authority to conduct the inquiry.

8. The counsel for the petitioner Institutes and the counsel for the

respondent no.1 NCTE state that the inquiry into the allegations against the

officials of the respondent no.1 NCTE would have to be conducted by the

Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD), Government of India.

The counsel for the petitioner Institutes states that the inquiry vis-a-vis

respondent no.3 SCERT would have to be conducted by the respondent no.2

GNCTD.

9. Accordingly, a direction is issued to the Secretary, MHRD and to the

Secretary of the GNCTD to conduct an inquiry into the allegations made in

these petitions of delays caused by the respondents no.1 NCTE and

respondent no.3 SCERT respectively in the matter of evaluating the

applications of the petitioner Institutes for grant of recognition for imparting

education in D.El.Ed. course. A copy of this order be served by the counsel

for the respondent no.1 NCTE on the Secretary, MHRD. The counsel for the

respondent no.2 GNCTD to ensure compliance of the order.

10. The petitioner Institutes, if so desire, would be at liberty to within 15

days hereof make a representation with further particulars to the authorities

aforesaid entrusted with the enquiry, detailing the delays at each and every

stage and the violation if any of the schedule laid down in Maa Vaishno

Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya supra.

11. This Court is inundated with petitions in such matters. The authorities

entrusted with the inquiry to also attempt to identify the causes of the delay

if any in dealing with the applications and to issue necessary directions to

alleviate the same in future years so that the applications for recognition for

all programmes of the respondent no.1 NCTE are considered in a time bound

manner and outcome thereof is announced with sufficient time available to

the aggrieved applicants to avail remedies thereagainst.

12. The counsel for the petitioners with respect to the other relief claimed,

of grant of recognition for the current academic year, has contended that:-

(i) the scheduled laid down in Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila

Mahavidyalaya is only of the time to be followed for grant of

recognition and grant of affiliation and no time has been fixed

for the commencement of the academic session or for

counselling or for admission as has been done in the case of

Medical Council of India, Dental Council of India, All India

Council For Technical Education etc. Thus, once it is found that

the respondent no.1 NCTE and the respondent no.3 SCERT are

to blame for the delays, there is no impediment to the Court

granting recognition / affiliation beyond the stipulated date as

long as the last date prescribed for admission has not lapsed;

(ii) attention in this regard is invited to the Note under the Schedule

for Admission to D.El.Ed. course in the Prospectus published

by the respondent no.3 SCERT and which is as under:-

"Note:

In case of availability of vacant seats after 3 rd list of admission in Self Financing (Pvt.) Recognized Institute Affiliated to SCERT, next wait list in rank- wise, category-wise, for admission, will be declared and uploaded on the website on the notified dates to be announced on 25.08.2015. For updated details please see SCERT website regularly i.e. www.scertdelhiadmission.org Regarding final closure of admission, date will be notified on the website www.scertdelhiadmission.org as per the status/situation of vacancy. After notified date of closure of admission, all admissions shall be summarily closed even if any seats are vacant, keeping in view the compulsory number of working days (200 days) prescribed in NCTE Act/Regulation.

Candidates are advised to continuously check website www.scertdelhiadmission.org getting current information till completion of admission process."

On the basis thereof it is contended that counselling is still

underway and this Court can direct the respondent no.1 and the

respondent no.3 NCTE & SCERT to grant recognition and

affiliation for the current academic year (it is pointed out that

the respondent no.3 SCERT has already approved list of faculty

of both the petitioner Institutes) and permit the petitioner

Institutes to admit students;

(iii) that some other institutions similarly situated as the petitioner

Institutes had directly filed the petitions in the Supreme Court

in this regard but the said petitions were disposed of directing

the High Court to be approached; it thus follows that the

Supreme Court did not find any impediment to the High Courts

directing recognition and affiliation beyond the dates prescribed

in Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya;

(iv) that some of the other High Courts also have granted

recognitions after the prescribed date. Reliance in this regard is

placed on Joseph Sriharsha Mary Indraja Educational Society

Vs. The National Council for Teacher Education

MANU/AP/3415/2013 and the SLP No.27026/2014 arising

wherefrom was disposed of on 26th September, 2014;

(v) that approximately 24000 students had sought admission to the

D.El.Ed. course in the institutes in Delhi from the respondent

no.3 SCERT and the seats available in the D.El.Ed. course are

only 2140; there is no justification for refusing so many

students admission when the petitioner Institutes have been

found entitled thereto and have been denied recognition for the

current academic year only for the reason of the date having

lapsed; and,

(vi) that the petitioner Institutes would suffer financial burden of

keeping the infrastructure and faculty ready for the Academic

Session 2016-17 and ought to be allowed to admit students.

13. The counsel for the respondent no.3 SCERT has invited attention to

the Schedule for Admission in the Prospectus aforesaid which prescribes the

date, (i) from 29th June, 2015 to 14th July, 2015 for making applications for

admission; (ii) of 29th June, 2015 for declaration of the 1st list of candidates

for admission; (iii) of 6th August, 2015 for declaration of 2nd list of

candidates for admission; (iv) of 14th August, 2015 for declaration of the 3rd

list of candidates for admission; and, (v) of 3rd August, 2015 for

commencement of the Academic Session 2015-16. It is further contended

that the date of 25th August, 2015 for declaring the next waiting list for

admission is only for the vacant seats available after the 3rd list of admission

and not for fresh admissions. It is thus contended that the reliance by the

petitioner Institutes on the said date is misconceived. She has further stated

that the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the judgment relied upon by the

counsel for the petitioner Institutes granted the order because the counselling

had not started till then. (I may in this regard notice that the Supreme Court

disposed of the SLP supra observing that the impugned order had only

directed consideration by the respondents and which consideration was

accepted to be in accordance with law and thus no interference was called

for).

14. I have considered the aforesaid contentions.

15. Admittedly, after the grant of recognition, the petitioner Institutes are

required to obtain affiliation from the respondent no.3 SCERT and which the

petitioner Institutes till date do not have. I have enquired the procedure

entailed in the grant of affiliation. The counsel for the petitioner Institutes

states that no procedure in this regard has been prescribed. He has however

contended that the inspection, if any, required by the respondent no.3

SCERT is a matter of one day only.

16. The counsel for the respondent no.3 SCERT states that she has no

instructions in this regard.

17. Though the schedule laid down in Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila

Mahavidyalaya supra undoubtedly does not give the final date for admission

or for commencement of the academic session after prescribing 10 th May of

each year as the final date for grant of affiliation for the relevant academic

year but the context in which the said schedule came to be prescribed was

the delay in commencement of the academic year owing to the delays in

grant of recognition and affiliation. Thus, merely because the Supreme Court

has not prescribed the dates for admission or the dates for commencement of

the academic session would not be a ground for this Court to pass an order

which would have the effect of delaying the academic session which has

already commenced on 3rd August, 2015.

18. There is thus no merit in the argument of the counsel for the petitioner

Institutes on the basis of the Note aforesaid appended to the Schedule for

Admission prescribed by the respondent no.3 SCERT, which the counsel for

the respondent no.3 SCERT rightly pointed out is only with respect to the

vacant seats. Else, by the time the petitioner Institutes came before this

Court, the academic session as aforesaid had already commenced on 3 rd

August, 2015.

19. It has been repeatedly held by the Courts, as noticed by the Division

Bench of this Court in Rajeev Kumar Vs. Union of India

MANU/DE/1752/2014 that merely because seats are remaining vacant is no

ground to indefinitely delay the commencement of the academic session and

to hold repeated rounds of counseling and make mid-term admissions. Thus

on the basis of the said argument also this Court cannot direct admission at

this stage.

20. Owing to the urgency expressed, the petitions are being disposed of

without awaiting the counter affidavits. At this stage, it cannot also

conclusively be said whether there were any delays on the part of the

respondent no.1 NCTE and respondent no.3 SCERT and/or whether the

delays even if any, are attributable solely to the said Bodies. Without a

conclusive finding on the said aspect being reached and for which as

aforesaid an inquiry has been ordered, it would not be appropriate to on

mere allegation of delay grant recognition and affiliation or order grant

thereof after the stipulated date. The petitioner Institutes are thus not entitled

to the relief claimed of recognition and affiliation for the current academic

year.

21. These petitions are disposed of with the hope that the respondent no.1

NCTE and the respondent no.3 SCERT in the ensuing years will act within

the confines of the schedule laid down by the Supreme Court and give ample

time to the aggrieved applicants to avail of the remedies available in law.

22. The inquiries ordered above be completed on or before 31 st January,

2016 and copies of reports thereof be furnished to the counsel of the

petitioners.

No costs.

Copy of this order be given dasti under signature of Court Master.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

AUGUST 18, 2015 'pp'