Delhi High Court
Mass Education Primary Teachers ... vs National Council For Teacher ... on 26 September, 2017
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on : 20.9.2017
Judgment delivered on : 26.9.2017
+ W.P.(C) 9878/2016
MASS EDUCATION PRIMARY TEACHERS TRAINING
INSTITUTE ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr MayankManish, Adv
versus
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION AND ANR
..... Respondents
Through Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, Adv for
NCTE.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
1 Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 02.5.2016 passed by the
Eastern Regional Committee (respondent no.2) which was affirmed on
02.9.2016 by its Appellate Authority, National Council for Teacher
Education (respondent no.1).
2 Petitioner is an educational institution situated in West Bengal (India).
It had been granted recognition for running diploma in elementary education
(D.El.Ed.) course by respondent no.2 in the year 2009. Record shows that
on 29.5.2015 the petitioner institute had applied (online) to respondent no.2
seeking recognition for its course of Bachelor of Education (B.Ed. course)
along with the requisite documents and processing fee. Respondent no.2
failed to process the application of the petitioner for some time and on
08.02.2016 intimated the petitioner for the expert team inspection which
inspection of the petitioner institution was accordingly conducted.
Respondent No. 2 in its 211th meeting (between 14.04.2016 to 16.04.2016)
considered the visit team report and accordingly decided to issue a show
cause notice to the petitioner.
3 Petitioner after seeing the minutes of the meeting on the NCTE
website, without waiting for the show cause notice, submitted the Building
Completiton Certificate (BCC) related documents approved by the Gram
Panchayat to respondent no. 2 on 19.04.2016. Respondent No. 2, however, in
its meeting (between 24.05.2016 to 25.04.2016) refused to grant recognition
to the petitioner and dismissed his prayer. BCC related document approved
by the government engineer was obtained by the petitioner on 01.05.2016
and the same was submitted to respondent no. 2 on 02.05.2016. Thereafter,
the petitioner filed an appeal before respondent no. 1, which was rejected
and the order of respondent no. 2 (dated 02.05.2017) was confirmed. This
exercise by the respondents is arbitrary. The order is liable to be set aside.
4 Counter affidavit has been filed. It is pointed out that respondent no. 2
in its 211th meeting (between 14.04.2016 to 16.04.2016) observed that show
cause notice be issued to petitioner on the ground that BCC related
documents were not signed by the government engineer. On 19.04.2016
petitioner in response to the show cause notice submitted the BCC related
documents which were approved by the Gram Panchayat. Respondent No. 2
vide its letter dated 02.05.2016 refused recognition of the petitioner
institution on the ground that the BCC related documents were not signed by
the government engineer. It is further pointed out that petitioner submitted
the BCC document approved and signed by the government engineer
(obtained by him on 01.05.2016) to respondent no. 2 on the same date i.e.
02.05.2016 as that of the refusal order; however by then respondent no. 2
had already taken its decision and had refused recognition of the petitioner
institution. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the BCC
related documents duly approved by the government engineer were not filed
by the petitioner within the prescribed period of time. There is a time
schedule laid down by the respondents during which the documents have to
be submitted and since the requisite documents were forwarded by the
petitioner after issuance of the refusal order, respondent no. 1 (the appellate
authority) rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner and endorsed the order
of respondent no. 2.
5 Rejoinder has been filed affirming the averments made in the petition.
It is not disputed that a show cause notice was issued by respondent no. 2 in
its meeting (between 14.04.2016 to 16.04.2016) on the ground that building
plan building completion certificate was not signed by any government
engineer. This averment of the respondent finds mention in para 2(e) of the
counter affidavit. Corresponding para in the rejoinder admits that this is a
matter of record. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner had already submitted the BCC related documents signed by an
engineer and approved by gram panchayat on 19.04.2016 to respondent no.
2, however his application stood rejected on 02.05.2016 by respondent no.2
for the reason that the petitioner had failed to submit the said documents duly
signed by a government engineer within the scheduled period. The same had
also been endorsed by respondent no. 1 (appellate authority) while
dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the
petitioner further submits that the NCTE Regulations 2014 nowhere provide
that the BCC related documents should be signed by the government
engineer and thus the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.
6 Arguments have been heard. Record perused.
7 Perusal of the records shows that subsequent to an application made
by the petitioner to respondent no. 2 seeking grant of recognition for B.Ed
course, an inspection of the petitioner institute was carried out on 19.03.2016
to verify infrastructural and instructional facilities provided by the
institutions and also the essential documents as per NCTE Regulation.
Respondent no. 2 in its 211th meeting (between 14.04.2016 to 16.04.2016)
issued show cause notice to petitioner institute as to why recognition to the
instution be not refused on the point that "building plan and building
completion certificate is not signed by any government engineer." Petitioner
had submitted representation dated 19.04.2016 on the basis of proceedings
uploaded on respondent no. 2 website. Respondent no. 2 in its emergent
meeting (between 24.04.2016 to 25.04.2016) considered and examined
petitioner's application along with the documents submitted and refused
permission for recognition (B.Ed course) vide order dated 02.05.2016 to
petitioner institution for the reason that the BCC related documents were not
signed by a government engineer. The petitioner thereafter for the first time
on 02.05.2016 i.e. on the same date as that of the refusal order, submitted the
requisite BCC related documents duly approved by Government Assistant
Engineer to respondent no. 2. Since the requisite document was forwarded
by the petitioner after the issuance of the refusal order, respondent no. 1
noting the same in its order dated 02.09.2016 rejected the appeal filed by the
petitioner and affirmed the order of respondent no. 2.
8 It is against these orders dated 02.05.2016 and 02.09.2016 that the
petitioner has approached this court. Before going into the merits of the
case, it is relevant to discuss the Regulations of National Council for Teacher
Education (made pursuant to a statutory legislation i.e. the National Council
for Teacher Education Act, 1993). Regulation 8(7) of the aforementioned
Regulations deals with the conditions for grant of recognition and is relevant.
Regulation 8(7) reads as under:
"8. Conditions for grant of recognition-
(7) At the time of inspection, the building of the institution shall be
completed in the form of a permanent structure on the land possessed by the
institution, equipped with all necessary amenities and fulfilling all such
requirements as prescribed in the norms and standards. The applicant
institution shall produce the original completiton certificate issued by the
competent Authority, approved building plan in proof of the completiton of
building and built up area and other documents to the visiting team for
verification. No temporary strucutre or asbestos roofing shall be allowed in
the institution, even if it is in addition to the prescribed built up area."
9 This regulation mandates that at the time of inspection the building of
the institution should be complete as per the requirement, norms and
standards; the institution should produce original completion certificate
issued by a competent authority along with the approved building plan for
the purposes of verification.
10 The petitioner institute had been inspected on 19.03.2016; pursuant to
which a deficiency with respect to the BCC document not being signed by a
government engineer was noted by respondent no. 2 in its show cause notice.
Petitioner was given an opportunity to remove this deficiency. Vide his
representation dated 19.04.2016; he again submitted the BCC document. A
scrutiny of the said BCC related document reveals that this document was
issued by one Santi Ranjan Mondal, a private engineer and approved by the
gram panchayat. It was again not a document signed by any government
engineer as was required by respondent no. 2 in terms of the show cause
notice issued to the petitioner. Thereafter upon examination of representation
dated 19.04.2016 by respondent no. 2 in its meeting held between 24 - 25
April 2016, the application of petitioner for recognition was refused vide
order dated 02.05.2016. This court notes that the petitioner had been
afforded ample opportunity to rectify the defect which stood as a hurdle in
perfecting his application for grant. The respondent no. 2 had already taken a
decision qua the petitioner's application (refusing to grant recognition) in its
meeting after examing the represtation and documents forwarded to it by the
petitioner; this decision was recorded in terms of an order by the committee
on 02.05.2017. However, the petitioner being well aware of the lacuna
existing in his BCC related documents already submitted to respondent no. 2,
chose to file the requisite documents duly signed by a government assistant
engineer, Niranjan Kutty only on 02.05.2016 i.e. after the scheduled period
of time; on the same date as that of the refusal order. This document is dated
01.05.2016. Thus, it is only on 01.05.2016 that the petitioner had procured
for the first time the BCC document signed by the competent authority being
the government engineer.
11 In light of the aforenoted discussion, it is evident that the essential
intent of Regulation 8 (7) of the NCTE Regulations being that the requisite
documents have to be issued by the competent auithority and shall have to be
produced at the time of inspection has not been complied with; the document
issued by government assistant engineer being obtained by the petitioner
only on 01.05.2016 i.e., much after the respondent no. 2 committee had
inspected the petitioner insatitute which was on 19.03.2016.
12 This court further notes that the contention of the petitioner that the
NCTE Regulations 2014 nowhere provide that the BCC related documents
should be signed by the government engineer is also one without merit. The
petitioner was well aware of the fact that it was the government engineer and
not the private engineer who was the competent authority to issue the BCC
related documents and the same being emphasized upon in the show cause
notice as well. Petitioner had been responding without any demur or protest;
he has also submitted the requisite BCC documents duly signed by a
government assistant engineer to respondent no. 2 which however could not
be acceded to on account of the delay in forwarding the same i.e. after
issuance of the refusal order dated 02.05.2016.
13 In the context of the defence of the time schedule, the Apex Court had
an occasion to consider this issue in the case of Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila
Mahavidyala Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. reported as (2013) 2 SCC
617 and the observation of the Apex Court in this regard would be relevant;
the same reads as under:
81. Lastly, the question which is required to be discussed in light of
the facts of the present cases is adherence to the Schedule. Once the relevant
Schedules have been prescribed under the Regulations or under the Judge
made law, none, whosoever it be, is entitled to carve out exceptions to the
prescribed Schedule. Adherence to the Schedule is the essence of granting
admission in a fair and transparent manner as well as to maintain the
standards of education. The purpose of providing a time schedule is to
ensure that all concerned authorities act within the stipulated time. Where,
on the one hand, it places an obligation upon the authorities to act
according to the Schedule, there it also provides complete clarity to other
stakeholders as to when their application would either be accepted and/or
rejected and what will be the time duration for it to be processed at different
quarters. It also gives clear understanding to the students for whose benefit
the entire process is set up as to when their examinations would be held,
when results would be declared and when they are expected to take
admission to different colleges in order of merit obtained by them in the
entrance examinations or other processes for the purposes of subject and
college preference.
82. We are constrained to reiterate with emphasis at our command
that the prescribed schedules under the Regulations and the judgments must
be strictly adhered to without exceptions. None in the hierarchy of the State
Government, University, NCTE or any other authority or body involved in
this process can breach the Schedule for any direct or indirect reason.
Anybody who is found to be defaulting in this behalf is bound to render
himself or herself liable for initiation of proceedings under the provisions of
the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 as well as for a disciplinary action in
accordance with the orders of the Court."
14 In light of the above, the order of respondent no. 1 dated 02.09.2016
rejecting the appeal filed by petitioner and affirming the order dated
02.05.2016 of respondent no. 2 suffers from no infirmity.
15. Petition dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J
SEPTEMBER 26, 2017
