Delhi High Court
R.A.S. College Of Education vs National Council For Teacher ... on 19 February, 2018
$~34
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 1358/2018 & CM No. 5640/2018
% Date of decision : 19th February, 2018
R.A.S. COLLEGE OF EDUCATION ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Sanjay Sharawat, Adv.
versus
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION & ANR
..... Respondents
Through : Ms. Monika Arora, Standing
Counsel, NCTE with Mr. Harsh
Ahuja, Mr. Kushal Kumar and
Mr. Vibhu Tripathi, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
GITA MITTAL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
1. The writ petitioner, an educational institution, was desirous of
commencement of the B.Ed. Course in the year 2006 for which prior
recognition is required from the National Council of Teachers
Education (respondent no. 1 - hereafter 'NCTE') which exercises
jurisdiction under the National Council for Teacher Education Act,
1993 (hereafter the 'NCTE Act').
2. The manner in which an application for grant of recognition is
processed, had been stipulated by the respondent in the National
Council for Teacher Education (Recognition, Norms and Procedure)
Regulation, 2006 (NCTE Regulations, 2006 hereafter), which stands
amended subsequently.
3. It appears that Sh. Dharam Singh, President of the petitioner
society was the owner in possession of land admeasuring 25 kanal 10
marla in Village Khatiwas (Gogjaka) District Mewat, Haryana. The
writ petitioner has submitted that as per the NCTE Regulation, 2006,
any society having ownership of the land or having leasehold rights
thereon for a period of 30 years or more, either from a private party or
from the Government, was eligible to apply for seeking recognition.
Sh. Dharam Singh had, vide a registered lease deed dated 25th May,
2007, leased the said land to the Petitioner society for a period of 30
years.
4. Premised on these leasehold rights, the writ petitioner submitted
an application with the Northern Regional Committee (NRC) of the
NCTE in the year 2006 seeking recognition, for commencement of the
B.Ed. Course from the Academic Session 2008-09. Vide an order
dated 22nd February, 2008, the petitioner was actually granted
recognition, in accordance with law.
5. On 30th December, 2012, the petitioner submitted a fresh
application with the NRC, this time seeking recognition to commence
a Diploma in Elementary Education Course (D.El.Ed. course
hereafter) in the very premises in which the petitioner stood granted
recognition for the B.Ed. Course.
6. It appears that a ban stood imposed by the Government of
Haryana at this stage with regard to opening of new educational
institutions in the State. Based on this prohibition, on the 11th of
September, 2013, the NRC rejected the petitioner's application for
commencement of the D.El.Ed. Course.
7. The writ petitioner challenged this decision of the NRC by way
of W.P.(C) 7837/2013 which came to be allowed by this court by an
order dated 24th November, 2014. The petitioner's application was
thereby remanded to the NRC for consideration afresh.
8. Before the matter could be considered afresh by the NRC, it
appears that amendments were effected to the Regulation and the
NCTE Regulations, 2014 came to be notified whereby the respondents
had excluded eligibility of an educational institution to run the courses
on land in which it had only leasehold rights from private persons.
9. In this regard, we may extract Regulation 8(4) of the NCTE
Regulation, 2014 which reads as follows:
"8. Conditions for grant of recognitions
(4) xxx xxx xxx
(i) No institution shall be granted recognition
under these regulations unless the institution or
society sponsoring the institution is in
possession of required land on the date of
application. The land free from all
encumbrances could be either on ownership
basis or on lease from all Government or
Government institutions for a period of not less
than thirty years. In cases where under relevant
State or Union Territory laws the maximum
permissible lease period is less than thirty years,
the State Government or Union territory
administration law shall prevail and in any case
no building shall be taken on lease for running
any teacher training programe
(ii) The society sponsoring the institution shall
have to ensure that proposed teacher education
institution has a well demarcated land area as
specified by the norms.
(iii) The society sponsoring the institution shall
be required to transfer the vest and title of the
land and building in the name of the institution
within a period of six months from the date of
issue of formal recognition order under sub-
regulation (16) of regulation 7. However, in
case, the society fails to do so due to local laws
or rules or bye-laws, it shall intimate in writing
with documentary evidence of it inability to do
so. The Regional Office shall keep this
information on record and place it before the
Regional Committee for its approval."
(Emphasis supplied)
10. In order to obviate an objection which could be raised on the
pending application of the writ petitioner, Sh. Dharam Singh,
president of the society transferred the land in question absolutely in
favour of the writ petitioner by way of a registered sale deed on 11th
February, 2015.
11. Inasmuch as the pending application had relied on the lease
deed which was not acceptable under the Amended Regulations of
2014, a notice to show cause dated 4th September, 2015 was issued by
it to the petitioner inter alia on the following ground :
"The institute has submitted pho copy of land
document on lease basis which is not acceptable
as per Regulations, 2014"
12. It was only in its reply dated 5th October, 2015 that the
petitioner submitted the copy of the sale deed dated 11 th February,
2015 and informed the NRC that even the requirement of the afore
extracted amended Regulation 8(4) stood satisfied.
13. Unfortunately, by the order dated 30th December, 2015, the
NRC once again rejected the application of the petitioner again
ostensibly on the ground of the ban imposed by the State of Haryana
with regard to opening of new educational institutions. The writ
petitioner contends that no objection was taken with regard to the
ownership rights of the petitioner under the land and consequently, it
has to be presumed that the NRC had accepted the validity of the
petitioner's title so far as the requirement of ownership of the land was
concerned.
14. The petitioner was compelled to assail the order of the 30th of
December, 2015 by way of an appeal before the NCTE. This appeal
was allowed by an order dated 18th April, 2016 and the matter was
once again remanded to the NRC with a direction to decide the
petitioner's application as per the NCTE Regulations.
15. Despite the judgment of this court dated 24th November, 2014 in
W.P.(C) 7837/2013 rejecting any objection premised on a ban
imposed by any State Government with regard to opening of new
institutions in the State, the NRC yet again issued a notice to show
cause dated 8th June, 2016 again objecting to the opening of the
institution by the petitioner on the ground that the State Government
had imposed such a ban. It is noteworthy that no objection regarding
the rights of the petitioner in the subject land was raised even this
time.
16. Despite the petitioner's response, the NRC passed an order
dated 30th December, 2016 once again rejecting the petitioner's
application on the ground that opening of new institutions in the State
had been banned by the State Government.
17. This matter was again brought to the court by way of a second
writ petition being W.P.(C) 177/2018. The writ petition came to be
allowed an by an order dated 29th January, 2018, and the court
remanded the matter to the respondents with a direction to decide the
petitioner's application latest by the 3rd of March, 2018 irrespective of
the ban imposed by the State Government.
18. The present writ petition has been necessitated inasmuch as the
case of the petitioner was considered by the NRC in its 280th Meeting
held from 6 to 7th February, 2018 as the 112th item when an objection
has been recorded so far as the petitioner's application is concerned :
The petitioner's application appears at serial no.112 of the
minutes which records as follows :
"
112 NRCAP R A S College D.El.Ed. The original file of the
P-6867 of Education, institution alongwith
Plot No.- other related documents,
103,37,9,2/1,3 NCTE Act, 1993
1, Village Regulations and
Khatiwas, Guidelines of NCTE
Post office- published from time to
Turu, time were carefully
Tehsil/Taluka considered by NRC and
-Tauru, following observations
Town/City- were made:-
Tauru, Distt.- Land has been
Mewat, registered in the
Haryama- name of the
122105 applicant Society
on 11.02.2015 i.e.
after the date of
making
application online
Hence show cause notice
under Section u/s
14/15(3) (b) of the NCTE
Act, 1993 be issued to the
institution to submit reply
within 30 days from the
date of issue of show
cause notice.
"
19. The petitioner has challenged this decision inter alia on the
ground that when the petitioner submitted his application on the 30 th
of December, 2012, for additionally commencing the D.El.Ed. Course
in the premises (in which the petitioner had already been granted
recognition for the B.Ed. Course on 22nd February, 2008), it were the
NCTE Regulation, 2006 which were in vogue. These regulations
permitted commencement of an educational institution in a premises
in which the applicant had leasehold rights for a period of more than
30 years from a private owner. This application and the matter of
recognition of the diploma course has remained pending for all these
years only on account of the erroneous orders and an illegal stand
adopted by the respondents.
20. It is submitted by Mr. Sanjay Sharawat that, but for the orders
which had necessitated filing of the writ petitions on the earlier
occasion, the application of the petitioner ought to have been
favorably considered in terms of the Regulations as prevailed when
the application was made.
21. The writ petitioner has acquired absolute ownership in the land
by virtue of the sale deed dated 11 th February, 2015 to enable the
petitioner to satisfy the requirements under the amendments to the
NCTE Regulation, 2014 which have come into existence while the
petitioner's application was pending.
22. It is obvious from the above narration of facts that an applicant
would have the option to remove deficiencies, if any, during the
pendency of the application, prior to the final order having been
passed thereon. The petitioner's application was pending in 2014
when the Regulations were amended. This was the situation which
obtained on 11th February, 2015 when the petitioner obtained the sale
deed in his favour, thereby satisfying the requirements of the amended
Regulations.
23. On this very issue, Mr. Sanjay Sharawat, learned counsel has
placed a series of decisions by learned Single Judges of this court in
identical circumstances directing the respondents to consider the
application of the petitioner for recognition in accordance with law
taking into consideration the removal of the deficiencies pointed out
by the respondents. We tabulate hereafter the decisions in this regard :
Date of
S.No. Case Number Case Title
Decision
G.D.Memorial College
W.P.(C).No. of Education v. National 13th July,
1.
4049/2010 Council for Teacher 2010
Education & Anr.
Fairfiel Institute of
Management and
W.P.(C) 12th August,
2. Technology v. National
1773/2010 2010
Council for Teacher
Education and Anr.
Balaji College of
W.P.(C). Education v. National 18th August,
3.
5621/2010 Council for Teacher 2010
Education and Anr.
Riya International
W.P.(C) 21st April
4. College v. National
3647/2015 2015
Council for Teacher
Education
SMD Girls College of
W.P.(C) Education v. National 2nd March
5.
1829/2016 Council for Teacher 2016
Education and Anr
Rao Raj Singh College of
W.P.(C) Education v. National 22nd April
6.
3328/2016 Council for Teacher 2016
Education and Anr.
24. It is trite that the failure to abide by principles laid down by a
decision of the court is contumacious and would invite action under
the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the authorities concerned.
In the present case, despite the decisions on the very issue upon which
the objection has been raised qua the petitioner, the earliest decision
laid before us is the order dated 13th July, 2010 passed in W.P.(C)
4094/2010 G.D. Memorial Collage of Education v. NCT & Anr. We
would be justified in invoking proceedings under the Contempt of
Court Act against the respondents for failing to abide by the principles
of law laid down.
25. Additionally, the petitioner has been made to run from pillar to
post from the 30th of December, 2012 when he submitted the
application seeking recognition for the D.El.Ed. Course. It is a
shocking state of affairs that the respondents have admittedly granted
recognition in these very premises to the petitioner for running the
B.Ed. Course, which he is stated to be running successfully without
any objection from the respondents.
26. In our view, the respondents have proceeded capriciously and
without application of mind and deserve to be burdened with punitive
costs.
27. It is submitted by Mr. Sanjay Sharawat, learned counsel for the
petitioner that this court may not take a strict view as at present
inasmuch as the petitioner is more anxious to commence the Course
for which his application has remained pending. We, therefore, are
not proposing to take punitive action against the respondents at this
stage.
28. In view thereof, it is directed as follows:
(i) The decision taken by the respondent no.2 on agenda item
no.112 in its 280th Meeting held from 6th to 7th February, 2018
so far as the petitioner is concerned, shall stand quashed.
(ii) The respondent no.2 is directed to examine the application of
the petitioner for grant of recognition under clause 7(16) of the
NCTE Regulations, 2014 for D.El.Ed course from 2018-19
academic session.
(iii) Such consideration as directed above shall be completed and a
view shall be taken and communicated to the petitioner well
before the 3rd of March, 2018 which is the last date for grant of
recognition for the academic session 2018-19.
29. We make it clear that we have not expressed any view on prayer
(a) whereby the writ petitioner has challenged the constitutionality of
Regulation 8(4) of the NCTE Amendment Regulations, 2017 notified
in the official gazette on 28th April, 2017. The same is left open.
This writ petition is allowed in the above terms.
Dasti
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
C.HARI SHANKAR, J
FEBRUARY 19, 2018/kr
