Delhi High Court
Dronacharya College Of Education vs National Council For Teacher ... on 5 October, 2018
#61
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 05.10.2018.
W.P.(C) 10552/2018
DRONACHARYA COLLEGE OF EDUCATION ..... Petitioner
versus
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION AND ANR.
..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Sharawat, Mr. Divyank Rana and Mr. Ashok Kumar,
Advocates
For the Respondents : Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, Standing Counsel with Ms. Preeti Kumra,
Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
JUDGMENT
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)
1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
belatedly impugns the action of the National Council for Teacher
Education (for short 'NCTE'), respondent No.1 herein, whereby, the
latter returned the petitioner institution's seeking recognition for B.Ed
courses all in the year 2013, along with the fee, on the ground of the
ban imposed by the State of Haryana on granting of recognition for
inter alia, B.Ed and D.El.Ed. courses.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner institution
invites the Court's attention to the order dated 25.07.2018 in W.P.(C)
7662/2018, titled as 'Harnam Singh College of Education vs. National
Council for Teacher Education and Anr.', to urge that, in similar
circumstances, this Court directed the NCTE to reconsider the
application filed on behalf of the similarly situated institution, without
taking into consideration, the subsequent ban imposed by the State of
Haryana on the opening of such educational institution.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the NCTE, however, states
that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide its order dated
18.07.2018 in W.P.(C) 276/2012, titled as 'Maa Vaishno Devi Mahil
Mahavidyalaya vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.', has declined
to grant any relief to such educational institutions placed in similar
circumstances, predicated on the stand taken by the NCTE before the
Court.
4. It would be relevant and profitable to extract the order dated
18.07.2018 in Maa Vaishno Devi (supra) insofar as it is germane, in
order to appreciate its ambit and import and the same is reproduced in
extenso hereunder:
"1. An application for direction has been filed by the applicant
seeking, inter alia, following direction:
"(a) Allow the present application by
relaxing and extending the last date the cut
off date for grant of recognition as
15.05.2018 and for grant of affiliation as
31.05.2018 for the present academic session
2018-19;
2. A counter has been filed on behalf of the respondent No.2-
National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) wherein it has
been, inter alia, stated as follows:
"8.1 It is important to point out that the High
Court of Punjab & Haryana vide order dated
21.11.2008 passed in the case of Association of
Education Colleges (Self Financing) of Haryana
v. State of Haryana, CWP 17284 of 2008 noted
that the total number of seats available in these
institutions was so large that even when the last
candidate who appeared in entrance test for
admission is admitted to the course, and then
thousands of seats remained unfilled.
xxx xxx xxx
8.5 Further vide letter bearing MEMO number
17/10 DIET (TF) dated 28.02.2016, the Director
of Elementary Education, State of Haryana
communicated a decision of the State
Government not to recommend any new private
self financing and self financing minority D.Ed.
institutions for the academic sessions 2016-17
and 2017-18. It was highlighted in the letter
that there were 25 government, 325 self-
financing and 14 private self financing minority
D.El.Ed, institutes on the said date with a total
intake capacity of 20,600 candidates, against a
mere requisition of 9870 primary teachers.
Hence the NCTE was requested not to entertain
any fresh applications from the State of Haryana
pursuant to the aforesaid decision.
8.6 Furthermore the vide letter bearing MEMO
No.KW12/16-2003 C-II(3) dated 12.04.2016,
the Deputy Secretary Higher Education, State
of Haryana, also requested the NCTE not to
entertain any applications of societies/trusts
seeking recognition for 4 years integrated
course B.A., B.Ed/B.Sc. and B.Ed. and opening
of new B.Ed. Colleges for the academic session
2016-17 and 2017-18. The said request was
made pursuant to order dated 19.02.2016 passed
by the High Court in CWP No.25532 of 2015
titled as Ganga Institute of Education v. MDU,
Rohtak, in which the High Court took
cognizance of the fact that the total intake
capacity of the existing TEIs in the State of
Haryana was 60,672 out of which 27,951 seats
were lying vacant, and opined that no further
colleges should be allowed to be opened as it
will result in compromising the quality of
education.
xxx xxx xxx
9. In addition to the aforesaid
communications received from the State of
Haryana, it is most important to point out to
this Hon'ble Court that NCTE also decided
not to invite/accept any applications for
recognition of new TEIs from certain states
including Haryana from academic year 2010-
11 till the next academic year 2019-20, and it
has been issuing public notices from time to
time to communicate the said decision. The
said action has been taken in order regulate
growth of teachers education at all levels on
the basis of recommendation received from
State Government and U.T's."
3. In view of the aforesaid and the categorical stand taken by
the NCTE as reflected in the aforesaid paragraphs of the
counter we decline to grant any relief as prayed for to the
applicant.
4. Consequently and in the light of the above Miscellaneous
Application is disposed of."
emphasis supplied
5. A plain reading of the above extracted order leaves no manner of
doubt that, in view of the categorical stand taken by the NCTE, inter
alia, to the effect that, the decision not to invite/accept any application
for recognition of new TEIs in certain states including Haryana from
the academic year 2010-11 was taken, in order to regulate growth of
teachers education at all levels, on the basis of the recommendations
received from, inter alia, the Government of the State of Haryana; the
Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the considered view that the same
need not to be interfered with and no relief for grant of recognition as
prayed for, in that case, could be granted.
6. In view of the foregoing, the submission made on behalf of the
petitioner institution that, in similar circumstances, this Court had
directed the NCTE to reconsider the application for recognition,
without relying on the ban imposed by the State of Haryana in
Harnam Singh (supra) is untenable and does not come to their aid. In
this behalf, it is observed that, when the said directions were issued on
25.07.2017, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maa
Vaishno Devi (supra) had not been brought to the notice of this Court.
7. It is further observed that, the directions issued in Harnam Singh
(supra) were predicated on the orders passed by a coordinate Bench of
this Court in W.P.(C) 5454/2018, titled as 'Rao Deena Ram Vidya
Vihar Shiksha Samiti Haluhera and Anr. vs. National Council for
Teacher Education and Anr.', which were also passed without the
benefit of considering the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Maa Vaishno Devi (supra).
8. In view of the foregoing, the relief prayed for in the present petition is
declined and the petition is dismissed as being devoid of merits and
disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
(JUDGE)
OCTOBER 05, 2018
as
