Delhi High Court
Smt Maniba Mahila Bed College & ... vs National Council For Teacher ... on 3 June, 2021
$~66
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 03rdJune, 2021
+ W.P.(C) 5788/2021
SMT MANIBA MAHILA BED
COLLEGE & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Advocate
with Ms. Priti Kumari and Ms.
Binisa Mohanty, Advocates.
versus
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER
EDUCATION & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Keshav Pratap Singh,
Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
JUDGMENT
PRATEEK JALAN, J. (Oral)
The proceedings in the matter have been conducted through
video conferencing.
CM APPL. 18145/2021 & CM APPL. 18147/2021 (Exemption)
Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The applications stand disposed of.
W.P.(C) 5788/2021 with CM APPL. 18146/2021 (for direction)
1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the
petitioner assails an order dated 26.09.2019 passed by the Appellate
Committee of the National Council for Teacher Education ["NCTE"].
The petitioner also seeks a direction upon the NCTE to issue a revised
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:05.06.2021
recognition order for a second basic unit [50 seats] of its B.Ed. course.
2. The petitioner, a teacher training institute, was originally
granted recognition by the Western Regional Committee ["WRC"] of
the NCTE on 23.04.2005, for an intake of 100 seats. After the NCTE
(Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2014 ["2014
Regulations"] came into force, the petitioner and all other existing
institutions were required to submit compliance affidavits, following
which the NCTE issued revised recognition orders to them.
3. On 24.12.2014, the NCTE issued guidelines to its Regional
Committees for processing of pending applications and for existing
institutions, alongwith an Explanatory Note. This document has been
relied upon in the writ petition, and a copy has been annexed thereto
as Annexure P-6. The following provisions of the Explanatory Note
are relevant, insofar as the B.Ed. programme of existing institutions is
concerned:
"1. The NCTE Regulations, 2014 contemplate
enhanced duration of B.Ed., M.Ed. and B.P.Ed.
programmes from one to two years. The existing
institutions offering these programmes will be given
revised Recognition Order if they choose to come under
New Regulations. No fresh application is necessary and
they will be issued revised order of recognition w.e.f
2015-2016 provided they furnish the affidavit in the
prescribed format. A copy of the revised order shall be
endorsed to the affiliating university for their information
and record.
The existing teacher education institutions,
wherever necessary as per the revised Norms and
Standards, shall provide additional built up area, create
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:05.06.2021
additional infrastructure, appoint additional staff and
furnish additional Reserve Fund per unit per programme
by October 31, 2015. However, if the institution is not
willing to fulfil the norms prescribed in the New
Regulations as mentioned above, its Recognition will
automatically become invalid as the old Regulations have
already been superceded.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
3. In the new Regulations, the size of one basic unit
for B.Ed. has been reduced to 50 from 100. The
institutions are eligible to have two basic units of 50 each
initially. In order to have two basic units of 50 each, they
need to construct additional built up area, appoint
additional staff, furnish additional Endowment and
Reserve Fund.
The institution shall opt for one or two basic units
in the undertaking enclosed with the covering letter.
Based on the undertaking. revised recognition order will
be issued accordingly. In case the institution opts for two
basic units of 50 each, they will be permitted to admit
students for two basic units from 2015-2016 onwards, but
they shall construct additional built up area. create
additional infrastructure and pay additional Endowment
and Reserve Fund by October 31, 2015. If they fail to
adhere to this condition, the recognition for additional
unit will be withdrawn from 2016-17 onwards.
In case the institution does not opt for two basic
units and choose to have only one basic unit, they shall
admit only 50 students from the academic year 2015-16
onwards."
(Emphasis supplied.)
4. Pursuant to the aforesaid requirements, the petitioners addressed
a communication dated 12.01.2015 to the WRC enclosing therewith
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:05.06.2021
an affidavit of the same date. The said communication reads as
follows:-
" xxxx xxxx xxxx
Subject: For optimization of one basic unit of 50 students
for B.Ed. Programme
Code No: 323133
Respected Sir,
With due respect above cited subject, we Maniba
Mahila B.Ed. College (B.Ed.) run by Shree Monark
Education Trust, At & Po-Vahelal Ta-Dascroi, Di-
Ahmedabad-382330, Gujarat running B.Ed. Programme
since 2005 with the intake of 100.
Here with we would like to inform you that from
academic year 2015-16 onward we are selecting one
basic unit for 50 students in upcoming academic year.
We also attached original affidavit on Rs.100/- Franking
in the prescribed format. So please consider our request
favourably and take the appropriate steps to expedite the
matter."
(Emphasis from the original.)
5. The affidavit accompanying the said covering letter was in
terms of the proforma attached to the guidelines. It reads as follows:-
"I Hasmukhbharathi Goswami Son of Mohanbharathi
Goswami resident of Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India and
Managing Trustee of Maniba Mahila B.Ed. College, At
& Po-Vahelal, Ta-Dascroi Di-Ahmedabad- 382330,
Gujarat, India certify that I have been authorized by the
Management of the above mentioned institution to give
this Affidavit on behalf of the institution, which at present
offers B.Ed. course of One Year duration (File Code No.
APW00501/323133) with an annual intake of 100. It is
further certified that the Management has studied the
National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition
Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2014 carefully and
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:05.06.2021
has understood their implications for the existing Teacher
Education Institutions offering NCTE recognized Teacher
education Programme(s). (two basic units of 50 students
each)
2. Further, I have been authorized by the
Management to state that the institution shall fulfill the
revised Norms relating to infrastructure, instructional
facilities, enhanced amount of Endowment and Reserve
Funds, Number and qualifications 'of Teaching Staff,
Curriculum and implementation Strategies, in view of the
change in duration/ intake of the programme(s) offered in
the institution within the time limit allowed by NCTE."
(Emphasis supplied.)
6. By a further communication dated 18.03.2015, the petitioner
stated as follows:-
"Subject: Intimation regarding option for one basic unit
of 50 students (50+50) for B.Ed. Course under the
jurisdiction of WRC, NCTE, Bhopal
Ref.: NCTE Code No. 323133
Respected Sir,
In pursuance of the notice currently hosted on your
website, we would like to inform your good self that we
have already informed you about our option for one basic
unit of 50 students each (i.e. 50+50) for our B.Ed. course
and also submitted and affidavit dated 12th January,
2015, duly executed, on a stamp paper Rs.100/- as per
prescribed format, to this effect, vide our letter No.2014-
15/16 dated 12th January, 2015 (copies enclosed for
ready reference)"
(Emphasis supplied.)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:05.06.2021
7. Upon receipt of the aforesaid affidavit and covering letter, the
WRC issued a revised recognition order dated 31.05.2015 to the
petitioner for one unit of 50 students. (Although the aforesaid
recognition was withdrawn by an order dated 02.01.2018, it was
subsequently restored pursuant to an order of the Appellate
Committee, and is not the subject matter of these proceedings.)
8. The grievance of the petitioners concerns the failure of the
respondents to grant recognition for the second unit. The petitioners
assailed this by way of an appeal under Section 18 of the NCTE Act,
1993 which culminated in the impugned order of the Appellate
Committee dated 26.09.2019. The relevant parts of the aforesaid order
are reproduced below:
"AND WHEREAS Sh. Hasmukh M. Goswami,
Managing Trustee and Sh. D.P. Negi, Advisor, Smt.
Maniba Mahila B.Ed. College, Vahelal, Naroda, Dascroi,
Ahmedabad, Gujarat dated presented the case of the
appellant institution on 28/06/2019. In the appeal and
during personal presentation it was submitted that in
terms of provisions contained in NCTE Regulations,
2014, our institution had submitted to WRC, NCTE,
through oversight and due to typographical error, an
option for one basic unit of 50 students instead of two
basic units (i.e. 100 students) for conducting B.Ed.
Programme of two years duration vide our letter no.
2014/15-16/24 dated 12.01.2015. We already had an
annual approved intake of 100 students for B.Ed.
programme since inception of our institution in 2005 and
as a matter of fact we wished to opt for two basic units of
50 students each for the said programme and not only
one unit. On receipt of revised recognition order no.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:05.06.2021
WRC/APW00501/323133/2015/142365 dated 31.05.2015
from WRC, NCTE granting us annual intake of 50
students (one basic unit) from the academic session 2015-
16, we realized the mistake/slippage on our part in not
opting for two basic units each of 50 students. In the
circumstances, we had submitted the representation vide
our letter no. 2015-16/01 dated 30.06.2015 addressed to
the Regional Director, WRC, NCTE praying to grant us
annual intake of two basic units of 50 students each
instead of one basic unit of 50 students and arrange to
issue a fresh revised recognition order to that effect.
Subsequent to submission of the above mentioned
representation, we have submitted various reminders to
the Regional Director, WRC, NCTE vide our letters no.
SMET/SMMBC/NCTE/2016-17/17 dated 13.01.2016,
SMME/NCTE/2017-18/78 dated 13.07.2017.
SMET/SMMBC/NCTE/2018-19/05 dated 25.07.2018,
SMET/SMMBC/WRC-NCTE/2018-19/11 dated
08.10.2018 and SMET/SMMBC/WRC-NCTE/2018-19/23
dated 11.04.2019. However, in spite of repeated
reminders and also telephonic requests, we have not so
far received any response. Hence, we are submitting this
appeal with a prayer to grant us annual intake of two
basic units each of 50 students. As stated hereinbefore,
our institution had an annual intake of 100 students (two
basic units of 50 students each) since its inception in
2005 and wished to opt for two basic units of 50 students
each even after the implementation of NCTE Regulations,
2014. We have sufficient land and created necessary
academic/physical infrastructure and facilities for
running the B.Ed. programme with annual intake of 100
students even before applying for obtaining the initial
recognition from WRC, NCTE in 2005. We have
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:05.06.2021
appointed adequate academic (teaching) faculty
members, administrative and professional non-teaching
and supporting staff in terms of the provisions of NCTE
Regulations, 2014 as amended from time to time and
fulfil, norms, standards and all requisite conditions for
the same.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
AND WHEREAS the Committee noted that the
appellant admitted that at the time of grant of revised
recognition under the NCTE Regulations, 2014, they did
not opt for two units (100 intake) by mistake. The
Committee noted that the appellant, in their affidavit dt.
12/01/2015, clearly mentioned that from the academic
year 2015-16 onwards they are selecting 'one basic unit
for 50 students'; these words in quotation having been
underlined by the appellant. The WRC took further action
as per the option of the appellant and issued the revised
recognition for one unit as far back as 31/05/2015. Even
this order underwent withdrawal subsequently and it was
only after appeal, it was restored on 11/07/2018.
AND WHEREAS in view of the above position,
the Committee concluded that there is no justification to
consider the appeal at this stage and therefore, it
deserved to be rejected. The appellant is free to apply for
additional intake as and when applications are invited by
the Council.
AND WHEREAS after perusal of the Memoranda
of Appeal, affidavit, documents on record and oral
arguments advanced, the Committee concluded that there
is no justification to consider the appeal at this stage and
therefore, it deserved to be rejected. The appellant is free
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:05.06.2021
to apply for additional intake as and when applications
are invited by the Council."
(Emphasis supplied.)
9. Having heard Mr. Amitesh Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Keshav Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the
respondents, appearing on advance notice, I am of the view that the
present case calls for no interference under Article 226 of the
Constitution.
10. The guidelines issued by the NCTE pursuant to the 2014
Regulations, clearly provided a choice to existing institutions to decide
whether they wish to come under the new Regulations, and required
them to submit an affidavit in the prescribed format, if they were so
inclined. Clause 3 of the Explanatory Note extracted above makes it
clear that an institution which had an intake of 100 seats initially, was
given the option of continuing with 100 seats [two units under the
revised Regulations] or reducing the intake to 50 seats [one unit under
the revised Regulations]. In the event the institution wished to
continue with an intake of 100 students, the 2014 Regulations required
significant upgradation of infrastructure. The clause therefore
provided the option to the institution to opt for one or two basic units
in the undertaking enclosed with the covering letter. It is clearly stated
that, in the event the institution does not opt for two basic units and
chooses to have only one basic unit, it shall admit only 50 students
from the academic year 2015-16 onwards.
11. The petitioners' letter dated 12.01.2015, under cover of which
the affidavit was sent in the prescribed format, stated expressly and
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:05.06.2021
unambiguously that the petitioner opted for one basic unit of 50
students. These words are in bold and underlined in the aforesaid
letter. The petitioner's assertion before the Appellate Committee and
before this Court that this was an inadvertent typographical error, is
unacceptable.
12. Mr. Kumar seeks to rely upon the accompanying affidavit and
the subsequent letter dated 18.03.2015, which referred to two units.
The accompanying affidavit referred to "(two basic units of 50
students each)" in parentheses at the end of the first paragraph. The
affidavit does not clearly state, in so many words, that the petitioners
have opted for two units of 50 students each for the future. At best, it
creates an ambiguity which was easily resolved by reference to the
covering letter.
13. Similarly, the subsequent communication of the petitioners
dated 18.03.2015, relied upon by Mr. Kumar, is ambiguous. While the
petitioners referred to "one basic unit of 50 students, it also adds, in
parentheses, "(50+50)". The aforesaid communication was prior to
the revised recognition order having been issued. It does not refer to
any typographical error in the original communication dated
12.01.2015, but reiterates the intimation regarding the option for one
basic unit of 50 students. Again, at the very highest, the petitioners
created an ambiguity about their option. The contention of Mr. Kumar
with regard to this letter is also belied by the categorical statement in
the appeal filed by the petitioners (quoted in the impugned order of the
Appellate Committee) that they realised the mistake only after the
revised recognition order dated 31.05.2015 from the WRC.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:05.06.2021
14. The petitioners are not entitled to benefit from confusion of
their own creation. The covering letter dated 12.01.2015 was
unambiguous and unequivocal in indicating the petitioners' option for
one basic unit of 50 students. The contention that this was by reason of
a "typographical error" is disingenuous - the words are in bold and
underlined. The option was also reiterated in the subsequent letter
dated 18.03.2015. The affidavit dated 12.01.2015 and letter dated
18.03.2015 were, at best, ambiguous. As stated above, the petitioners'
contention regarding their import is falsified by reference to the appeal
filed by them, wherein they maintain that they realised their "mistake"
only upon receipt of the revised recognition order dated 31.05.2015.
The contrary argument raised now is an afterthought, and is rejected.
15. The action of the respondents cannot, in these circumstances be
characterised as unreasonable or arbitrary, calling for the intervention
of this Court by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The reasons given by the Appellate Committee in the impugned order
dated 26.09.2019 are thus in order and do not call for interference.
16. Mr. Kumar makes a grievance that, before the Appellate
Committee, the petitioners had stated that several representations had
been submitted to the WRC which had elicited no response.
According to Mr. Kumar, the Appellate Committee ought to have
dealt with this aspect of the matter also. In my view, this submission is
also misconceived. The Appellate Committee examined the
petitioners' case on merits, and there was no occasion to give any
direction as to the representations submitted by them. The Appellate
Committee has rightly held that the petitioners can apply for an
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:05.06.2021
additional unit when such applications are invited by the NCTE.
17. Mr. Kumar relies upon an order passed by a co-ordinate bench
of this Court dated 24.12.2020 in W.P.(C) 11103/2020 [Shree
Swaminarayan B Ed College & Anr. vs. National Council for Teacher
Education & Anr.]. It appears from the order that the petitioner therein
had also sought issuance of a revised recognition order for the
remaining one basic unit of the B.Ed. course, under the 2014
Regulations. The contention of the petitioner was recorded to the
effect that the revised recognition order had been issued for one unit,
inadvertently referring to the affidavit of the institution in the said
case, although in the affidavits filed by the petitioner therein, the
petitioner had stated about its intake of 100 seats. It appears that the
revised recognition order had been issued erroneously for 50 seats
referring to the very same affidavits. It is in these circumstances that
the Court directed the respondents to issue a revised recognition order
for the remaining one unit. This order is clearly distinguishable in the
present case, in view of my finding above that the petitioners herein
had clearly opted for only one unit of 50 students. No such finding has
been returned in the order cited by Mr. Kumar.
18. In a case where the institution had exercised its option, in clear
and unequivocal terms, I am of the view that no relief can be granted
to it under Article 226 of the Constitution, even if it attempted
subsequently to muddy the waters by certain ambiguous assertions.
19. The petition is, therefore, entirely unmerited and is dismissed
with costs of Rs. 30,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner with the
Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee [UCO Bank, Delhi High
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:05.06.2021
Court, Shershah Road, New Delhi; Account No.: 15530110008386;
IFS Code: UCBA0001553], within two weeks from today. A copy of
this order be communicated by the Registry to the Secretary, Delhi
High Court Legal Services Committee.
PRATEEK JALAN, J.
JUNE 3, 2021
'j'
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SHITU
NAGPAL
Signing Date:05.06.2021
