Association Of Pvt. Un Aided ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 5120 MP

                                     -: 1 :-
                                                                  W.P. No.19028 of 2021



 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, AT JABALPUR
                   WRIT PETITION No. 19028 of 2021
  ASSOCIATION OF PVT. UN AIDED TEACHER TRAINING MINORITY EDUCATION INSTITUTION
              SOCIETY Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)


Dated: 08.04.2022

      Shri Manoj Kumar Sharma, Senior counsel with Shri Deepak
Raghuvanshi, Advocate and Shri Abhiraj Singh, Advocate for the
petitioner.

      Ms. Janhavi Pandit, Deputy A.G. for the respondent-State.

Heard on I.A. No. 1649/2022 seeking interim relief.

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is an association of unaided Minority Teacher Training Institutes. The members of petitioner's association have engaged sizable number of faculty members and staff to cater the need of the students to be admitted. The infrastructure facilities were also created in order to serve the said purpose. Indisputably, in the last year, initially three round of counseling had taken place but same could not fetch good result and sizable number of seats in these institutions were lying vacant. The government then provided another round (fourth round) of counseling. Despite fourth round, out of 48540 number of total seats, 20241 seats could not be filled up. The petitioner institution preferred a representation for permitting the institutions for another round of counseling by contending that in other States the said facility was provided and because of pandemic related problems, if this facility is not provided, the petitioner institutions will not remain viable.

W.P. No.19028 of 2021

Learned senior counsel further contends that last/fourth round of counseling and admission process continued till 30.11.2021. The petitioner institutions were permitted to undertake college level counselling.

In furtherance of this Court's order, the department has passed the order dated 29.03.2022 filed with I.A. No. 4154/2022. Learned senior counsel by reading the entire order urged that principal objection of respondents in not permitting another round of counseling is based on the NCTE criteria because of which it is mandatory to have 200 working days education.

By placing reliance on a chart filed on 4.4.2022, it is submitted that if actual working days are counted from December 2021 to May 2022, it comes to 132 days only. The examinations are scheduled in June first week of this year. Thus, in previous year also the aforesaid requirement of 200 days teaching could not take place. Thus, this can not a ground to deny the interim relief to the petitioner.

Apart from this in the previous year extension was given to the institutions from 1.3.2021 to 5.3.2021. The document at page- 67 with the interlocutory application is referred.

Lastly, Learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on the recent order of Supreme Court passed in Index Medical College, Hospital and Research Centre Vs. State of M.P. decided on 3rd of February 2021. It is urged roadblock created by Rule 12 (8) (a) of the M.P. Chhikitsha Shiksha Pravesh Niyam of the Rules 2018 impugned therein were held to be unconstitutional for the reasons mentioned in para-25 of the judgment. For the same reason, the objection of respondents in not permitting the

W.P. No.19028 of 2021

petitioners to have another round of counselling deserves to be disallowed and interim prayer may be accepted.

Ms. Janhavi Pandit, learned Deputy Advocate General opposes the same by contending that in the main writ petition the impugned order dated 23.8.2021 (Annexure P-3) is called in question. The said order clearly shows that no benefit of further round of counselling would be given. This order has not been set aside till date. The Rule which mandates 200 days actual teaching is also not subject matter of challenge. Withstanding the same, online/offline counselling any further is impermissible. The main examination is scheduled in June 2022 and supplementary in September 2022. Counting it from today, in both the situations, the institution cannot impart 200 days teaching till next examination. The petitioner is praying interim relief which, infact amounts to giving final relief.

Learned Deputy Advocate General also placed reliance on para-5 of the reply, which reads as under :-

"5. That it is further submitted that candidates, within and outside the State were granted 4 opportunities, which were ample, from August 2021 to November 2021 to register themselves for online admission. There were total 48290 seats for the D.Ei.Ed. course in the State, including Government and private colleges. The following chart would demonstrate the number of students who took admission :-

Total No. of seats No. of students who No. of eligible Admitted students registered online students who were for admission allotted seats for admission 48290 40065 32093 28299

W.P. No.19028 of 2021

The parties confined their arguments to the extent indicated above in relation to aforesaid IA.

Taking the last argument o learned Senior Counsel as the first, we are only inclined to observe that in the matter before the Supreme Court the constitutionality of the Rule which became a hurdle for the institution was subject matter of challenge. In the instant case the regulation which mandates that 200 days teaching is must is not subject matter of challenge. Apart from this 3+1=4 opportunities were given to the institutions for the purpose of counselling/admission. Thus, prima facie, the said judgment cannot be pressed into service in the peculiar factual backdrop of this matter.

The Government is best suited to take a decision regarding admission policy, its extension and implementation. The decision of Government can be interfered with on limited grounds. Another view is possible or a better course is available etc., cannot a ground for passing the interim order. It is profitable to consider the legal journey on this aspect.

In the matter of State of M.P. Vs. Nandlal Jaiswal (1986) 4 SCC 566, the Apex Court has held as under:-

"34........The Government, as was said in Permian Basin Area Rate cases [20 L Ed (2d) 312] is entitled to make pragmatic adjustments which may be called for by particular circumstances. The Court cannot strike down a policy decision taken by the State Government merely because it feels that another policy decision would have been fairer or wiser or more scientific or logical. The Court can interfere only if the policy decision is patently arbitrary, discriminatory or mala fide. It is against the background of these observations and keeping them in mind that we must

W.P. No.19028 of 2021

now proceed to deal with the contention of the petitioners based on Article 14 of the Constitution."

(Emphasis supplied)

The Apex Court in the matter of State of Punjab Vs. Ram Lubhaya Bagga (1998) 4 SCC 117 has held as under:-

"25...........So far as questioning the validity of governmental policy is concerned in our view it is not normally within the domain of any court, to weigh the pros and cons of the policy or to scrutinize it and test the degree of its beneficial or equitable disposition for the purpose of varying, modifying or annulling it, based on howsoever sound and good reasoning, except where it is arbitrary or violative of any constitutional, statutory or any other provision of law. When Government forms its policy, it is based on a number of circumstances on facts, law including constraints based on its resources. It is also based on expert opinion. It would be dangerous if court is asked to test the utility, beneficial effect of the policy or its appraisal based on facts set out on affidavits. The court would dissuade itself from entering into this realm which belongs to the executive. It is within this matrix that it is to be seen whether the new policy violates Article 21 when it restricts reimbursement on account of its financial constraints."

(Emphasis supplied) Reference may be made of State of U.P. Vs. Chaudhari Ran Beer Singh (2008) 5 SCC 550, the Supreme Court held thus:-

"13.....As rightly contended by learned counsel for the State, in matters of policy decisions, the scope of interference is extremely limited. The policy decision must be left to the Government as it alone can decide which policy should be adopted after considering all relevant aspects from different angles. In matter of policy decisions or exercise of discretion by the Government so long as the infringement of

W.P. No.19028 of 2021

fundamental right is not shown, courts will have no occasion to interfere and the court will not and should not substitute its own judgment for the judgment of the executive in such matters. In assessing the propriety of a decision of the Government the court cannot interfere even if a second view is possible from that of the Government."

(Emphasis supplied)

The institution admittedly got four opportunities for counselling/admission. By order dated 29.3.2022, the Government took a decision not to extend the said facility. This process cannot be kept open indefinitely.

In our view, no interim direction can be issued for conducting another round of counseling despite the admitted fact that now the period left is too short for the new students to attend the classes. We are unable to pass any interim order to extend the dates of examination etc. in order to facilitate another round of counseling.

I.A. No. 1649/2022 stands rejected.

                                     (SUJOY PAUL)                               (DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
                                        JUDGE                                             JUDGE

        Pallavi
Digitally signed by KUMARI PALLAVI
SINHA
Date: 2022.04.08 18:51:01 +05'30'