Mahaveer Jain Vidhyalaya ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 16048 Raj

(1 of 4) [CW-9992/2021]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9992/2021 Mahaveer Jain Vidhyalaya Sansthan, Plot No. 554/1 Village Badgaon, Vallabh Nagar, District Udaipur Through Its Secretary Ashish Vaya S/o Shri Himmat Lal Vaya, Aged About 34 Years, R/o 143, Tagore Nagar, Hiran Magri, Sector 4, Udaipur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Elementary Education, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.

3. The Coordinator, Pre-D.e1. Ed. Exam-2021 And Registrar, Education Department And Examinations Rajasthan, Bikaner, Education, Education Directorate Premises, Lalgarh, Bikaner.

4. National Council For Teachers Education, Through Its Member Secretary, Wing-2, Hans Bhawan, Bahadur Shah Jafar Marg, New Delhi.

                                                                  ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. Kuldeep Mathur
For Respondent(s)          :     Mr.   Pankaj Sharma, AAG with
                                 Mr.   Deepak Kumar Chandak
                                 Mr.   Vivek Shrimali
                                 Mr.   D.D. Chitlangi



                      JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

                                       Order

23/10/2021

1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has

challenged the action of the state government in not permitting

the petitioner-institution to take part in the counseling.

2. Mr. Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that

the petitioner-institution, having requisite NOC granted by the

state on 26.04.2017, was granted recognition by the NCTE on

(2 of 4) [CW-9992/2021]

13.09.2018 of course after staff approval by the state government

but its name has not been reflected in the list of institutions taking

part in the counseling for admission in D.El.Ed. Course for

academic year 2021-22.

3. He submitted that it is because of the fact that under some

misconception, the petitioner has applied before the state

government for grant of NOC for taking part in the counseling.

Pursuant to such request, the state government has not granted

NOC and has even restrained it from taking part in the counseling

conducted for admission of the students in D.El.Ed. Course, in

view of the policy decision taken by the state government on

20.07.2021.

4. Learned counsel argued that the state does not have any

power to restrain the petitioner-institution from admitting the

students; the state is rather obliged to allow intake of the

students, particularly when all the requisite formalities including

staff approval by the state and recognition by the NCTE has been

granted.

5. He argued that the state's action of denying admission of the

students in petitioner-institution on the basis of policy decision

dated 20.07.2021 is arbitrary. While maintaining that the policy

decision dated 20.07.2021 is beyond the powers of the state

government available under the NCTE Act and National Council for

Teacher Education (Recognition, Norms and Procedure)

Regulations, 2014 (for short, 'the Regulations of 2014') and

arbitrary, learned counsel argued that the same is contrary to a

number of judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, in which it

has been specifically laid down that the state government does not

have any power to conduct inspection and/or deny grant of staff

(3 of 4) [CW-9992/2021]

approval because the field is already occupied by an enactment

framed by the Central Government, i.e. NCTE Act, 1993 and

regulation framed thereunder.

6. Learned counsel relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble the

Supreme Court rendered in the cases of State of Maharastra Vs.

Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyala & Ors. [(2006)

9 SCC 1] and State of Rajasthan Vs. LBS B.Ed. College & Ors.

[(2016) 16 SCC 110] and various other judgments in order to

substantiate his agreement that it has been consistent view of

Hon'ble the Supreme Court that the power to legislate and power

to grant recognition solely vests in the Central Government/NCTE

and the state has only to perform the role assigned under the

Regulations of 2014.

7. Mr. Pankaj Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General,

submitted that state's NOC is mandatory, as has been provided

under Regulation No.5(3) of the Regulations of 2014 and since

there are already sufficient number of institutions, state can very

well restrict number of institutions taking part in the counseling, in

light of the policy decision dated 20.07.2021.

8. Indisputably the petitoiner is a recognised institution which

was having due NOC and staff approval duly granted by the state

government. Such being the position, the state cannot put an

embargo upon petitioners' right of running teacher education

programme. The denial of admission to the students on the basis

of policy decision dated 20.07.2021 is clearly arbitrary. The policy

decision dated 20.07.2021, even if presumed to be valid cannot be

applied to the petitioner institution which has been granted

recognition on 13.09.2018, much before the policy decision came

into being.

(4 of 4) [CW-9992/2021]

9. In the opinion of this Court, the petitioner institution, which

is having recognition by NCTE, staff approval from the state,

cannot be denied admission of the students merely because of the

fortuitous circumstance that under some misconception, the

petitioner decided to apply for grant of NOC.

10. Petitioner's case stands at a much better footing than the

bunch of cases decided by this Court today, being S.B. Civil Writ

Petition No.2359/2021 (Surender Kaur Memorial College of Higher

Education Vs. State & Ors.).

11. In view of what has been noticed above and following the

reasoning given in the judgment of even date in a batch of writ

petitions led by S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2359/2021 (Surender

Kaur Memorial College of Higher Education Vs. State & Ors.), the

present writ petition is allowed.

12. The respondent state/Director, Education is directed to

permit the petitioner institution to take part in the counseling to

be conducted for the admission of the students in D.El. Ed. Course

for academic year 2021-22 and onwards.

13. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J

32-skm/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)