Morvi Sarvajanik Kelavni Mandal Sanchalit MSKM B.Ed. College vs National Council For Teacher Educ.& Ors

Education & Ors. ...Respondents

With

CIVIL APPEAL NO.11216 OF 2011

(Arising out of SLP (C) No.28528 of 2011)

Shri Yogananda Education and

Charitable Trust ...Appellant

Versus

National Council for Teachers'

Education & Ors. ...Respondents

1

J U D G M E N T

T.S. THAKUR, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals arise out of an order dated 7th October,

2011 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad,

whereby Special Civil Application No.9485 of 2011 has been

dismissed and order dated 20th July, 2011 as modified by

order dated 24th August, 2011 issued by the Western

Regional Committee under Section 17 of the National

Council of Teachers' Education (for short `NCTE') Act, 1993

withdrawing the recognition of the B.Ed. College established

by the appellant upheld.

3. The appellant-Trust has established a college under

the name and style Shri Morvi Sarvajanik Kelavni Mandal

Sanchalit MSKM B.Ed. College, Rajkot. The college had the

benefit of recognition granted in its favour in terms of an

order dated 29th May, 2007 under Section 14 (3)(a) of the

NCTE Act for offering a B.Ed. with an annual intake of 100

2

students. Shortly after the grant of the said recognition, the

NCTE issued a notice dated 27th July, 2008 to the appellant

to show cause why the recognition should not be withdrawn

in terms of Section 17 of the Act in view of the deficiencies

pointed out in the notice like inadequacy of built-up area

available to the institution, the land underlying the

structure not being in the name of the appellant-Trust and

the college being run in a building that is used by two other

institutions.

4. The recognition was finally withdrawn by the NCTE on

29th November, 2008 primarily because the appellant had

failed to respond to the show cause notice within the period

stipulated for the purpose. The withdrawal order was,

however, successfully challenged before the High Court by

the appellant with the High Court issuing certain directions

including a direction to the appellant-college to remove the

defects pointed out by the NCTE and to offer the institution

for a fresh inspection by the NCTE. The High Court also

directed that while admissions for the current year shall not

be affected by the withdrawal of recognition, in the event of

3

non-compliance with the requirements of the Regulations,

the institution shall not be permitted to admit any student

for the next year. The NCTE was given liberty to have a

fresh inspection conducted and pass appropriate orders in

accordance with law after issuing a notice to the institution.

5. In compliance with the directions of the High Court,

the appellant by its letter dated 20th December, 2010

intimated to the NCTE that the deficiencies in question had

been removed and invited the NCTE to depute a team for a

fresh inspection of the college. An inspection was

accordingly conducted that culminated in the issue of a

fresh notice to the appellant again pointing out several

deficiencies in the institution including inadequacy of space,

staff and the fact that the college had no land in its own

name and that the institution was being run in a building

which was being used by two other colleges. The appellant

appears to have sent a reply to the said show-cause notice

but before a final decision could be taken on the same, the

appellant filed Special Civil Appeal No.6507 of 2011 before

the High Court for a mandamus to the University to allot

students to the appellant-college. By an order dated 14th

4

June, 2011, the High Court directed the University to allot

the students to the appellant-college for the academic

session 2011-2012. In the meantime, the Western

Regional Committee issued an order on 20th July, 2011

withdrawing the recognition granted to the appellant-

college in exercise of its powers under Section 17 of NCTE

Act. The order contained as many as nine different grounds

for the said withdrawal. Aggrieved, the appellant filed

Special Civil Application No.9485 of 2011 before the High

Court, inter alia, contending that the withdrawal of

recognition was on grounds that went beyond the show-

cause notice issued to the institution. It was also contended

that pursuant to the directions of the High Court the

University had allotted 60 students to the college who were

on its rolls and whose future was likely to be adversely

affected by the withdrawal order.

6. While the writ petition filed by the appellant was still

pending, Western Regional Committee issued a modified

withdrawal order dated 24th August, 2011 relying upon the

visiting team report which found the following deficiencies:

5

(i) The Institution neither had land on the date of

submission of application as per Clause 7(D) of the

NCTE regulations 2002, nor does it have the land even

today.

(ii) The Institution is running in a flat of Multi Storied

Residential Building.

(iii) Registered lease deed of the flat was executed on

18.03.2011, that is beyond the time limit of

31.12.2010 as prescribed by the Hon'ble High Court.

(iv) One of the lecturers was not qualified as on the date of

appointment.

7. The High Court was not happy with the above order as

is evident from an interim order dated 30th August, 2011

whereby the Regional Director, Western Regional

Committee, National Council for Teacher Education, Bhopal,

was directed to send a new team to inspect the institution

and submit a fresh report regarding the defects and

deficiencies in the infrastructure provided by the college. An

inspection committee was accordingly deputed by the NCTE

who filed a report before the High Court in a sealed cover.

The report, inter alia, stated:

"The team had done the inspection of infrastructure,

institutional facilities etc. The C.D. is enclosed. The

videography had been in a continuous manner. The

four corners of land and four corners of the buildings

are prominently picturised. The photography of land,

6

building, instructional facilities, staff is also done. (C.D.

and album enclosed).

The Hon'ble High Court has directed to do the

inspection with regards to the defects shown in the

withdrawal order.

The inspection is done accordingly following the orders

of the Hon'ble High Court.

The observations of the visiting team regarding the

defects/deficiencies are noted below:

(i) It is true that the institution does not

have the registered land document and is

occupying the land belonging to Shri Uma

Education Trust.

(ii) It is true that the institution has submitted the

building plan of Shri Uma Education Trust. This

building plan was approved by Sarpanch, Vajdi

(Virda). The approval of Rajkot Urban

Development Authority is still not obtained by

the Uma Education Trust.

(iii) It is true that the land use certificate

submitted by the Institution is about the land

of Uma Education Trust.

(iv) It is true that the Institution does not have its

own land and building. The institution is

running on the premises of the Uma Education

Trust.

(v) The teaching staff profile is approved by In-

charge Vibhagiya Officer, Saurashtra

University on 18.02.2009 on 11.05.2011 and

13.05.2011. Four lecturers have no M.Ed.

qualifications. One common observed that all

lists were approved by in-charge, Vibhagiya

Officer of the Unversity.

(vi) Uma B.Ed. college and Jalaram B.Ed. College

are being run on the same premises.

7

(vii) It is true that the institution has submitted the

building plan of Shri Uma Education Trust.

This building plan was approved by the

Sarpanch, Vajdi (Virda). The approval of

Rajkot Urban Development Authority is still

not obtained by the Uma Education Trust.

(viii) Morvi Sarvajanik Kelevani Mandal and Jalaram

Education Trust are unilaterally merged with

Uma Education Trust without due

authorisation of the competent authority and

also without the approval of the WRC. The

matter is still under correspondence.

(ix) The institution/Morvi Sarvajanik Kelavani

Mandal did not possess adequate land or govt.

land acquired on long terms lease basis or on

ownership."

8. The High Court upon a consideration of the relevant

records including the inspection report placed before it,

dismissed the writ petition relying upon the decisions of this

Court in Chairman, Bhartia Education Society and Anr.

v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. (2011) 4 SCC

527, N.M. Nageshwaramma v. State of Andhra

Pradesh and Anr. (1986) Supp. SCC 166, Students of

Dattatraya Adhyapak Vidyalya v. State of

Maharashtra and Ors. SLP (C) No.2067 of 1991,

decided on 19.2.1991, Andhra Kesari Educational

Society v. Director of School Education (1989) 1 SCC

392 and a few others. The High Court held that the

8

appellant was not entitled to any relief in the writ

proceedings filed on its behalf and accordingly dismissed

the writ petition. Hence the present appeals, assail the said

judgment and order.

9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

10. Mushroom growth of ill-equipped, under-staffed and

un-recognised educational institutions was noticed by this

Court in State of Maharashtra v. Vikas Sahebrao

Roundale and Ors. (1992) 4 SCC 435. This Court

observed that the field of education had become a fertile,

perennial and profitable business with the least capital

outlay in some States and that societies and individuals

were establishing such institutions without complying with

the statutory requirements. The unfortunate part is that

despite repeated pronouncements of this Court over the

past two decades deprecating the setting up of such

institutions. The mushrooming of the colleges continues all

9

over the country at times in complicity with the statutory

authorities, who fail to check this process by effectively

enforcing the provisions of the NCTE Act and the

Regulations framed thereunder.

11. The present is one such case where the institution

established by the appellant has been inspected more than

once and several deficiencies that seriously affect its

capacity to impart quality education and training to future

teachers specifically pointed out. Inadequacy of space and

staff, apart from other requirements stipulated under the

provisions of the Act and the Regulations, is something

which disqualifies any institution from seeking recognition.

Such deficiencies have not been disputed before us nor can

the same be disputed in the light of the reports submitted

by the inspecting teams from time to time, including the

report submitted on the basis of the latest inspection that

was conducted pursuant to the directions issued by the

High Court. It is difficult to appreciate how the institution

could have reported compliance with the requirements of

the regulations and complete removal of the deficiencies

10

after the order passed by the High Court when the

institution had neither the land standing in its name nor the

building constructed in which it could conduct the training

programme. The fact that the institution was being run in a

building which was shared by two other colleges was itself

sufficient to justify withdrawal of the recognition granted in

its favour. It was also noted by the inspecting team that

four lecturers employed by the appellant did not have the

requisite M.Ed. qualification. Suffice it to say that the

institution was lacking in essential infrastructural facilities

which clearly justified withdrawal of the recognition earlier

granted to it.

12. Confronted with the above position, learned counsel

for the appellant argued that the students admitted to the

college for the academic session 2011-2012 could be

allowed to appear in the examination to avoid prejudice to

them and to save their careers. A similar contention urged

before the High Court has been rejected by it relying upon

the decisions of this Court in which decisions this Court has

not favoured grant of such relief to students admitted to

unrecognised institution on consideration of misplaced

11

sympathy. The High Court has also noted that the students

had been transferred to other recognised colleges and that

in any case students admitted for the academic session

2011-2012 could not be allowed to continue in an

institution which did not have the requisite infrastructure

prescribed under the NCTE Regulations and norms. It was

argued on behalf of the appellants that the High Court was

not right in observing that students had been transferred to

other institutions. At any rate the order withdrawing

recognition could not, according to the learned counsel,

affect students admitted to the institution for the academic

session 2011-2012 as the withdrawal order could only be

prospective in nature and having been passed in August,

2011 was relevant only for the academic session 2012-

2013. We do not think so, firstly, because the recognition

of the institution stood withdrawn on 20th July, 2011 which

meant that while it had no effect qua admissions for the

academic session 2010-2011 it was certainly operative qua

admissions made for the academic session 2011-12 which

commenced from 1st August, 2011 onwards. The fact that

there was a modification of the said order of withdrawal on

12

24th August, 2011 did not obliterate the earlier order dated

20th July, 2011. The modifying order would in our opinion

relate back and be effective from 20th July, 2011 when the

recognition was first withdrawn. Such being the position

admissions made for the academic session 2011-2012 were

not protected under the statute.

13. Secondly, because this Court has in a long line of

decisions rendered from time to time disapproved of

students being allowed to continue in unrecognised

institutions only on sympathetic considerations. In N.M.

Nageshwaramma (supra) this Court while dealing with

the prayer for grant of permission to the students admitted

to unrecognised institution observed:

"3. xxxxxx

We are unable to accede to these requests. These

institutions were established and the students were

admitted into these institutes despite a series of press

notes issued by the Government. If by a fiat of the court

we direct the Government to permit them to appear at the

examination we will practically be encouraging and

condoning the establishment of unauthorised institutions.

It is not appropriate that the jurisdiction of the court either

under Article 32 of the Constitution or Article 226 should

be frittered away for such a purpose. The Teachers

Training Institutes are meant to teach children of

impressionable age and we cannot let loose on the

innocent and unwary children, teachers who have not

13

received proper and adequate training. True they will be

required to pass the examination but that may not be

enough. Training for a certain minimum period in a

properly organised and equipped Training Institute is

probably essential before a teacher may be duly launched.

We have no hesitation in dismissing the writ petitions with

costs."

(emphasis supplied)

14. To the same effect is the decision of this Court in

Managing Committee of Bhagwan Budh Primary

Teachers Training College and another v. State of

Bihar & Ors. (1990) Supp. SCC 722, where this Court

observed:

"2. It is not possible to grant any such permission as

prayed for because the granting of such permission would

be clearly violating the provisions of the Education Act

(see the judgments in S.L.P. No. 12014 of 1987 decided

on November 25, 1987 and the A.P. Christians Medical

Educational Society v. Government of A.P.)....".

15. In State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. v. St. Joseph

Teachers Training Institute and Anr. (1991) 3 SCC

87, this Court once again found fault with the grant of relief

to students admitted to unrecognised institutions on

humanitarian grounds. This Court said:

"6. The practice of admitting students by unauthorised

educational institutions and then seeking permission for

permitting the students to appear at the examination has

been looked with disfavour by this Court. ............ In A.P.

14

Christians Medical Educational Society v. Government of

A.P (1986) 2 SCC 667, a similar request made on behalf of

the institution and the students for permitting them to

appear at the examination even though affiliation had not

been granted, was rejected by this Court. The court

observed that any direction of the nature sought for

permitting the students to appear at the examination

without the institution being affiliated or recognised would

be in clear transgression of the provision of the Act and

the regulations. The court cannot be a party to direct the

students to disobey the statute as that would be

destructive of the rule of law. The Full Bench noted these

decisions and observations and yet it granted relief to the

students on humanitarian grounds. Courts cannot grant

relief to a party on humanitarian grounds contrary to law.

Since the students of unrecognised institutions were legally

not entitled to appear at the examination held by the

Education Department of the government, the High Court

acted in violation of law in granting permission to such

students for appearing at the public examination. The

directions issued by the Full Bench are destructive of the

rule of law. Since the Division Bench issued the impugned

orders following the judgment of the Full Bench, the

impugned orders are not sustainable in law."

(emphasis supplied)

16. Reference may also be made to State of

Maharashtra v. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale and Ors.

(supra) and Chairman, Bhartia Education Society v.

Himachal Pradesh & Ors. (supra). In the latter case

this Court observed :

"15. The practice of admitting students by unrecognised

institutions and then seeking permission for the students to

appear for the examinations has been repeatedly

disapproved by this Court (see N.M. Nageshwaramma v.

State of A.P, A.P. Christian Medical Educational Society v.

Govt. of A.P. and State of Maharashtra v. Vikas Sahebrao

Roundale4). We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with

the decision of the High Court rejecting the prayer of the

students admitted in 1999 to regularise their admissions by

15

directing the Board to permit them to appear for the JBT

examination conducted by it. The two appeals (CAs Nos.

1228 and 1229 of 2011) filed by the Society/Institute and

the students in regard to the 1999 admissions are therefore

liable to be dismissed."

17. There is no distinguishing feature between the cases

mentioned above and the case at hand for us to strike a

discordant note. The institution established by the appellant

is not equipped with the infrastructure required under the

NCTE Act and the Regulations. It is not in a position to

impart quality education, no matter admissions for the

session 2011-2012 were made pursuant to the interim

directions issued by the High Court. We have, therefore,

no hesitation in rejecting the prayer for permitting the

students to continue in the unrecognised institution of the

appellant or directing that they may be permitted to appear

in the examination. We, however, make it clear that this

order will not prevent the respondent-University from

examining the feasibility of reallocating the students who

were admitted through the University process of selection

and counselling to other recognised colleges to prevent any

prejudice to such students. Such re-allocation for the next

session may not remedy the situation fully qua the students

16

who may have to start the course afresh but it would

ensure that if such admissions/reallocation is indeed

feasible, the students may complete their studies in a

recognised college instead of wasting their time in a college

which does not enjoy recognition by the NCTE. We,

however, leave this aspect entirely for the consideration of

the University at the appropriate level, having regard to its

Rules and Regulations and subject to availability of seats

for such adjustment to be made as also the terms and

conditions on which the same could be made. This order

shall also not prevent the affected students from seeking

such reliefs against the appellant college as may be legally

permissible including relief by way of refund of the fee

recovered from them.

18. With the above observations, these appeals fail and

are hereby dismissed with costs assessed at Rs.20,000/-.

.....................................J. (Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)

17

.....................................J.

(T.S. THAKUR)

New Delhi

December 16, 2011

18