Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 263 (HP)

KRISHMA EDUCATIONAL CENTRE v. STATE OF H. P.

2004-10-07

A.K.GOEL, V.K.GUPTA

body2004
JUDGMENT V. K. Gupta, C J. (Oral): - The petitioner No. 1 Krishma Educational Centre is an Educational Institution which was granted recognition by the National Council for Teacher Education, Northern Regional Committee, Jaipur on 7th July, 2003 for conducting B. Ed. Course of one year duration w. e. f. the Academic Session 2003-2004. Pursuant to the grant of the aforesaid recognition by NCTE, Northern Regional Committee, Jaipur, Himachal Pradesh University vide its communication dated September 18, 2003 granted provisional affiliation to this Institution to run the aforesaid B. Ed. Course with an intake capacity of 100 students for the Academic Sessions 2003-2004. 2. It appears that NCTE, a statutory body under the aegis of Government of India and entrusted with the task of overseeing the imparting of education of B. Ed, and Elementary Teacher Education Programmes etc. in the Country formulated a policy that such institutions which already are imparting education in B. Ed. Courses and which are willing to start new Elementary Teachers Education Course would not require a No Objection Certificate from the State Government. In the State of H.P., Elementary Teacher Education Course is known by the name of J.B.T. and it is a common knowledge that before an Institution starts such a course, an NOC is required for this purpose from the State Government. NCTE, therefore, perhaps with a view to expanding the elementary teacher programmes in the country and to provide effective and adequate opportunities to all concerned formulated the aforesaid policy, whereby it dispensed with the requirement of such Institutions which were already running B. Ed. Courses of obtaining No Objection Certificate from the State Government for starting a new Course in J.B.T. Actually, the NCTE went as far as to issue a Public Notice with respect to the aforesaid fact of No Objection Certificate not being required from the State Government for a period of three years for-the aforesaid purpose. 3. Encouraged by the aforesaid positive attitude and the aforesaid favorable change in Policy of the NCTE, vide communication dated January 17, 2004 NCTE itself disseminated general information with respect to the submission of application form for recognition of the Elementary Teacher Training Course in which it inter alia informed the concerned parties as under: "3. 3. Encouraged by the aforesaid positive attitude and the aforesaid favorable change in Policy of the NCTE, vide communication dated January 17, 2004 NCTE itself disseminated general information with respect to the submission of application form for recognition of the Elementary Teacher Training Course in which it inter alia informed the concerned parties as under: "3. No NOC is required to be submitted by the institutions for a period of three years, which are already recognized by NCTE for running a B. Ed, course and seeking recognition to start a course or training in Elementary Teacher Education or by an existing Elementary Teacher Education Institution seeking permission to increase in intake in such a course. (According to NCTE Regulation F. No. 53-3/2000/NCTE (N&S) dated 1st January, 2004). 4. Since it was clearly mentioned that no NOC was required to be submitted by the Institutions for a period of three years, the petitioner submitted an application for recognition and vide order passed on May 28, 2004 NCTE Northern Region, Jaipur granted, recognition to the petitioner for an annual intake of 50 seals in the first year of J.B.T. (Elementary Teachers Education) Course of two years duration w. e. f. Academic Sessions 2004-2005. 5. Armed with the aforesaid recognition but also knowing that affiliation with respondent No. 2-Board was a condition precedent before the starting of the course, the petitioner submitted an application to respondent No. 2-Board on June 16, 2004 requesting it to grant affiliation to the petitioner for starting of J.B.T. Course with an intake of 50 students in the First Year. This initial request since did not evoke any response, not even an acknowledgement, from respondent No. 2, was repeated many a time thereafter but unfortunately respondent No. 2-Board did not send any response to the aforesaid request of the petitioner even though it was expected, both as a matter of normal courtesy as well as fulfillment of an obligation that respondent No. 2-Board being a statutory body should have sent an appropriate response to the aforesaid request of the petitioner for the grant of affiliation. Actually, every Public Undertaking and every Statutory Body is expected to response one way or the other to the request of the citizens and it is only when these bodies neglect in responding, the citizens are driven to avoidable litigation in the Courts. Actually, every Public Undertaking and every Statutory Body is expected to response one way or the other to the request of the citizens and it is only when these bodies neglect in responding, the citizens are driven to avoidable litigation in the Courts. In the present case also, the petitioner had no option but to file this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India in this Court because it did not get any response from respondent No. 2-Board. It is in this background that the petitioner has filed the present petition seeking the following reliefs: "(i) That this Honble Court may declare that the petitioner society is deemed to have been granted affiliation to run Junior Basic Teacher for two years duration from the academic session 2004-05 by the respondent No. 2 due to inaction on its part. (ii) That in the alternative, the respondent No. 2 may be directed to grant affiliation to the petitioner society to run JBT course from the academic session 2004-05 pursuant to application dated 16.6.2004 i.e., Annexure-PJ; (iii) That the respondents may be directed to permit society to hold counselling for admission of students from the academic session 2004-05 in JBT course; (iv) Any other relief as may be deemed just and proper keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted in favour of the petitioner. 6. Reply to the Writ Petition has been filed by respondent No. 2-Board in which a very untenable ground of defence has been taken. In para 3 of the reply, which is in reply to paras 5 and 6 of the writ petition, respondent No. 2 has taken a ground that it has not framed Regulations with regard to affiliation for the J.B.T. Course run by privately run Institutions as yet. For ready reference, para 3 of the reply is reproduced herein below for ready reference: "3. In reply to paras 5 and 6 of the petition it is submitted that Section 10(7) and Section 26 of H.P. Board of School Education Act, 1968 and Chapter 16 of, H.P. Board of School Education Examination Regulation, 1994 (Annexure-A) relates or provides affiliations to the educational Institutions, College, Senior Secondary Schools, High Schools, or primary Schools. In reply to paras 5 and 6 of the petition it is submitted that Section 10(7) and Section 26 of H.P. Board of School Education Act, 1968 and Chapter 16 of, H.P. Board of School Education Examination Regulation, 1994 (Annexure-A) relates or provides affiliations to the educational Institutions, College, Senior Secondary Schools, High Schools, or primary Schools. It is worth mentioning here that replying respondent has no regulations with regard to affiliation for the J.B.T. Course run by the privately managed institutions as yet. The framing of regulations in this regard is under process. 7. To the same effect is the stand of respondent No. 2 in paras 5 and 6 of the reply. Both these paras are reproduced herein below; "5. In reply to paras 17 to 21 of the petition it is submitted that the petitioner-society has submitted application to the respondent-Board for seeking affiliation for running J.B.T. Classes for the academic sessions 2004-05. It is most humbly submitted that HP. Board of School Education has no regulation for J.B.T. Classes proposed to be run by privately managed Institutions as yet and framing of regulations to that effect is under process. Needless to say that the case of the petitioner can only be considered after framing of regulations in this context. 6. In reply to paras 22 (A to J) of the petition is submitted that since there are no regulations framed with regard to affiliation to J.B.T. Classes run by privately managed institutes and as submitted earlier, the frame work of such regulation is under process and same are likely to be framed shortly after completion of required formalities. Allegations of inaction against the replying respondent are altogether based on unrealities, conveniently conjured up by the petitioner. It is further submitted that the replying respondent has never failed to discharge its statutory duties by not considering the application of the petitioner. The case of the petitioner for affiliation will- be considered in the light of Regulations which are going to be framed shortly, hence there is no delay on the part of replying respondent." 8. It is further submitted that the replying respondent has never failed to discharge its statutory duties by not considering the application of the petitioner. The case of the petitioner for affiliation will- be considered in the light of Regulations which are going to be framed shortly, hence there is no delay on the part of replying respondent." 8. Apparently respondent No. 2 admits in the aforesaid reply that the petitioner did submit an application to respondent No. 2 for seeking affiliation but in neither of these two paras or elsewhere in the reply has it even attempted to explain as to why did it not respond to the aforesaid request of the petitioner, one way or the other, favourably or otherwise. 9. Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education Affiliation Regulations, 1992 (Amended February, 1995), have been perused by us carefully. Apparently these Regulations have been framed under H.P. Board of School Education Act, 1968. Regulation 16.2 deals with the definition and in Regulation 16.2.4. "Institution" has been defined to mean an Educational Institution like college, Senior Secondary School, High School, Middle School or a Primary School. The expression "an Educational Institution Like College......." occurring in Regulation 16.2.4 clearly stipulates that the definition of the term Institution was not meant to be restrictive or even exhaustive and that it was only illustrative in nature and would embrace within its ambit and purview Educational Institutions of all types. 10. We now come to the specific Regulation dealing with the grant of affiliation and it is here that the falsity of the stand of respondent No. 2 is revealed. Against the specific stand of respondent No. 2 in the Reply that this respondent has not framed the Regulations for grant of affiliation in J.B.T. Course, Regulations for grant of affiliation in J.B.T. Course, Regulation 16.4 specifically talks of the making of an application for grant of affiliation and Regulation 16.5 speaks of the procedure for grant of such affiliation. Regulations 16.6 and 16.7 etc. deal with the maintenance of Register of affiliated Institutions and withdraw of application for affiliation etc. For our purposes Regulation 16.4 (supra) clearly states that any Institution in the State which intends to present candidates for any examination conducted by the Board may apply for affiliation to the Secretary on the prescribed form along with prescribed fees etc. deal with the maintenance of Register of affiliated Institutions and withdraw of application for affiliation etc. For our purposes Regulation 16.4 (supra) clearly states that any Institution in the State which intends to present candidates for any examination conducted by the Board may apply for affiliation to the Secretary on the prescribed form along with prescribed fees etc. Regulation 16.5 while talking about the procedure for affiliation clearly states that on receipt of such an application for grant of affiliation, the chairman shall appoint a Committee etc. The composition of the Committee is also mentioned in this Regulation. Regulation 16.5.5. ultimately stipulates that the competent authority shall pass final orders regarding the grant/rejection of the application for affiliation. Regulation 16.5.6, says that while granting affiliation the competent authority shall specify the examination, subjects and the period for which affiliation has been granted. 11. We then have Regulation 16.13 which says that insofar as the Government Institutions which prepare the candidates for examination conducted by the Board are concerned, they all would be deemed to have been affiliated by the Board. Regulation 16.13 is reproduced for ready reference which reads thus:- "16.13 Automatic Affiliation of Government Institutions. All Government Institutions which prepare their candidates for the examinations for the examinations conducted by the board shall be deemed to have been affiliated by the Board. Such Institutions shall also be exempted from making any formal application to the Board or from the payment of affiliation fee or extension fee." 12. A glance through the aforesaid Regulation clearly stipulates, beyond any doubt that whereas with respect to the Government Institution, affiliation is automatic, which means in other words that for Government Institutions there is no necessity to seek affiliation at all and hence there is also no corresponding requirement of making any application seeking affiliation, it was only for private Institutions (non-Government Institutions) that the need for making application for affiliation was there and it is only with respect to such Institutions that the Regulations provide for and prescribe procedure for affiliation and the need to maintain the Register of affiliated Institutions and all matters incidental or connected therewith. 13. 13. What we have observed hereinabove clearly leads us to hold that respondent No. 2 has made an incorrect and false statement before us in its Reply and perhaps this respondent has tried to mislead us by grossly misconstruing its own Regulations by taking an untenable stand that it has no Regulations with respect to the affiliation of private Institutions and therefore, it is not in a position to grant affiliation. To say the least the aforesaid stand of respondent No. 2 is absolutely untenable and we strongly deprecate this stand. The aforesaid reply filed by respondent No. 2 is supported by the affidavit of Dr. Sunil Kumar Choudhary, who is working as Secretary HP. Board of School Education. We held this gentleman as the person responsible to attempt to mislead this Court by taking the aforesaid untenable stand and we totally deprecate his such stand and direct that suitable action be taken against him by his competent disciplinary authority for misleading this Court and as well as for taking wholly untenable stand in law because on the very face of it, the Board armed with the Regulations has yet taken a stand that there do not exist the Regulations with respect to the affiliation of private run Institutions. 14. It is because of the aforesaid untenable stand of respondent No. 2 that the petitioner has been- driven to take recourse to this avoidable litigation. 15. Based on the aforesaid discussion we allow this writ petition by holding that the Regulations do exist which provide for affiliation to private Institutions running or intending to run J.B.T. Courses. On that basis therefore, we direct respondent No. 2 to process the petitioners application which it admits it has already received and after consideration of the petitioners request on its merits, to communicate its decision thereto within a period of one week from today. Because the petitioner has been led to this avoidable litigation we allow this petition with costs assessed at Rs.10,000/- and direct that the amount of costs amount shall be recovered from Dr. Sunil Kumar Choudhary by respondent No. 2. petition is allowed.