Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 491 (PAT)

Mundrika Kumari v. B. N. Mandal University

2006-06-14

J.N.BHATT

body2006
Judgment J.N.Bhatt, J. 1. In this petition, the petitioners have sought for a direction against respondent No. 1, B.N. Mandal University (In short the "University"), for recognition of the B.Ed. degree issued to them, by revoking the cancellation order of the University for such degrees on the ground that the affiliation of the College, namely, Muslim Minority Ahmadia B.Ed. College, Millat Nagar, Rampara, Katihar, (In short the "College") was cancelled pursuant to the report of the vigilance Inquiry held in 1999, contending that the examinations were taken and degrees were awarded prior to the cancellation of the affiliation of the College. 2. There is no dispute about the fact that a vigilance inquiry came to be conducted in respect of the allegations of irregularities and illegalities for the affiliation of the college, Muslim Minority Ahmadia B.Ed. College". The report of the vigilance inquiry was necessitated on account of certain irregularities and Illegalities in running the College, as well as, grant of B.Ed. degrees. This aspect is admitted. However, the only contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners has been that the examinations, resultant results and issuance of certificates and degrees were prior to cancellation of the affiliation in 1999 and, therefore, the action of the University in cancellation of the affiliation on the basis of the vigilance inquiry and resultant cancellation of the B.Ed. degrees, issued to the petitioners, is illegal and without authority. 3. The writ petition has been filed in the current year. 2006, questioning and assailing the impugned decision of the University taken in 1999. No reasonable ground or explanation has been placed on the record as to why for such a long period of seven years no action could be taken. This is one of the matters where time criterion plays significant role. Even under the general law such a challenge would be barred by limitation. Apart from that, such a delay and laches on the part of the petitioners in such kind of matters, could not be considered excusable. This petition, therefore, suffers from the vice of delay and laches. Again, the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary, equitable and prerogative. Apart from that, such a delay and laches on the part of the petitioners in such kind of matters, could not be considered excusable. This petition, therefore, suffers from the vice of delay and laches. Again, the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary, equitable and prerogative. Keeping in mind the factual profile and long delay of seven years silence and indolence of the petitioners would not itself prompt this Court to invoke its jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. On this ground itself, this petition deserves to be rejected. 4. Notwithstanding that, a very well known and celebrated aspect with regard to the plight of the education in Bihar State in past has not only been deplorable and condemnable but heart stealing, There has been a regularly organized racket and crime by the white collared persons indulging in the educational activities for the profit motive; not only harming the students but also the society at large. 5. The purpose and design of giving training to teachers is very well articulated not only in the education policy of the country but also in central laws. The National Council for Teachers Education has been established. If the source of teaching the teachers who have to teach the masses remains polluted, how can one hope for unpolluted academic atmosphere, as well as, better future of the country ? 6. Let it be mentioned that the national regulation, known as, National Councils for Teachers Education Act, 1993 ( in short "the Act") has been designed and devised to provide mechanism for effective and efficient, sound and strong education for the teachers as the teachers are incharge of the millions of students who are future assets of the country- The Act is brought into force to provide for establishment of a National Council for Teacher Education with a view to achieving planned and coordinated development for the teacher education system in the whole of the country and for regularization, streamlining and for proper maintenance, as well as, formulating norms and standards in the realm of the teacher education in the country. 7. The Act came into force in 1993 in which mechanism for recognition of the teacher education institution has been provided, in Chapter IV, in sec. 14 of the Act with a design by the Parliament in its wisdom. 7. The Act came into force in 1993 in which mechanism for recognition of the teacher education institution has been provided, in Chapter IV, in sec. 14 of the Act with a design by the Parliament in its wisdom. It is not the case of the petitioners that their college was appropriately affiliated and recognised in terms of the provisions of the Act. Any recognition or affiliation de hors the provisions of the Act will not be legal. Regulations have been framed under the Act Including an application for recognition. manner for submission, determination of the conditions, and permission to start new course or college, in 1995. 8. Let it be mentioned with profit the statutory provisions of sec. 14 of the Act read as under:- 14. Recognition of institutions offering course or training in teacher education. - (1) Every institution offering or intending to offer a course or training in teacher education on or after the appointed day, may, for grant of recognition under this Act, make an application to the Regional Committee concerned in such form and in such manner as may be determined by regulations: Provided that an institution offering a course of training in teacher education immediately before the appointed day, shall be entitled to continue such course or training for a period of six months, if it has made an application for recognition within the said period and until the disposal of the application by the Regional Committee. (2) The fee to be paid along with the application under Sub-sec. (1) shall be such as may be prescribed. (3) On receipt of an application by the Regional Committee from any institution under Sub-sec. (2) The fee to be paid along with the application under Sub-sec. (1) shall be such as may be prescribed. (3) On receipt of an application by the Regional Committee from any institution under Sub-sec. (1), and after obtaining from the institution concerned such other particulars as it may consider necessary, it shall - (a) if it is satisfied that such institution has adequate financial resources, accommodation, library, qualified staff, laboratory and that it fulfils such other conditions required for proper functioning of the institution for a course or training in teacher education, as may be determined by regulations, pass an order granting recognition to such institution, subject to such conditions as may be determined by regulations; or (b) If it is of the opinion that such institution does not fulfil the requirements laid down in Sub-clause (a), pass an order refusing recognition to such institution for reasons to be recorded in writing: Provided that before passing an order under Sub-clause (b) the Regional Committee shall provide a reasonable opportunity to the concerned institution for making a writing representation. (4) Every order granting or refusing recognition to an institution for a course or training in teacher education under Sub-sec. (3) shall be published in the Official Gazette and communicated in writing for appropriate action to such institution and to the concerned examining body, the local authority or the State Government and the Central Government. (5) Every institution, in respect of which recognition has been refused shall discontinue the course or training in teacher education from the end of the academic session next following the date of receipt of the order refusing recognition passed under Clause (b) of Sub-sec. (3). (6) Every examining body shall, on receipt of the order under Sub-sec. (4). (a) grant affiliation to the Institution, where recognition has been granted; or (b) cancel the affiliation of the institution, where recognition has been refused. 9. It could be seen from the aforesaid provisions that procedures for making an application for recognition of teachers training course or college has been provided for. It is also evident from the aforesaid provisions that every order granting or refusing recognition to an Institution for a course or training in teacher education under Sub-sec. (3) shall be published in the official Gazette. It is also evident from the aforesaid provisions that every order granting or refusing recognition to an Institution for a course or training in teacher education under Sub-sec. (3) shall be published in the official Gazette. If such recognition had been received by the College in which the petitioners received education, subsequently, the affiliation or recognition ought to have been shown to have been published in the official gazette. 10. The Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 279 of 2005 (Araikiya Khwaia Shahid Hussain Primary Teacher Training College V/s. The State of Bihar and Ors.) decided on 23rd September, 2005 ( to which Dr. J.N. Bhatt, CJ was a party), has propounded the relevant proposition of law upon consideration and discussion of the relevant prouncements of the Hon ble Apex Court and this Court. The ratio propounded in the said Division Bench judgment is squarely attracted to the facts of the present case. It would, therefore, be interesting to refer to the observations made in the said decisions: (A) In St. Johns Teachers Training Institute (For Women), Madurai and Anr. V/s. State of Tamil Nadu (1993) 3 SCC 595 , wherein, it has been held that the institution which has been granted temporary recognition before the commencement of the rules is also bound to comply with the condition so as to be entitled for permanent recognition. It is further directed in the said judgment that the court should not pass an interim order permitting the students of institution, which fail to get recognition due to non-fulfilment of the conditions, to appear in the examination. This decision is squarely attracted to the facts of the case. (B) In B.N. Mandal University V/s. Md. Mushtaque Alam and Ors. 2003 (4) PLJR 197 , which has been relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant, is quite out of place and misconceived, for the reason, that it was rendered in the context of the facts of that case and again in view or decision contrary to or not in consonance with the decision of the Apex Court will not have a binding effect. The Division Bench decision of this Court, therefore, is of no help to learned Counsel for the appellant. (C) In Muthu Kumar and Anr. V/s. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. The Division Bench decision of this Court, therefore, is of no help to learned Counsel for the appellant. (C) In Muthu Kumar and Anr. V/s. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. -, it has been rightly held that right to issuance of diploma/certificate, for passing of examination is a serious question and has to be examined seriously. Merely, passing of a public examination is not enough as it must be coupled with proper training in a recognized institution. It is, only, then the result shall be meaningful and purposeful. Therefore, the candidates having undergone training in institution, whose recognition, subsequently, had been withdrawn, held, would not be entitled to issuance of marksheet, certificates, or diplomas in teachers training. They would only be entitled to declaration of examination results. In that case, the petitioner had undergone training (between 1989 to 1991) in various institutions and had taken up examination in May, 1992. The recognition of the institution, subsequently, came to be withdrawn as a result of a ruling in P.M. Joseph V/s. State of T.N. (1993), which clearly covered those institutions. It is, therefore, in that context the petitioner, who had filed the petition seeking publication of result of the examination and issuance of diplomas of teacher training, it was held that that could not be granted. Again, the maintainbility of the petition on the ground of delay and latches was considered and it was held that mandamus sought after six years delay on facts could not be granted. The same is the case in the petition on hand. (emphasis supplied) (D) It will, also, be material to state at this juncture that in St. Johns Teacher Training Institute (For Women). Madurai etc. V/s. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. etc. AIR 1994 SC 43 , it has been clearly propounded and highlighted as to when and how directions at the interim stage could be considered in case of a claim by students of unrecognized institution for the purpose of appearance in the examination. It has been observed that direction allowing the students of unrecognized institution to appear at examinations ending disposal of the writ petition under Art. 226 should not be issued, as such, and such interim orders affect the careers of students and cause unnecessary embarrassment and harassment to authorities. Why to streach the obvious ? It has been observed that direction allowing the students of unrecognized institution to appear at examinations ending disposal of the writ petition under Art. 226 should not be issued, as such, and such interim orders affect the careers of students and cause unnecessary embarrassment and harassment to authorities. Why to streach the obvious ? It is, in this context, it has been directed that the interim order permitting the students of unrecognized institutions to appear at the examination should not be passed or granted. 11. After having heard the learned Counsels for the parties and considering the entire factual profile and keeping in mind the underlying design of the provisions of the Act, as well as, the exposition and observation made in the aforesaid decisions, factually and legally, on both counts, the petition is meritless. The petition, therefore, deserves to be rejected. Accordingly, it shall stand rejected. No costs.