Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1564 (ALL)

MARTAND CHARITABLE TRUST v. UNION OF INDIA

2017-06-28

ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA

body2017
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.—Heard Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners and Shri Bharat Pratap Singh for the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 and Shri Pushkar Srivastava for the respondent No. 1. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 19.8.2016, passed by the Regional Director, National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi, refusing to grant permission/recognition to Archana Training Institute to start Diploma in Elementary Education Course, as also the order dated 18.1.2017 of the Member Secretary, National Council for Teacher Education, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioners and affirming the order dated 19.8.2016, passed by the Regional Director, Northern Regional Committee, National Council for Teacher Education. 3. Recognition/permission was refused vide order dated 19.8.2016 on the ground that no proof has been submitted that the petitioners’ Institution is a composite institution as required under Clause 2(b) of the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedures) Regulations, 2014. 4. The contention of Shri Ashok Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner is that a show-cause notice has been issued to the petitioners on 27.6.2016. This notice was duly replied on 20.6.2016 and was on detailed reply. The impugned order passed by the Regional Director, is vitiated on account of non-consideration of this detailed reply to the show-cause notice. 5. It has further been submitted that Martand Charitable Trust, the petitioner No. 1, is a Charitable Trust, registered under the provisions of Mumbai Public Charitable Trust Act 1959. 6. The Trust purchased plot Nos. 110 and 111 in village Gairikalan, Haiderpur Khunsapur Road, Tehsil Sadar, District Jaunpur having a total area of 1.356 Hectares. The entire payment was made by the Trust. 7. Three separate buildings have been constructed on this land. One is Gauri Shanker Mahavidyalaya, recognized and affiliated by Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University, Jaunpur and conducts Bachelor of Arts course. 8. The other is Kalawati Ram Lakhan Aydyogik Prasichan Kendra established as a private Industrial Training Institute. It has sought recognition from the National Council for Vocational Training, New Delhi and the application in this regard is pending consideration. 9. The third is Archana Training Institute, the petitioner No. 2 which is sought to be established as a Teachers Training Institute for imparting Diploma in Elementary Education Course. 10. These three institutions are stated to have been separately demarcated for administrative convenience. 9. The third is Archana Training Institute, the petitioner No. 2 which is sought to be established as a Teachers Training Institute for imparting Diploma in Elementary Education Course. 10. These three institutions are stated to have been separately demarcated for administrative convenience. They are however, managed by a single Committee of Management. All the funds and liabilities pertaining to the three institutions is that of Martand Charitable Trust, the first petitioner. 11. On the strength of the above facts, it has been submitted that the application as wrongly rejected by the NCTE on the ground that the petitioner No. 2, is not a composite institution as defined in Regulation 2(b). 12. It has also been submitted that a very narrow interpretation has been accorded to Regulation 2(b) by the respondents. Merely because the three entities have been accorded separate names for the purposes of convenience and for obtaining affiliation/recognition, the three institutions cannot be treated as separate and independent institutions. In fact, the Gauri Shankar Mahavidyalaya and Archana Training Institute fulfil the conditions of a composite institution as defined under Regulation 2(b) of the Act. 13. A further ground has been taken in the writ petition is that the objection raised is a technical objection, which can be easily rectified by the petitioners, if a short time is granted for the purpose. 14. Counsel appearing for the respondents have supported the impugned orders. 15. The controversy involved in the writ petition, involve two provisions contained in the NCTE Regulations, 2014, namely Regulation 2(b) and Regulation 8, which are extracted herein below : “Regulation 2(b)—“Composite Institution” means a duly recognized higher education institution offering undergraduate or post graduate programmes of study in the field of liberal arts or humanities or social sciences or sciences or commerce or mathematics, as the case may be, at the time of applying for recognition of teacher education programmes, or an institution offering multiple teacher education programmes. Regulation 8 (1)—New Teacher Education Institutions shall be located in composite institutions and the existing teacher education institutions shall continue to function as stand-alone institutions; and gradually move towards becoming composite institutions. Regulation 8 (1)—New Teacher Education Institutions shall be located in composite institutions and the existing teacher education institutions shall continue to function as stand-alone institutions; and gradually move towards becoming composite institutions. (4) (iii)—The Society sponsoring the institution shall be required to transfer and vest the title of the land and building in the name of the institution within a period of six months from the date of issue of formal recognition order under sub-regulation (16) of Regulation 7. However, in case, the society fails to do so due to local laws or rules or bye-laws, it shall intimate in writing with documentary evidence of its inability to do so. The Regional Office shall keep this information on record and place it before the Regional Committee for its approval. 16. It is clear from the bare reading of Regulation extracted above a new Teacher Education Institution is required to be located in a ‘composite institution’ which is defined to mean a duly recognized higher Education Institution offering undergraduate or post graduate programmes of study. This requirement is to be fulfilled at the time the application for recognition is made. 17. The aforesaid requirement is not to be fulfilled by an Institution, which is already offeringýÿ multiple teacher education programmes as per Regulation 8(3). 18. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, is that even if separate institutions, affiliated to separate bodies, are being run by one Society, or, as in the instant case, a Registered Charitable Trust, they would all constitute a single entity and would therefore answer the requirements of a ‘composite institution’. 19. A careful perusal of the reply submitted by the petitioners to the show-cause notice issued by the NCTE reveals that each of three Institutions acquired separate parcels of land through separate sale-deeds in their respective names, through allegedly by funds provided by the Martand Charitable Trust. 20. However, Regulation 8(4)(iii) provides that where a Registered Society is the owner of the land on which an institution granted recognition exists, the Society has to transfer the land to the Institution within six months of the recognition unless, the same is an impossibility in law. 21. 20. However, Regulation 8(4)(iii) provides that where a Registered Society is the owner of the land on which an institution granted recognition exists, the Society has to transfer the land to the Institution within six months of the recognition unless, the same is an impossibility in law. 21. In paragraph (viii) of the reply to the show-cause notice filed by the petitioner, it has been stated as follows - “(viii) That as per requirements/regulation of Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University, land purchased in the name of Gaurishankar (G.S.) Mahavidyalaya cannot be used for running BTC, ITI and Polytechnic. In compliance, the undersigned submitted an affidavit dated 29.11.2014 to the Registrar of the University stating that land beloning to Gaurishankar (G.S.) Mahavidyalaya is not being used, and not would be used in the future, for running/conducting any course of BTC, ITI, Polytechnic.” 22. In paragraph (xii) thereof, it has been stated that the three Institutions have been allocated separate names for the purpose of convenience and for obtaining affiliation/recognition. The same in no manner demonstrates that the Institutions are separate institutions. 23. Similar pleas have been taken in the ground (k) in the memo of the appeal filed against the order of the Regional Director. 24. It therefore, stands admitted on record that the petitioners’ contention that Archana Training Institute and the Gaurishankar Mahavidyalaya constitute a composite institution within the meaning of Regulation 2(b) of the Regulations, is wholly unfounded. 25. Since there is a total embargo, upon the Gaurishankar Mahavidyalaya, conducting any teacher training programme in terms of the affiliation/recognition granted to it by the Purvanchal University, in my considered opinion, the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners, cannot be accepted. 26. In case, the contention of counsel for the petitioner is accepted, the very recognition granted by the Purvanchal University to Gaurishankar Mahavidyalaya would be in jeopardy and in the absence of any valid affiliation/recognition, the Gauri Shankar Mahavidyalaya would cease to be a valid Institution and would, therefore, not answer the definition of a composite institution under Regulation 2(b) of the Regulation, 2014.ýÿ 27. It is undisputed that the 2014, Regulations, require that an Institution seeking recognition for Teacher Training Programmes must be an Institution which also conducts higher education courses, be it under graduate or post graduate courses. 28. Admittedly, no such course is conducted by the Archana Training Institute. It is undisputed that the 2014, Regulations, require that an Institution seeking recognition for Teacher Training Programmes must be an Institution which also conducts higher education courses, be it under graduate or post graduate courses. 28. Admittedly, no such course is conducted by the Archana Training Institute. The so called other part of the composite institution, namely, Gaurishankar Mahavidyalaya cannot conduct a Teacher Training Programme on its land, as is the admitted case of the petitioners’, themselves. 29. In such view of the matter, the fact that the three institutions have a common Committee of Management and the funds are provided and are the responsibility of the Registered Charitable Trust, the first petitioner, does not improve the case of the petitioner No. 2. 30. Both the Archana Training Institute and Gaurishankar Mahavidyalaya are separate Institutions and have been so established because the Purvanchal University, admittedly, prohibits any teacher training programme being conducted by a undergraduate Institution, affiliated to it. 31. Under the circumstances, the impugned orders suffer from no illegality or manifest error, warranting interference. 32. Even though the appellate authority as also the Regional Director have not specifically referred to the reply/detailed objection filed by the petitioners to the show-cause notice issued to them, yet this Court upon due consideration of the said reply finds that the petitioners have not been able to make out a case in their favour and remanding the matter for its consideration will not change the ultimate outcome. Remand, in view of the admitted factual position, would be an exercise in futility. 33. In view of the foregoing discussion, this writ petition is without merit and is accordingly, dismissed. —————