Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 426 (RAJ)

Sanskar T. T. College v. State of Rajasthan

2017-02-07

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

body2017
ORDER : Mohammad Rafiq, J. 1. These writ petitions, except writ petitions No. 685/2017 and 1320/2017, have been filed by the petitioners aggrieved by refusal by respondents to issue 'no objection certificate' for certain courses for the academic session 2016-17. Further prayer is made for a direction to respondents to allot them students. Prayer is also made for a direction to respondent Coordinator of PTET-2016, Kota University, Kota, to allot them students for the academic session 2016-17. 2. In writ petition No. 1320/2017 prayer is made for a direction to respondents to grant 'no objection certificate' to petitioner institution for D.El.Ed. Course of two years for academic session 2017-18 and for the subsequent academic sessions also, for which final recognition has already been granted by the Northern Regional Committee of the National Council for Teacher Education. Further prayer is made for a direction to respondent - Director of Elementary Education, Bikaner, to grant affiliation to the petitioner institution for D.El.Ed. Course of two years for academic session 2017-18 and for the subsequent academic sessions including the academic session 2018-19. 3. Prayer in Writ Petition 685/2017 has been made for a direction to respondent State Government to grant 'no objection certificate' to petitioner institution for academic session 2016-17 and onwards, while allotting 100 seats/students for the academic session 2016-17 for B.Ed. Shiksha Shastri Course. Further prayer is made for a direction to respondent Coordinator of PSST-2016 Jagadguru Ramanandacharya Rajasthan Sanskrit University, Jaipur, to allot 100 seats/students (two Unit) to the institution of the petitioner society as per grant of recognition and approved annual intake of two units by the NCTE for the academic session 2016-17 for running B.Ed. Shiksha Shastri Course. 4. Mr. Mahendra Shandilya, learned counsel for petitioner, contended that petitioners, except in Writ Petition No. 941/2017, earlier approached this court by filing writ petitions. The petitioners relied on judgment of the Supreme Court dated 08.09.2016 in State of Rajasthan Vs. LBS B.Ed. College and Others - Civil Appeal No. 9193/2016, wherein it was held that role of the State is very formal one and State is not expected to obstruct the commencement of admission process and academic courses once recognition is granted and affiliation is found to be acceptable. LBS B.Ed. College and Others - Civil Appeal No. 9193/2016, wherein it was held that role of the State is very formal one and State is not expected to obstruct the commencement of admission process and academic courses once recognition is granted and affiliation is found to be acceptable. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that NOC was not issued by the respondent State to the petitioners even when the NCTE had granted recognition to them, which fact had already been taken note of by the Supreme Court in para 15 of the judgment in State of Rajasthan Vs. LBS B.Ed. College and Others, supra. This court vide order dated 03.11.2016 disposed off S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11753/2016 - Sanskar T.T. College, Phulera, District Jaipur Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, and relying on the binding judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan Vs. LBS B.Ed. College and Others, supra, passed in respect of the State of Rajasthan itself, directed the Principal Secretary to the Government, Department of Higher Education, Government of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, to decide the question of grant of NOC to the petitioner institution and pass necessary orders in regard thereto within ten days from the date a copy of that order is produced before him. The Government even then rejected the application of the petitioners for grant of NOC relying on the order passed by the Supreme Court dated 29.08.2016 in Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 5282-5289/2015 and maintained that NOC could be granted only to such institutions for B.Ed. for the academic session 2016-17, who were parties to the aforesaid Special Leave Petitions. The petitioners were required to produce the proof whether they were parties to the Special Leave Petition and if they failed to produce the same, the NOC would not be granted to them for the academic session 2016-17. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the respondents are deliberately misinterpreting the judgment of the Supreme Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondents have not faithfully complied with order of this court dated 03.11.2016 and misconstruing the order of the Supreme Court contending that the petitioners would be granted NOC if they are able to show that they are parties to the SLP before the Supreme Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondents have not faithfully complied with order of this court dated 03.11.2016 and misconstruing the order of the Supreme Court contending that the petitioners would be granted NOC if they are able to show that they are parties to the SLP before the Supreme Court. It is submitted that recognition was granted to the petitioners by NCTE long ago, which fact was informed to the respondent State but even then the respondent State is insisting that as per their policy decision that the petitioners would be granted NOC for B.Ed. Course only for certain approved districts. Learned counsel referred to para 15 of the judgment dated 08.09.2016 of the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan Vs. LBS B.Ed. College and Others, supra, and submitted that the fact with regard to recognition granted by NCTE to some of the institutions has been taken note of by the Supreme Court and therefore the Supreme Court observed that since the recognition has already been granted to such institutions, the controversy with regard to the said institutions shall stand closed and further observed that whenever an application is received under the Regulations for grant of recognition, the NCTE shall be guided by its own Regulations and the judgments of the Supreme Court and the State shall remain bound by the principles set out in that judgment. 6. Mr. Vijay Poonia, learned counsel for petitioners, submitted that the petitioners have approached this court for a direction to the respondents for grant of NOC by filing writ petition, this court, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan Vs. LBS B.Ed. College and Others, supra, required the respondents to decide the question of grant of NOC and pass specific order within ten days. Even though the petitioners were granted required recognition, the respondent State has again refused to grant NOC on the ground that they were not parties to the SLP, whereas the role of the State is very formal one and State is not expected to obstruct the commencement of admission process and academic courses once recognition is granted and affiliation is found to be acceptable. 7. Mr. 7. Mr. Inderjeet Singh, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent State, citing the order of the Supreme Court dated 29.08.2016 in Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 5282-5289/2015, submitted that the respondent State has decided that NOC could be granted only to such institutions for B.Ed. for the academic session 2016-17, who were parties to the Special Leave Petitions. It is informed that the said order was passed by the Supreme Court in the Petition for Special Leave to Appeal filed by L.B.S. B.Ed. College and other private colleges against the judgment of the division bench of this court, which reversed the judgment of the single bench directing the State to allot the students. It is in that context that the Supreme Court, on being informed that the counselling with regard to admission to B.Ed. Course in the State of Rajasthan was still under progress, directed the NCTE to grant recognition for the academic session 2016-17 and communicate the same to the State within a week, with a further direction that the concerned committee of the State Government to allot students to the institutions, which are parties to the Special Leave Petitions. It is therefore that the said order was confined to those institutions, which were parties thereto. 8. However, Mr. Inderjeet Singh, learned Additional Advocate General, submitted that he has instructions from the respondent State that if the petitioners applied for grant of recognition for the academic session 2017-18, the NOC shall be issued to them after examining their cases by the State Government. 9. Mr. Shantanu Sharma, learned counsel for respondent NCTE, submitted that as far as NCTE is concerned, the recognition has already been granted to the petitioners and nothing more is required to be done at their end. 10. Ms. Anita Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent Coordinator, PTET, Kota University, submitted that third round of counselling has already taken place on 08.12.2016 for the academic session 2016-17 and the institutions, which were covered by the order of the Supreme Court dated 29.08.2016, were included in third round of counselling because of the specific order passed by the Supreme Court thereabout. It is contended that the academic course has already commenced and minimum 200 working days are required to be completed before a student can be permitted to appear in the final examination of B.Ed. Course. It is contended that the academic course has already commenced and minimum 200 working days are required to be completed before a student can be permitted to appear in the final examination of B.Ed. Course. Therefore the petitioners may, if at all are considered, should be considered for the academic session 2017-18 for grant of NOC and allotment of students. 11. Learned counsel for petitioners rejoined and submitted that as far as those institutions with respect to whom the Supreme Court passed the order dated 29.08.2016 are concerned, they did not even have recognition from NCTE and in fact, they were granted recognition pursuant to direction issued by the Supreme Court. The case of the petitioners, who have already been granted recognition by the respondent NCTE, stand on much better footings than those. With regard to grant of NOC, even though the Supreme Court has, by authoritative pronouncement, now declared that the role of the State is very formal one and State is not expected to obstruct the commencement of admission process and academic courses once recognition is granted and affiliation is found to be acceptable. The respondent State Government is still under the impression that they can stall the setting up of new B.Ed. Courses despite recognition by the NCTE. It is contended that affiliation will follow the recognition granted by the respondent NCTE and therefore the petitioners have not only been granted affiliation by the University concerned but have also been issued recognition by the NCTE. The approach of the State Government in refusing to grant NOC to the petitioners is clearly illegal and contrary to judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan Vs. LBS B.Ed. College and Others, supra, and the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2014. 12. Let us begin taking note of the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan Vs. LBS B.Ed. College and Others, supra, wherein reference was made of its earlier judgment in Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others - (2013) 2 SCC 617 , and authoritatively pronounced that that the role of the State is very formal one and State is not expected to obstruct the commencement of admission process and academic courses once recognition is granted and affiliation is found to be acceptable. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others - (2013) 2 SCC 617 , and authoritatively pronounced that that the role of the State is very formal one and State is not expected to obstruct the commencement of admission process and academic courses once recognition is granted and affiliation is found to be acceptable. The Supreme Court in para 13 of that judgment referred its earlier two-Judge Bench judgment in Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, supra, wherein it was held that Regulations framed under the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 clearly show that upon receiving an application for recommendation, the NCTE shall send a copy of the application with its letter inviting recommendations/comments of the State Government on all aspects within a period of 30 days. To such application, the State is expected to respond with its complete comments within a period of 60 days. In other words, the opinion of the State on all matters that may concern it in any of the specified fields are called for. The Supreme Court observed that this is the stage where the State and its Department should play a vital role and they must take all precautions to offer proper comments supported by due reasoning. Once these comments are sent and the State Government gives its opinion which is considered by the NCTE and examined in conjunction with the report of the experts, it may grant or refuse recognition. Once it grants recognition, then such grant attains supremacy vis-a-vis the State Government as well as the affiliating body. The Supreme Court further observed that normally these questions cannot be re-agitated at the time of grant of affiliation. Once it grants recognition, then such grant attains supremacy vis-a-vis the State Government as well as the affiliating body. The Supreme Court further observed that normally these questions cannot be re-agitated at the time of grant of affiliation. Once the University conducts inspection in terms of its Statutes or Act, without offending the provisions of the Act and conditions of recognition, then the opinion of the State Government at the second stage is a mere formality unless there was a drastic and unacceptable mistake or the entire process was vitiated by fraud or there was patently eminent danger to life of the students in the school because of non-compliance of a substantive condition imposed by either of the bodies but in the normal circumstances, the role of the State is a very formal one and the State is not expected to obstruct the commencement of admission process and academic courses once recognition is granted and affiliation is found to be acceptable. In para 15 of the judgment 08.09.2016, supra, again the Supreme Court has observed that controversy with regard to such institutions wherefore the NCTE has already granted recognition, shall stand closed. 13. In these facts, the action of the respondent State in refusing to grant NOC to the petitioners institutions, relying on the order passed by the Supreme Court dated 29.08.2016, supra, cannot be said to be justified. That order was passed in the facts applicable to the institutions, which had approached the Supreme Court when it was informed that third round of counselling was still going on and the institutions were stated to have granted recognition on the direction of the Supreme Court. But in the present set of petitions the petitioners were already granted recognition by the NCTE. The ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 08.09.2016, supra, would therefore fully apply to the case of the petitioners. But, at the same time, the court is cognizant of the fact that third and last round of counselling has already taken place on 19.12.2016 and the students are required to take classes of minimum 200 working days. The ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 08.09.2016, supra, would therefore fully apply to the case of the petitioners. But, at the same time, the court is cognizant of the fact that third and last round of counselling has already taken place on 19.12.2016 and the students are required to take classes of minimum 200 working days. This court therefore does not deem it appropriate to direct the respondent State to grant NOC to petitioners and allot them students for the academic session 2016-17, however, in the facts of the case, at the same time, the court direct that the respondent State Government shall take up the case of the petitioners-institutions afresh for issuance of NOC for academic session 2017-18, without requiring them to file any separate application and their cases may be processed on the basis of applications already made by them and such NOC shall be issued well in advance before commencement of next academic session 2017-18, but in any case within six weeks from the date a copy of this order is produced before them, so that no further complications arise and the petitioners may not have to again approach this court. Thereafter, the stage of affiliation with the University concerned shall be gone into before the case of the petitioners-institutions are taken up by the Convener, PTET, for allotment of students in the academic session 2017-18. 14. Writ petitions are allowed in part in the manner indicated above. Stay applications, filed therewith, are also disposed off. 15. A copy of this order be placed in connected files.