Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1873 (PAT)

Maharana Pratap College v. State Of Bihar

2018-12-19

CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH

body2018
ORDER : 1. In compliance of this Court’s order dated 18.12.2018, The Vice-Chancellor and the Registrar of the University are personally present. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite a recognition having been granted by the National Council for Teacher Education (N.C.T.E.) to conduct M.Ed. Course, the University is granting affiliation on temporary basis and even for that a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-being charged for the purpose of holding inspection to grant further extension of affiliation. The college was granted affiliation by the University initially, as communicated through letter dated 19.09.2017, which has been brought on record by way of Annexure-5 to the writ application for the academic session 2017-19. There is no extension of the affiliation granted by the University, probably on the ground that the subsequent inspection of the college by the University, has not been held and the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-for grant of affiliation in respect of each academic year has not been deposited. 3. Chapter 4 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 deals with grant of recognition of Teachers’ Education Institution. Section 14(4) and 14(6) are relevant for the present adjudication and are being extracted herein below:- “(4) Every order granting or refusing recognition to an institution for a course or training in teacher education under sub-section (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. (6) Every examining body shall, on receipt of the order under subsection (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.” 4. The language of sub-section (6) is plain, unambiguous and clear, and which commands every examining body to grant affiliation to the institution, where recognition has been granted and cancelled the affiliation of the institution, where recognition has been refused. Once a recognition has been granted by the N.C.T.E. the examining body does not have any choice but to grant affiliation. The Act does not contemplate any temporary affiliation or charge of inspection fee for the purpose of inspection to be conducted by the University. 5. Once a recognition has been granted by the N.C.T.E. the examining body does not have any choice but to grant affiliation. The Act does not contemplate any temporary affiliation or charge of inspection fee for the purpose of inspection to be conducted by the University. 5. It is, accordingly, directed that the affiliation granted in favour of the college through letter dated 19.09.2017 shall be treated to be an affiliation granted in favour of the college in accordance with Section 14(6) of the N.C.T.E. Act. Though the University has the jurisdiction to supervise the functioning of the college, but to a limited extent, as indicated in the case of Maa Vishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in (2013) 2 SCC 616, paragraph 77 of which reads thus:- “The fields which are sought to be covered under the provisions of Section 37 of the Universities Act and the Statutes of various universities are clearly common to the aspects which are squarely covered by the specific language under the Act. That being so, all State laws in regard to affiliation in so far as they are covered by the Act must give way to the operation of the provisions of the Act. To put it simply, the requirements which have been examined and the conditions which have been imposed by the NCTE shall prevail and cannot be altered, re-examined or infringed under the garb of the State Law. The affiliating/examining body and the State Government must abide by the proficiency and command of the NCTE’s directions. To give an example, existence of building, library, qualified staff, financial stability of the institution, accommodation, etc. are the subjects which are specifically covered under Section 14(3)(b) of the Act. Thus, they would not be open to reexamination by the State and the University. If the recognition itself was conditional and those conditions have not been satisfied, in such circumstances, within the ambit and scope of Sections 46 and 16 of the Act, the affiliating body may not give affiliation and inform the NCTE forthwith of the shortcomings and noncompliance of the conditions. In such situation, both the Central and the State body should act in tandem and, with due coordination, come to a final conclusion as to the steps which are required to be taken in regard to both recognition and affiliation. In such situation, both the Central and the State body should act in tandem and, with due coordination, come to a final conclusion as to the steps which are required to be taken in regard to both recognition and affiliation. But certainly, the State Government and the university cannot act in derogation to the NCTE.” 6. The University is, therefore, restrained from imposing any such condition as has been imposed in subsequent communication of payment of fee for the purpose of holding of the inspection. The Vice-Chancellor and the Registrar of the University have not been able to point out any provision under the law, which could have authorized the University to charge such inspection fee. 7. A grievance has also been raised against the demand made by the University for deposit of a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-as security money, as a condition precedent, for registration of students and issuance of inspection fee. 8. Prima facie there does not appear to be any authority vested in the University, based on which, the said amount could have been charged. 9. Clause 05 of letter dated 19.09.2017 shall, therefore, remain stayed till further order. 10. List this case under the same heading on 08th January, 2019. Personal appearance of the Vice-Chancellor and the Registrar of the University stands dispensed with.