Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 256 (MP)

Digendra Gautam v. State of M. P.

2020-02-17

ATUL SREEDHARAN, SANJAY YADAV

body2020
ORDER Yadav, J. -- 1. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, matter is finally heard. 2. The petitioners vide present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seek direction to the respondents to hold examination of B.Sc. B.Ed. (four-year integrated course) (First Semester & onwards) in a time bound manner and further direct the respondents to suitably compensate the petitioners for delaying in holding the examination. 3. The relevant facts reveal that the petitioners applied for B.Sc. B.Ed. Course for academic session 2016-17 through Madhya Pradesh Online and were allotted respondent No. 5- College to prosecute the said course. It is the case of the petitioners that after allotment of said College, the petitioners and similarly situated students deposited fees/bank draft of Rs.20,500/- in favour of respondent No.5-College and participated in the Education Session but, after over a lapse of more than one year, no examination has been conducted. 4. That, after being unsuccessful in persuading respondent No. 5-College, the petitioners submitted representation to Rani Durgavati Vishwavidyalaya, Jabalpur for conducting the examination; however, as there was no outcome, present petition has been filed seeking direction to the respondents to conduct the said examination. 5. The respondents No. 1 & 2 and respondent No. 3 have filed their respective return. In the return filed by respondents No.1 and 2, it is stated that the petitioners were allotted respondent No. 5-College to pursue the course study subject to the conditions laid down in National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (for short “NCTE Act”). It is urged that when the College was allotted to the petitioners through Madhya Pradesh Online; it was not disclosed by the College that it had till then not been granted affiliation by the concerned University i.e. Rani Durgavati Vishwavidyalaya, the examining body. It is further contended that since respondent No.5-College did not disclose that they have not been affiliated by the Rani Durgavati Vishwavidyalaya, yet it granted admission to the petitioners which was contrary to the stipulation contained in the order dated 2.5.2016; whereby, National Council for Teachers Education granted recognition to respondent No.5 College in exercise of the powers vested under section 15(3) (a) of NCTE Act read with NCTE Regulation 2014 subject to one of the mandatory conditions that the Institution shall make admissions only after it obtains affiliation from the examining body in terms of Clause 8(10) of NCTE Regulation. It is contended that since the State Government is not an examining body, no relief can be granted to the petitioners qua the State of Madhya Pradesh. 6. Respondent No.3 National Council of Teacher Education has filed separate return. While adverting to the stipulation contained in the Regulation, it is urged that since the Institution has not fulfilled the norms as laid down in the Regulation and the order granting recognition, the relief as sought for cannot be acceded to. Respondent No.3 has also adverted to the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Adarsh Shiksha Mahavidyalaya v. Subhash Rahangdale [ (2012)2 SCC 425 ] wherein it is held : 87. As a sequel to the above discussion, we hold that the impugned orders do not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference by this Court. We also reiterate that : ... (xii) No institution shall admit any student to a teacher training course or programme unless it has obtained recognition under section 14 or permission under section 15, as the case may be. (xiii) While making admissions, every recognised institution is duty bound to strictly adhere to para 3.1 to 3.3 of the Norms and Standards for Secondary/Pre-School Teacher Education Programme contained in Appendix-1 to the Regulations. (xiv) If any institution admits any student in violation of the Norms and Standards laid down by the NCTE, then the Regional Committee shall initiate action for withdrawal of the recognition of such institution and pass appropriate order after complying with the rules of natural justice. (xv) The students admitted by unrecognised institution and institutions which are not affiliated to any examining body are not entitled to appear in the examination conducted by the examining body or any other authorised agency. (xvi) The students admitted by the recognised institutions otherwise than through the entrance/eligibility test conducted in accordance with the admission procedure contained in para 3.3 of Appendix-1 of the Regulations are also not entitled to appear in the examination conducted by the examining body or any other authorised agency. ...” 7. It is pertinent to note that despite service of notice, respondents No.4 and 5 have chosen not to appear. 8. No rejoinder has been filed by the petitioners contradicting the stand taken by respondents No.1, 2 and 3. 9. ...” 7. It is pertinent to note that despite service of notice, respondents No.4 and 5 have chosen not to appear. 8. No rejoinder has been filed by the petitioners contradicting the stand taken by respondents No.1, 2 and 3. 9. Apparent it is from the pleadings on record that the respondent No.5-College was not granted affiliation by the University i.e. Rani Durgavati Vishwavidyalaya. And, yet they granted admission to the present petitioners. However, since no recognition has been granted to respondent No. 5 College, direction cannot be issued to the University to conduct examination as sought for by the petitioners in view of the settled position of law in the case of Adarsh Shiksha Mahavidyalaya (supra). 10. As regard to relief sought by the petitioners to compensate them. In this context, reference can be had of the decision in Abhyudya Sanstha v. Union of India [ (2011)6 SCC 145 ], wherein it is observed by their Lordships : “22. … However, with a view to make business and earn profit in the name of education, the appellants successfully manipulated the judicial process for allocation of the students. Therefore, there is no valid ground much less justification to confer legitimacy upon the admission made by the appellants in a clandestine manner. Any such order by the Court will be detrimental to the national interest. The students who may have taken admission and completed the course from an institution, which had not been granted recognition, will not be able to impart value based education to the future generation of the country. Rather, they may train young minds as to how one can succeed in life by manipulations. Therefore, we do not consider it proper to issue direction for regularising the admissions made by the appellants on the strength of the interim orders passed by this Court. 25. The appellants are directed to pay Rs.1 lack to each of the students by way of compensation in lieu of the injury inflicted upon them by way of misrepresentation about their entitlement to admit the students to D.Ed. course.” 11. In view whereof, since relief sought for by the petitioners for direction to Rani Durgawati University to conduct examination cannot be acceded to, petition fails. course.” 11. In view whereof, since relief sought for by the petitioners for direction to Rani Durgawati University to conduct examination cannot be acceded to, petition fails. However, as regard to claim for compensation and refund of fees collected by the respondent No.5-College, the petitioners are held entitled for refund of the fees collected by the respondent No. 5 who are directed to refund the same (if not refunded till date) within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order. As to grant of compensation/damages, the petitioners are at liberty to file suit for the same against respondent No.5-College. 12. Consequently, petition stands disposed of finally in above terms. No costs. ..................