Sri Sai Institute of Teacher Education v. National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.

2. Vide letter dated 23.5.2012, which is available at page 20 of the paper book, the petitioner submitted the following documents to the NCTE: “• The approved building plan indicating Plot/Khasra No. of land, total build up area, name of the institute, name of proposed course. • Notarized copy of change of Land use certificate issued under clause 143 of UP Land Act by the SDM Khair Aligarh.”

3. Since NCTE was not satisfied with the documents submitted by the petitioner a show cause notice dated 6.9.2012 was issued to it under Sections 14/15(3)(b) of the NCTE Act. It was stated in the said notice that the following documents were required to be submitted by the petitioner to the Council. It was requested to submit its representation accompanied by an affidavit within 21 days. It was also informed that if no such representation is submitted within 21 days of the issue of the notice, it will be presumed that the petitioner does not wish to make any representation and the Northern Regional Committee shall take a decision under Sections 14(3)(b)/15(3)(b) of the NCTE Act. “* The original building plan approved by the competent authority indicating name of institute, name of the course, Khasra no./plot no. & land with the size of Multipurpose Hall, class rooms and resource centres etc. as per NCTE norms for the proposed course is required to be submitted.”

4. Vide letter dated 25.9.2012, the petitioner submitted the original documents along with original approved building plan to the respondents. The copy of the plan submitted with the said letter is available at page 27 of the paper book. Vide order dated 8.1.2013, the application of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the size of the multipurpose hall in the demarcated building plan was smaller than the required size as per the NCTE Regulations, 2009. Being aggrieved from the said rejection, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the NCTE. The said appeal came to be disposed of vide order dated 13.4.2013 which to the extent it is relevant reads as under: “* Size of the multipurpose hall in the demarcated building plan is smaller than the required size as per the NCTE Regulations, 2009.”

5. It would, thus, be seen that the Northern Regional Committee rejected the application of the petitioner on the sole ground that the size of the multipurpose hall was smaller than the required size as per NCTE Regulations, whereas the Appellate Authority rejected the appeal on the ground that the said hall had a neck shaped portion with two dimensions and the area of the portion, which alone to be used as a hall was 1800 sq.ft., which was smaller than the required area under the NCTE Regulations. Being aggrieved from the decision of the Appellate Authority, the petitioner is before this Court.

6. Admittedly, the Regulations/Norms/Standards applied by the respondents for rejecting the application of the petitioner prescribe that the institution must have a multipurpose hall with dias area with total area of 2000 sq.ft. The said norms do not stipulate any particular shape of the multipurpose hall. There is no requirement to have only a rectangular hall. It can be a square hall, a rectangular hall or even a triangular hall.

7. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that since the multipurpose hall is required to have a dias, the area available to the students should have an area of 2000 sq.ft. including the area of the dias and the dias should be visible to all the students sitting in the multipurpose hall. To this extent there can be no quarrel with the contention. However, on perusal of the site plan available at page 27 of the paper book, which the petitioner had submitted along with the forwarding letter dated 25.9.2012, would show that the width of the multipurpose hall on entering the said hall is 20.[9] ft. X 20.[9] ft. whereas the dimensions of the remaining part is 60 ft. X 30 ft. Admittedly the total area available for multipurpose hall is 2230 sq.ft., much above the requirement of having an area of not less than 2000 sq.ft. In my view, if the dias is erected in front of the entry gate of the multipurpose hall as shown in the site plan available at page 27 of the paper book it would be visible to each and every person sitting in the hall including the persons sitting in the narrow portion of the hall 20.[9] ft. X 20.[9] ft. Therefore, I find no merit in the contention that the multipurpose hall shown in the site plan available at page 27 of the paper book does not comply with the norms prescribed by the NCTE in this regard.

8. The petitioner has placed on record another site plan which is available at page 39 of the paper book and the width of the front portion of the multipurpose hall in the said site plan is much more than the width shown in the site plan available at page 27. This appears to have been done by including one room in the building of the multipurpose hall. As a result the area of the multipurpose hall is shown as 2456 sq.ft. in the said site plan. The learned counsel for the respondents is correct in submitting that since the aforesaid plan was never submitted either to the Northern Regional Committee or to the Appellate Authority, the respondents were not in a position to take the said site plan into consideration. Be that as it may, since in my view, even the multipurpose hall as shown in the site plan at page 27 of the paper book complies with the requirements of the norms prescribed by NCTE in this regard, the rejection of the application of the petitioner was not correct.

9. The learned counsel for the respondents states that the use and visibility of the multipurpose hall was to be examined by an expert body and that exercise having been undertaken by the experts, the Court would not be justified in interfering with their decision in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. In my view, no expertise is involved in having a look at the site plan which was made available to the respondents and is available at page 27 of the paper book. Even a lay man from having a bare look at the said site plan will take a view that the multipurpose hall as shown in the site plan is accessible to and usable by all the persons who enter the said multipurpose hall in case the dias is erected in front of the entry gate. Therefore, while issuing sanction, the respondents could have stipulated that the dias would be erected in front of the entry gate or at such a place where it is visible to all the persons sitting in the multipurpose hall. That, however, was not done and the application was rejected by the Northern Regional Committee on the ground that the area of the hall was less than 2000 sq.ft. though, in fact, the area was more than 2000 sq.ft. even at that time.

10. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned order dated 8.1.2013 passed by the Northern Regional Committee as well as the order dated 13.4.2013 passed by the Appellate Authority are hereby quashed. The respondents shall now consider the application of the petitioner for starting D.El.Ed. Course with intake capacity of 50 students for the academic year 2014-2015 as per the new Regulations which NCTE is yet to notify. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. No orders as to costs.

DECEMBER 16, 2013 V.K. JAIN, J. b’nesh