The Chairman Noorul Islam Trust v. The National Council for Teachers Education & Anr.

1. The present Letters Patent Appeal (the “LPA”) arises out of an order dated 27.07.2023, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C.) NO. 14861/2021, titled The Chairman, Noorul Islam Trust v. The National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.

2. The facts of the case reveal that the Appellant Trust established AL- Azar Training College in 2005-06 with the due approval from National Council for Teachers Education (NCTE), and the college in question is affiliated to Mahatma Gandhi University. The affiliation was granted on Digitaaly 23.03.2005 and the permission of the NCTE was for an intake of 100 students for 1 year in respect of В. Ed course.

3. In the year 2014, the seats were reduced from 100 to 50, and the Appellant institution continued to impart В. Ed course with an intake of 50 students.

4. The Appellant Trust, thereafter, made arrangements for the additional batch of 50 students as it wanted to enhance the seat intake and on 19.10.2020, submitted an application to the Government of Kerala to grant no objection certificate. The Government of Kerala through higher education department vide order dated 21.10.2020 granted a no objection certificate to the Appellant. The Appellant trust, thereafter, submitted an application to the University for having one more unit of 50 students, meaning thereby, totaling to 100 students for the academic year 2020.21, and the University finally granted permission on 02.11.2020.

5. The Appellant after getting approval from the University submitted formal application to NCTE in the prescribed format along with the requisite fee on 04.11.2020 and, thereafter, preferred a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam. The Appellant before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in W.P.(C.) No. 25187/2020 made a prayer for issuance of a writ, appropriate order or direction to Southern Regional Committee of NCTE to consider and to pass appropriate orders in the matter of enhancement of seat and a further prayer was made to issue a mandamus commanding the University to include the 50% of the additional seats for centralized allotment process (total 100 seats). The writ petition preferred Digitaaly before the Kerala High Court was dismissed as withdrawn on the request of Senior Counsel appearing in the matter. The order passed by the Kerala High Court dated 07.12.2020 is reproduced as under: “1.The petitioner, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent Southern Regional Committee of the 1st respondent NCTE to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P[8], without any further delay; a writ of mandamus commanding the 3rd respondent University to include the 50% of the additional seats that may be sanctioned to the petitioner's College by the NCTE, for Centralised Allotment Process, this year itself; and permit the petitioner to effect admissions to the entire seats for B.Ed. that may be sanctioned to the petitioner's College by the NCTE, this year, in case the University is not prepared to make any further allotments this year.

2. On 17.11.2020, when this writ petition came up for consideration, Dr. Abraham P. Meachinkara, the learned Standing Counsel for NCTE, sought time to get instructions.

3. This Court in Oriental College of Teacher Education v. Regional Director, NCTE [2020 (5) KHC 105] has held that without complying with the norms and procedures under the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2014, the petitioner institution cannot seek additional intake in B.Ed course. Paragraph 12 of the said decision reads as follows:

12. Regulation 3 of the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2014 deals with its applicability. In view of clause (c) of Regulation 5, the provisions under the Regulations, 2014 shall be applicable to matters relating to permission for additional intake in the existing teacher education programmes duly recognised by the NCTE. Regulation 5 deals with the manner of making application and the time limit; Regulation 6 deals Digitaaly with processing fees; and Regulation 7 deals with processing of applications. For additional intake in B.Ed Course, the petitioner institution has to make an application in the manner specified in Regulation 5, within the time limit prescribed in the said Regulation. Without complying with the norms and procedures under the Regulations, 2014 the petitioner institution cannot seek additional intake in B.Ed Course, by approaching the NCTE with a request to reinstate the annual intake in Ext.P[2] order. (underline supplied)

4. Today, when this writ petition is taken up for consideration, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this writ petition. Recording the above submission made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn”

6. The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the Appellant thereafter has preferred two writ petitions before the High Court of Delhi, and finally preferred a writ petition i.e. W.P.(C.) No. 14861/2021 without mentioning the fact that it had approached the Kerala High Court in respect of similar reliefs by filing a writ petition i.e. W.P.(C.) No. 25187/2020 which was withdrawn. The Appellant in the writ petition preferred before this Court prayed for the following reliefs: “(i) To issue a writ of Certiorari or other appropriate order or direction to quash the Exhibit P22 order dated 26.11.2021 passed by the NCTE Appellate Authority.

(ii) To issue a writ of Certiorari or other appropriate order or direction to quash the Exhibit P20 minutes of the meeting dated Digitaaly 15.06.2021 as far as it denies seat enhancement to the Petitioner's Institution.

(iii) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate order or direction to direct the Respondent No. 1 and 2 to re-consider the application of the Petitioner College on merits.

(iv) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate order or direction to the 1st Respondent to issue an order to increase the seats in the B.Ed programme from 1 unit to 2 units with a total intake of 100 seats.

(v) to grant such other reliefs as are just and proper in the nature of this case”

7. The relief clause reveals that it was in respect of enhancement of seats from 50 to 100 which was the same prayer made before the Kerala High Court and the most shocking aspect of the case that the Appellant did not disclose the factum of filing a writ petition before the Kerala High Court. In those circumstances, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition with costs. The operative paragraphs of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, as contained in paragraphs 7 to 12 read as under: