Saraswati Deep College of Education v. National Council for Teacher Education

1. This Intra-Court appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated October 05, 2018 whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner, wherein the appellant has 2018:DHC:7045-DB challenged the action of the NCTE returning the appellant Institution’s applications seeking recognition for B.Ed courses all in the year 2013 along with the fee on the ground of the ban imposed by the State of Haryana on granting of recognition for inter-alia B.Ed and D.El.Ed courses.

2. The brief facts as noted from the appeal are that on November 26, 2012, the NCTE had issued a public notice for inviting fresh applications for seeking recognition for various Teacher training courses for the academic session 2013-14 from Institutions situated only in respect of those States in which respective State Governments have not imposed ban on opening of new Institutions. It is the case of the appellant that the appellant being situated in the State of Haryana, there was no such restriction and thus the NCTE had invited the applications from the Institutions situated in Haryana also. It is the case of the appellant that on December 31, 2012 with a view to start B.Ed course from 2013-14 academic session, the appellant submitted an application with the NRC. Vide letter dated March 20, 2013, the NCTE, New Delhi issued a communication to the NRC directing / instructing it that the Govt. of Haryana had subsequently taken a policy decision against opening of new colleges in the State and hence all the applications received from the State of Haryana should be returned along with their processing fee.

3. It is the case of the appellant that there is no provision in the NCTE Act, Rules and Regulations empowering to issue directions to its Regional Committee. While processing applications under Section 14 of the NCTE Act, the Regional committee is obliged to follow the procedure prescribed by the Regulations and once applications are invited by the NCTE, which is the final authority in that regard, the applications are required to be decided strictly as per the prescribed procedure.

4. It is averred that in the meeting held from April 24, 2013 to April 25, 2013, the Regional Committee of the NCTE took a decision to return all the applications received from the State of Haryana.

5. Mr. Sanjay Sharawat, learned counsel for the appellant states that several Institutions like the appellant, who had submitted applications in the year 2012 and whose applications have been returned in the year 2013, filed writ petitions before this Court, wherein the learned Single Judge noting the submission made on behalf of NCTE that respondents have taken a decision to process all the applications, which were submitted by the Institutes before the imposition of the ban by the State Government, had remanded the matter back to the authorities by observing that the petitioner’s application should not be rejected on the ground of there being a ban imposed by the State of Haryana on opening of such educational Institutions. He states that in some cases, the Appellate Committee had remanded the matter back to the NRC for fresh consideration and those Institutes have been granted recognition.

6. We note that the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment has relied upon an order dated July 18, 2018 passed by the Supreme Court in W.P.(Civil) No. 276/2012 Maa Vaishno Devi Mahil Mahavidyalaya v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. to decline the relief to the appellant. The relevant paras, i.e., Paras 4 and 5 of the impugned order reads as under:

3. In view of the aforesaid and the categorical stand taken by the NCTE as reflected in the aforesaid paragraphs of the counter we decline to grant any relief as prayed for to the applicant.

4. Consequently and in the light of the above Miscellaneous Application is disposed of.”

5. A plain reading of the above extracted order leaves no manner of doubt that, in view of the categorical stand taken by the NCTE, inter alia, to the effect that, the decision not to invite/accept any application for recognition of new TEIs in certain states including Haryana from the academic year 2010-11 was taken, in order to regulate growth of teachers education at all levels, on the basis of the recommendations received from, inter alia, the Government of the State of Haryana; the Hon’ble Supreme Court was of the considered view that the same need not to be interfered with and no relief for grant of recognition as prayed for, in that case, could be granted”.

7. From the above, it is clear that many seats in Teacher Education Institutes remained unfilled. In such a scenario, no further recognition can be granted to the Institutes. There is no justification to allow the mushrooming of Institutes conducting Teacher Education courses. The NCTE is within its competence to consider the decision of the State of Haryana not to allow setting up of new B.Ed Institutions in the State. In fact, the Regional Committee of the NCTE declined to grant recognition vide order dated 3rd July, 2013. The last para of which reads as under: “In view of the above judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the decision taken by the NCTE Committee, the NRC decided that the recommendations of the State of Govt. of Haryana, i.e., not to allow setting up of new B.Ed. institutions in the State be accepted and the applications so received be returned to the respective institutions. Also the application fees be refunded to the applicants.”

8. The aforesaid reveals that the decision of the State of Haryana is a necessary input for the NCTE to return the applications received from the institutes.