Dronacharya College of Education v. National Council for Teacher Education and Anr.

1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, belatedly impugns the action of the National Council for Teacher Education (for short ‘NCTE’), respondent No.1 herein, whereby, the latter returned the petitioner institution’s seeking recognition for B.Ed courses all in the year 2013, along with the fee, on the ground of the 2018:DHC:6517 ban imposed by the State of Haryana on granting of recognition for inter alia, B.Ed and D.El.Ed. courses.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner institution invites the Court’s attention to the order dated 25.07.2018 in W.P.(C) 7662/2018, titled as ‘Harnam Singh College of Education vs. National Council for Teacher Education and Anr.’, to urge that, in similar circumstances, this Court directed the NCTE to reconsider the application filed on behalf of the similarly situated institution, without taking into consideration, the subsequent ban imposed by the State of Haryana on the opening of such educational institution.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the NCTE, however, states that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide its order dated 18.07.2018 in W.P.(C) 276/2012, titled as ‘Maa Vaishno Devi Mahil Mahavidyalaya vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.’, has declined to grant any relief to such educational institutions placed in similar circumstances, predicated on the stand taken by the NCTE before the Court.

4. It would be relevant and profitable to extract the order dated 18.07.2018 in Maa Vaishno Devi (supra) insofar as it is germane, in order to appreciate its ambit and import and the same is reproduced in extenso hereunder:

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.” emphasis supplied

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.

6. In view of the foregoing, the submission made on behalf of the petitioner institution that, in similar circumstances, this Court had directed the NCTE to reconsider the application for recognition, without relying on the ban imposed by the State of Haryana in Harnam Singh (supra) is untenable and does not come to their aid. In this behalf, it is observed that, when the said directions were issued on 25.07.2017, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maa Vaishno Devi (supra) had not been brought to the notice of this Court.

7. It is further observed that, the directions issued in Harnam Singh (supra) were predicated on the orders passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) 5454/2018, titled as ‘Rao Deena Ram Vidya Vihar Shiksha Samiti Haluhera and Anr. vs. National Council for Teacher Education and Anr.’, which were also passed without the benefit of considering the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maa Vaishno Devi (supra).