AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
T. Raja, J.—Since a common issue regarding the approval of admission of students to the M.Ed., course for the academic year 2013-14 in the petitioners-Institutions is raised in these writ petitions, they are taken up together and disposed by this order. This batch of writ petitions has been filed either challenging the impugned orders issued by the Tamil Nadu Teachers Education University in not approving the admission of students to the M.Ed., post graduate course for the academic year 2013-14 in the petitioners-Institutions or for a direction to the University to approve the admission of students in M.Ed., post graduate course for the academic year 2013-14. For answering the issue raised by the petitioners-Institutions in all these writ petitions, the facts, in brief, as pleaded in the respective writ petitions are referred to in this order. When Adhiparasakthi College of Education, the petitioner in W.P. No. 31286 of 2013, was established in the year 2006 for imparting quality training in the field of education, the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) granted recognition in the year 2006 to conduct one year Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.) course. Subsequently, the NCTE also granted recognition to the petitioner-Institution to conduct the Master in Education (M.Ed.) post graduate course. At the time of establishment, the petitioner-Institution was affiliated to Thiruvalluvar University. However, after the Tamil Nadu Teacher Education University came into existence in 2008, the petitioner-Institution became provisionally affiliated with that University from the academic year 2008-09 and the affiliation was valid for a period of three years upto 2011-12. However, the petitioner-Institution also applied for continuation of the provisional affiliation from the academic year 2012-13 and the same was also accepted by the respondent-University.
1.1. Stanley College of Education, the petitioner in W.P. No. 31261 of 2013 was established in the year 2007 and it was granted recognition by the NCTE to conduct the one year B.Ed, course from the academic year 2007-08. Subsequently, the petitioner-Institution was also granted affiliation by the Periyar University to conduct the B.Ed, course. Thereafter, the petitioner also applied for one year M.Ed., post graduate course in the year 2008 and the NCTE granted recognition on 24.11.2008 to conduct the M.Ed., post graduate course with an intake of 25 students. Subsequently, the respondent-University also granted affiliation to the petitioner-Institution to conduct the M.Ed., post graduate course on 8.8.2009. Thereafter, the petitioner-Institution also obtained approval from the respondent-University for additional intake in the M.Ed., course from the academic year 2010-11 to admit 35 students.
1.2. Annai College of Master Education, the petitioner in W.P. No. 32954 of 2013 was established in the year 2006 and it was granted recognition by the NCTE to conduct the one year B.Ed, course from the academic year 2006-07. Subsequently, the petitioner-Institution was also granted affiliation by the Periyar University to conduct the B.Ed, course. Thereafter, the petitioner also applied for one year M.Ed., post graduate course in the year 2007 and the NCTE granted recognition on 22.9.2008 to conduct the M.Ed., post graduate course with an intake of 25 students. Subsequently, the respondent-University also granted affiliation to the petitioner-Institution to conduct the M.Ed., post graduate course on 29.9.2009. Thereafter, the petitioner-Institution also obtained approval from the respondent-University for additional intake in the M.Ed., course from the academic year 2010-11 to admit 35 students.
1.3. St. John De Britto College of Education, the petitioner in W.P. No. 32955 of 2013 was established in the year 2007 and it was granted recognition on 2.11.2007 by the NCTE to conduct the one year B.Ed, course from the academic year 2007-08. Subsequently, the petitioner-Institution was also granted affiliation by the Bharathidasan University, Trichy on 6.12.2007 to conduct the B.Ed, course. Thereafter, the petitioner also applied for one year M.Ed., post graduate course in the year 2008 and the NCTE granted recognition on 30.7.2009 to conduct the M.Ed., post graduate course with an intake of 25 students. Subsequently, the respondent-University also granted affiliation to the petitioner-Institution to conduct the M.Ed., post graduate course on 3.9.2009. Thereafter, the petitioner-Institution also obtained approval from the respondent-University for additional intake in the M.Ed., course from the academic year 2009-10 to admit 35 students.
1.4. K.S.K. College of Education, the petitioner in W.P. No. 33080 of 2013 was established in the year 2007 and it was granted recognition by the NCTE to conduct the one year B.Ed, course from the academic year 2007-08. Subsequently, the petitioner-Institution was also granted affiliation by the Bharathidasan University, Trichy to conduct the B.Ed, course. Thereafter, the petitioner also applied for one year M.Ed., post graduate course in the year 2008 and the NCTE granted recognition on 24.2.2009 to conduct the M.Ed., post graduate course with an intake of 25 students. Subsequently, the respondent-University also granted affiliation to the petitioner-Institution to conduct the M.Ed., post graduate course on 7.9.2009.
1.5. Grace College of Education, the petitioner in W.P. No. 34223 of 2013 was established in the year 2005-06 and it was granted recognition on 6.1.2006 by the NCTE to conduct the one year B.Ed, course from the academic year 2005-06. Subsequently, the petitioner-Institution was also granted affiliation by the Thiruvalluvar University, on 18.9.2006 to conduct the B.Ed, course. Thereafter, the petitioner also applied for one year M.Ed., post graduate course in the year 2008 and the NCTE granted recognition on 30.5.2008 to conduct the M.Ed., post graduate course with an intake of 25 students for the year 2009-10. Subsequently, the respondent-University also granted affiliation to the petitioner-Institution to conduct the M.Ed., post graduate course on 20.10.2009. Thereafter, the petitioner-Institution was granted approval on 24.8.2010 by the respondent-University for additional intake in the M.Ed., course from the academic year 2010-11 to admit 35 students.
1.6. Shivparvathi Mandradiar College of Education, the petitioner in W.P. No. 34436 of 2013 was established in the year 2004-05 and it was granted recognition on 7.9.2004 by the NCTE to conduct the one year B.Ed, course from the academic year 2004-05. Subsequently, the petitioner-Institution was also granted affiliation by the Bharathiyar University, Coimbatore on 18.3.2005 to conduct the B.Ed, course. Thereafter, the petitioner also applied for one year M.Ed., post graduate course in the year 2007 and the NCTE granted recognition on 1.11.2007 to conduct the M.Ed., post graduate course with an intake of 25 students for the year 2007-08. Subsequently, the respondent-University also granted affiliation to the petitioner-Institution to conduct the M.Ed., post graduate course on 5.6.2008. Thereafter, the petitioner-Institution was granted approval on 25.8.2010 by the respondent-University for additional intake in the M.Ed., course from the academic year 2010-11 to admit 35 students.
Mr. R. Muthukumaraswamy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. No. 31286 of 2013, while challenging the impugned order, submitted that when the NCTE granted recognition to various institutions like the petitioner, admittedly, there were no regulations framed under the National Council for Teacher Education Act for getting accreditation from the National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC). Subsequently, the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2009 were framed in exercise of powers u/s 32(2) of the NCTE Act and Regulation 8(5) of the said regulations requires all the institutions that have been granted additional intake in B.Ed, course or having M.Ed., course to get NAAC accreditation with at least a letter grade ''B'' on or before 1.4.2010 and 1.4.2012 respectively, failing which the recognition granted by the NCTE would stand withdrawn with effect from the academic year 2010-11 and 2012-13 respectively. In this batch, we are concerned only with the M.Ed., course and the cut-off date was fixed as 1.4.2012. In view of the said requirement, all the institutions should have submitted the applications before the NAAC through on-line format on or before 1.4.2012. But unfortunately, the on-line system of NAAC was not in operation from 1.1.2012 until the second week of August, 2012. In view of the fact that the website was not in operation for the period from 1.1.2012 till the second week of August, 2012, the institutions were unable to submit the applications through on-line to the NAAC for accreditation.
When the matters stood as above, he further submitted that the respondent-University issued communications to the petitioners-Institutions and one such communication dated 14.8.2012 issued to the petitioner in W.P. No. 31286 of 2013 shows that the institutions should not admit any students both in respect of the additional intake for B.Ed, course and M.Ed., course from the academic year 2012-13 on the ground that the institutions did not obtain NAAC accreditation before the cut-off date, namely, 1.4.2012. In view of the peculiar situation faced by the institutions, the petitioner along with similarly placed institutions approached this Court by filing W.P. Nos. 23392, 26571, 26070, 26389 of 2012 etc. batch seeking to quash the communications issued by the respondent University and for a direction to the respondent University to approve the admission of students admitted in the M.Ed., post graduate course during the academic year 2012-13. This Court, although granted stay of the communication dated 14.8.2012, finally, allowed the writ petitions by quashing the communications impugned therein by order dated 22.1.2013 on three grounds stating that admittedly as per the counter affidavits filed by the NAAC, the website was not functioning from 1.1.2012 till the second week of August, 2012 and therefore the question of submitting the applications through on-line did not arise. Secondly, the NCTE also had not taken any steps to withdraw the recognition granted to these institutions. Thirdly, the letter issued by the NCTE dated 13.7.2012 clearly stated that the NCTE Committee in its 17th meeting held on 9.7.2012 decided that in respect of the applications pending with NAAC for accreditation, action need not be taken for withdrawal of additional intake/recognition. The said letter dated 13.7.2012 also further stated that appropriate amendment to the Regulations would be made in due course. In view of the above three reasons, the learned Judge made it clear, while allowing the writ petitions, that when the recognition was already granted by the NCTE followed by the affiliation granted by the respondent University, the question of withdrawing the recognition granted to the Institutions, for the simple reason that they failed to get the accreditation from the NAAC, is far from acceptance. Finally, it was pleaded that when the NCTE had already issued a communication dated 13.7.2012 advising the affiliating Universities that action need not be taken for withdrawal of affiliation in respect of the institutions whose applications for accreditation are pending with the NAAC, besides one another communication issued by the NCTE stating that the Southern Regional Committee in its 252nd meeting held on 13th and 14th September, 2013 had specifically decided that the institutions cannot be proceeded against for want of NAAC accreditation until NAAC decides on their cases or until the NCTE revises its relaxation, whichever is earlier, in the light of the above instructions issued by the NCTE, the impugned order is liable to be set aside by allowing the writ petition. The learned senior counsel also brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioner-Institution has been now granted the certificate of ''B'' grade accreditation by the NAAC by order dated 26.2.2014.
The learned counsel appearing for the NCTE submitted that it is an admitted case that the institution was granted recognition to conduct the M.Ed., course with an intake of 35 students in the year 2008. However, the institution did not conduct the course for three years and therefore the affiliation was obtained in the year 2011. In the meanwhile, when the institution is bound to comply with the conditions issued by the respondent University to get accreditation, for the simple reason that the website was not in operation from 1.1.2012 till the second week of August, 2012, the non submission of the application before the cut-off date viz., 1.4.2012 cannot be taken advantage of by the institution. However, the learned counsel submitted that the NCTE also, taking note of the difficulties experienced by the institutions like the petitioner, issued the letter dated 13.7.2012 making it clear that no action need be taken for withdrawal of additional intake/recognition in respect of the pending applications. Therefore, the impugned order issued by the respondent University should not be interfered with.
Opposing the submissions made by the learned senior counsel, the learned counsel appearing for the NAAC submitted that so far the NAAC had completed assessment and accreditation of over 5115 colleges and 179 universities in the country. Since the assessment and accreditation process has been very much appreciated and accepted by all the stake holders due to objective and transparent methodology, the petitioner institution cannot make any plea for not properly submitting the application before the cut-off date for getting the accreditation. Only after the institution submits Letter of Intent (LOI) or Institutional Eligibility for Quality Assessment (IEQA) or Self Study Report (SSR), the NAAC would be in a position to complete the assessment and issue the accreditation certificate. Since in the present case, the institution has not properly applied within the reasonable time, the impugned order passed by the University cannot be interfered with.
Similarly, the learned counsel appearing for the University, after re-stating the stand taken in the counter affidavit, submitted that although the institution was issued with the accreditation certificate by order dated 26.2.2014, the same is applicable only from the academic year 2014-15. Therefore, the institution cannot be allowed to take advantage of the accreditation certificate granted on 26.2.2014. In view of that, the impugned order passed by the University cannot be interfered with.
Mr. R. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 34223 and 34436 of 2013, adopting the arguments of the learned senior counsel, further submitted that in terms of Regulation 8(5) of the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2009, when the communication was issued by the NCTE directing the institutions to get the NAAC accreditation on or before 1.4.2012 in respect of M.Ed., post graduate course, the petitioners institutions, having submitted their applications for accreditation on 29.7.2011 itself, are entitled to get the benefit of the circular dated 13.7.2012 issued by the NCTE, wherein paragraph-6 clearly states that the NCTE Committee in its 17th meeting held on 9th July 2012 decided that in respect of the applications pending with NAAC, action need not be taken for withdrawal of additional intake/recognition. Appropriate amendment to the Regulations would be made in due course. Since the applications submitted by the petitioners are pending at various stages, no fault can be found with the petitioners and therefore the writ petitions deserve to be allowed, for the reason that the decision taken by the NCTE as well as the order passed by this Court in the batch of writ petitions dated 22.1.2013 still equally applies to the case of the petitioners institutions in respect of the admission to M.Ed., post graduate course for the academic year 2013-14.
Mr. B. Rabu Manohar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 31261, 32954, 32955 and 33080 of 2013 also adopted the arguments of Mr. R. Suresh Kumar.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The issue raised in these writ petitions is no longer res integra, as the very same issue relating to the approval of admission of students to the M.Ed., post graduate course for the academic year 2012-13 was considered by the learned Judge in favour of the institutions like the petitioners in
W.P. Nos. 25460 of 2012 etc. batch by order dated 22.1.2013, wherein the learned Judge allowed the writ petitions by quashing the communications impugned therein on three grounds.
Firstly, as per the counter affidavits filed by the NAAC, the website was not functioning from 1.1.2012 till the second week of August, 2012 and therefore the question of submitting the applications through on-line did not arise.
Secondly, the NCTE also had not taken any steps to withdraw the recognition granted to these institutions.
Thirdly, the letter issued by the NCTE dated 13.7.2012 clearly stated that the NCTE Committee in its 17th meeting held on 9.7.2012 decided that in respect of the applications pending with NAAC for accreditation, action need not be taken for withdrawal of additional intake/recognition. The said letter dated 13.7.2012 also further stated that appropriate amendment to the Regulations would be made in due course. In view of these reasons, the learned Judge made it clear that when the recognition was already granted by the NCTE followed by the affiliation granted by the respondent University, the question of withdrawing the recognition granted to the Institutions, for the simple reason that they failed to get the accreditation from the NAAC, is far from acceptance. When this Court had already considered the issue by holding that the petitioners institutions cannot be faulted on the ground that they did not get the accreditation from NAAC on or before 1.4.2012, since their applications were pending at various stages before the NAAC, and that the institutions are entitled to conduct the M.Ed., post graduate course on the basis of the recognition and affiliation granted by the authorities, the respondent University cannot return the fees submitted by the institutions seeking approval of the admission of the students for the academic year 2013-14 by taking a stand that it was applicable only for the academic year 2012-13, when the University had made it clear that they would abide by the orders passed by this Court.
Admittedly, in this batch, except the petitioner in W.P. No. 31286 of 2013 for which the certificate of ''B'' grade accreditation has been granted by the NAAC on 26.2.2014, the applications of the other petitioners institutions are still pending at various stages of processing by the NAAC and in some cases, it was represented that the inspection had been done during January, 2014. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be faulted for not getting the accreditation certificate from the NAAC, as their applications are pending at various stages. Moreover, it is also not the case of the respondents that the petitioners institutions are not having the necessary infrastructural facilities or running the M.Ed., course without any recognition/affiliation. In that view of the matter, this Court is not in a position to support the stand taken by the respondent University.
Indeed, a communication dated 13.7.2012 was issued by the NCTE advising the respondent University not to take any action for withdrawal of affiliation in respect of the institutions whose applications for accreditation are pending with the NAAC. Moreover, the NCTE also had issued a communication stating that amendment to the Regulations would be made in due course and that apart, the respondent University also had written to the NCTE seeking its opinion as to how to proceed with the institutions in respect of continuing with the affiliation for the academic year 2013-14. Further, the Southern Regional Committee of NCTE in its 252nd meeting held on 13th and 14th September, 2013 had explicitly resolved that the educational institutions should not be proceeded against for want of NAAC accreditation until the NAAC decides on their cases or until the NCTE revises its relaxation, whichever is earlier. In view of that, the impugned order is liable to go. For all these reasons, the impugned orders are set aside and all the writ petitions are allowed. Needless to mention that the respondent-Tamil Nadu Teachers Education University is bound to approve the admission of students in the M.Ed., post graduate course in the petitioners institutions for the academic year 2013-14. Consequently, M.P. Nos. 1 of 2013 are closed. No costs.