Managing Committee of Bhagwan Buddh Primary Teachers'' Education College, Siwan, Bihar vs The State of Bihar and Others

In the State of Bihar, the Bihar Non-Government Physical Training Colleges and Non-Government Teachers' Training Colleges and non-Government Primary Teachers' Education Colleges (Control & Regulation) Act, 1982 came into force with effect from 4th March, 1980. u/s 2of the Act, without the previous permission of the State Government, which the State Government may accord on such terms and conditions as it may deem fit, no college, of the above mentioned descriptions could admit or offer to admit students to any course of Studies leading to an examination for the award of a degree, diploma or certificate in the branches above mentioned or provide for instruction for any of the above courses whether it led to an examination or an award as above or not. Section 5empowers the Government to make rules for the purposes of carrying out the provisions of this Act. However, so far as Primary Teachers' Education Colleges are concerned, no rules were framed till 1987. The Appellant before us is the Managing Committee of Bhagwan Buddh Primary Teachers' Education College at Siwan. It is claimed that this institution made an application to the Director (Research & Training), Bihar, Patna stating that there is a proposal to start a teachers' training school in the village of Siwan and that, since it was not possible to continue such an institution in the absence of Government recognition, recognition may be granted to start the said school. It is stated that this application was dated 7.5.83 but counsel for the Respondent is not in a position to say whether any such application had been received or not. According to the Appellant, it received no reply to this request. It, therefore, started two-year courses for the education of primary teachers. The first course was for the period 1983-85, the second for 1984-86 and so on. Our attention is drawn to a communication of the District Education Officer, Siwan dated 25.3.85 under which, it is stated, the students of the school were permitted to complete their practical lessons in certain Government Middle and Primary Schools designated by the Government. The students who studied in the College during 1983-85, 1984-86, 1985-87 and 1986-88 have duly appeared in qualifying examinations conducted by the Government. It should be mentioned here, however, that they were not initially permitted to sit for the examination but, later, they were permitted to sit in the examination in pursuance of the interim orders of this Court in certain connected matters.

It is seen from the records placed before us that on 30th July, the Director (Research & Training), Bihar addressed a letter to the Deputy Director of Education, referring to the application of the Appellant college for recognition and requesting that an inquiry be conducted in respect of the college on certain points mentioned in the letter and a report submitted to the Government at an early date. Pursuant to this letter, a detailed report was submitted by the Deputy Director (Education) and the District Education Officer on 15.6.87. After discussion various relevant matters in connection with the Appellant College, including the general accommodation and the residential accommodation available, the existing facilities for sports and training, the strength and qualification of teachers and employees, the qualification and age of trainees, the receipts and expenditure accounts of the College and so on, the Committee concluded thus:

In the light of the above points, Mahatma Buddha Primary Teachers Training College, Bajrahia, Siwan new name of which is Bhagwan Budha Primary Teachers' Education College, Bajrahia, P.S. Gautam Nagar, District Siwan is recommended for recognition.

Apparently, on receipt of this report, the Government granted recognition to the College by its letters dated 24.11.87 and 4.2.88. While recognising the College for the sessions 1987-89 and 1989-90, the letters emphasised that there were certain conditions to be fulfilled by the College and that an inquiry report on the College should be made available on the points mentioned in the letter dated 4.2.88.

In the meantime, it may be mentioned, the Government had promulgated certain rules relating to primary teachers' education colleges in 1987. It is not necessary to set out the details of these rules except to mention that they provided for an application in a prescribed form, the appointment of a committee and the fulfillment of certain conditions for the grant of recognition.

The next document to which our attention has been drawn is a letter dated 3.5.88 from the Principal, Government Teachers' Training College, Chapra (Saran) to the Joint Secretary to the Government, Education Department, Bihar, Patna. From this letter it is seen that the above person was asked to carry out a spot inspection of the Appellant college and submit a detailed report. This report is again a fairly detailed one and after looking into the various aspects of the college functioning, the letter recommended as follows:

Keeping in view the academic record of students enrolled before 1987-89 session and recognition granted to sessions 1987-89 and 1988-90, considering sympathetically on humanitarian grounds, recognition can be granted to sessions before the 1987-89 session.

Our attention has also been drawn to another letter dated 6.5.88 addressed by the District Education Officer, Siwan to the Joint Secretary, Education, Bihar. This again refers to certain facts regarding the college and ultimately concludes as follows:

In the light of above facts, this institution belonging to a minority community fulfils all the requirements. It was from this stand point that the Government has granted recognition to its sessions 1987-89 and 1988-90. But the students from all the former sessions can appear in the forthcoming examination only if the State Government grants recognition to this institution from 1983-85 session, for which it is fully deserving. Therefore, on the basis of the report submitted earlier and this report, the above college is recommended for recognition from 1983-85 to 1986-88." 8. One would have expected that, in view of the grant of recognition for the sessions 1987-89 and 1988-90 and, in view of these favourable reports, the Government would have granted recognition to the Appellant college even for the earlier years. However, what transpired was to the contrary. On 2nd February, 1989, an order was passed by the Government stating that, after examining the proposals for granting recognition and their analysis, it had been found that the college had not fulfilled the conditions laid down in the rules for recognition. Five defects were pointed out:

(1) A college in rural areas should possess 5 acres of land but this college has only 5 bighas 18 kathas 13 dhoors of land (about 4 1/2 acres);

(2) the college has no building, class room, common-room, library, hostel, etc. in compliance with the rules;

(3) according to rules, a training college should have at least 5000 books, whereas this college has only 1569 books;

(4) residential accommodation according to rules, is not provided to teachers and non-teaching employees; and

(5) sports facilities, too, are not provided, according to rules.

With the above observations, the Government not only refused recognition to the college for the earlier sessions, but apparently also cancelled the recognition granted for the sessions 1987-89 and 1988-90. We say, apparently, because the order is somewhat involved. It says that "the State Government has turned down the proposal to grant recognition to all sessions after 1988-90 session, session before 1988-90 session and sessions from 1983-85 to 1986-88."

It is this order of the Government that was challenged in a writ petition before the Patna High Court. The Patna High Court dismissed the writ petition. But the learned Judge, in doing so, appear to have been influenced by a general trend in the State of Bihar under which recognitions were sought to be obtained for mushroom institutions. We find in the High Court's judgment only a passing reference to the specific deficiencies so far as the Appellant college is concerned. Hence, the present appeal.

We have heard Learned Counsel for the Appellant college at great length. He pointed out that a college of the present type cannot suddenly grow up in a day; the growth can necessarily be only gradual and is dependent upon various circumstances. He criticised the rather technical view taken by the State Government and tried to pursuade us that the college has substantially complied with all the rules which were framed in 1987. He also pointed out that actually the college had come into existence long before the rules were framed and that prior to 1987-89 session there was no question of any specific rules to be complied with by the college for recognition. He urged that, since students have undergone courses for four sessions between 1983-85 and 1986-88 and have been allowed to take the examination we should direct the Government to grant recognition to the college and to publish the examination results of the students of the college who have been allowed to participate therein. So far as the 1987-89 and 1988-90 sessions are concerned, Learned Counsel submitted that, after having granted recognition to the college by a considered order, there was no justification for setting aside the recognition so granted. He also criticised the order as based on no material and contrary, in fact, to the reports which had been submitted under the directions of the Government.

Shri Goburdhan, Learned Counsel for the State, pointed out that, under the statute, the Appellant college must have applied for permission and secured recognition before admitting students. He emphasised that there is no information on record as to the state of the college between 1983 and 1987 when the first report was submitted. He, therefore, submitted that, at best, the State can be asked to consider the question of recognition of the college for the years 1983-85 to 1986-88. So far as the years 1987-89 and 1988-90 are concerned, Learned Counsel relied on the order passed by the Government dated 2.2.89.

We are of the opinion that the order dated 2.2.89 has to be set aside. As we have pointed out, the rules envisage that the question of recognition of a college has to be decided in the light of factual findings by committees appointed for the purpose. In this case, there are three clear reports, one of 1987 and the others of 1988, which have examined all the relevant aspects and recommended that the college deserves recognition. In fact, we find that some of the criticisms made in the impugned order are too flimsy to be upheld. For instance, it is stated that a college should possess 5 acres of land but that the Appellant college possesses only about 4.5 acres of land. This cannot be a ground for outright rejection of the application. It may be a good ground for asking the college to acquire the remaining area at an early date and make good the deficiency. In fact, Shri Bhandare, counsel for the Appellant college pointed out that subsequently, in 1988, the college has taken on lease 4.5 acres of land adjacent to its property, and that it has thus complied with the rules. Another criticism is that a training college should have at least 5000 books but the Appellant college had only 1569 books. In our view, this is also a matter that should be asked to be rectified at an early date and not for outright rejection. The requirements as to area of land and number of library books are not to be meant to be complied with precisely and there is room for relaxation. What the Government should see is whether there has been substantial compliance. The other criticism that there are no proper buildings, class rooms, common rooms, library, hostel and sports facilities are totally contrary to what has been set out in the reports we have referred to earlier. As we have mentioned earlier, the reports have examined every one of these aspects and then only recommended recognition. The order dated 2.2.89 does not show whether the contents of these reports were looked into and what material there was for cancelling the recognition recommended after due inspection. It appears that the recognition plea has been rejected out of hand for unsatisfactory reasons. We are, therefore, constrained to set aside the order of the Government dated 2.2.89. The result of this will be that the recognition granted to the college for 1987-89 and 1988-90 will revive.

So far as the earlier sessions are concerned, it is true that the Appellant should not have started the college and admitted students without prior permission from the Government. But, since this has been done, the Government should examine the position and see, whether despite lack of prior permission, the college has done a satisfactory job and whether the students trained in these sessions have had a proper training on the right syllabus. There is substance in the contention of the counsel for the State that there is no material on record before us as to the factual position that prevailed In each of the earlier years. The inspection reports were only in 1987 and 1988. It is, therefore, necessary to remit the matter for these years to the Government to consider the factual situation as it prevailed in the earlier years and on the question of recognition in respect thereof. In doing this, we think that the Government should take into account not only the various aspects pointed out in the reports which we have referred to above but also certain other important criteria. Firstly, one has to allow for the fact that an institution has to develop gradually and that the entire infrastructure cannot be expected to exist from day one. While the existence of suitable accommodation and facilities are necessary, these can come later in stages. Secondly, more than findings on accommodation etc. the emphasis for grant of recognition should be on the qualifications of the teachers, the existence of proper staff, and finally, the quality of the training imparted in the institution. As Shri Bhandare has pointed out, there has been no criticism on these aspects in any of the reports or even in the Government order. However, the fact remains that so far as the years 1983-85 to 1986-88 are concerned, the Government has not examined the facts independently. The rejection of recognition for these years was consequent on the cancellation of the recognition for the years 1987-89 and 1988-90. Now, as we have upheld the recognition for those two sessions, the position regarding earlier sessions needs to be examined independently.

We would also like to mention in this context that, since the rules came into force only in 1987, the question of recognition for the period 1983-85 to 1986-88 will not depend upon conformity with the strict provisions of the rules. The Government should rather see whether the Appellant college was imparting training with competent personnel and trained its students adequately for the examinations for which they were to appear. The Government would have to bear in mind that 100 students have come out of the college in each of these four sessions and that, unless there is a real apprehension that they have not received proper training, it may be unfair to refuse recognition for these years. Having regard to the fact that these four batches of students have already appeared in the examinations but that their results have been withheld, their future is in jeopardy unless recognition is granted and their results are declared at an early date. As the question of recognition for these years has been in abeyance for a long time, we would direct the Government to have the matter examined immediately and pass orders on the college's application for the years 1983-85 to 1986-88 not later than 31st December, 1990. We hope that the Government will look into the matter and pass their orders on the issue of recognition for the years 1983-85 to 1986-88 even earlier than that, if possible. Shri Bhandare has drawn our attention to certain notings said to have been made in the Secretariat of Bihar according to which the Government was willing to grant recognition to the college and also publish the, results of its candidates in the examination but that final orders were withheld only on an apprehension that they might be infringing some interim orders passed by this Court. We do not think there are any such interim orders in this case. Anyhow, we would like to make it clear that the State will be at liberty to announce the results of the candidates of the college who have appeared in the examination at any time should it choose to do so.

With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.