Na. Gunasekaran vs The Regional Director Southern Regional Committee

V. Ramasubramanian, J.—The petitioner was established as a College of Education in the year 2006. By an order dated 26.10.2006, a conditional recognition was granted to the petitioner to offer a B.Ed. Course of a duration of one year with a permitted annual intake of 100 students. One of the conditions for the grant of recognition was that the petitioner should shift to their own premises within a period of three years from the temporary premises, at which the College was located in VGM Nagar, Ammoor Road, Wallajahpet.

Despite the expiry of the period of three years on 25.10.2009, the petitioner did not shift the College to their own premises. However, the petitioner made an application on 31.3.2012 for shifting the College to their own premises. The fee of Rs. 40,000/- for inspection was also paid and the first respondent conducted an inspection. After inspection, the first respondent called upon the petitioner to produce proof of the staff list and the approval of the University. It appears that the University gave approval for the staff only on 28.5.2013. The second respondent gave approval for the post of Principal only on 11.6.2013. But, in the meantime, the first respondent passed an order dated 09.6.2013 withdrawing the recognition.

Therefore, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 16464 of 2013 challenging the order of the NCTE. The writ petition was dismissed by an order dated 30.7.2013 on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. Therefore, the petitioner filed an appeal and they were called upon to appear for a personal hearing on 13.9.2013. By an order dated 30.10.2013, the appeal was allowed and the matter remanded back to the Southern Regional Committee, which is the first respondent herein, for a fresh consideration and also, in the meantime, keeping the order of withdrawal of recognition in abeyance.

In the meantime, the University refused to give eligibility form to the petitioner on the ground that the last date for admission to students was over on 30.10.2013. Therefore, the petitioner filed another writ petition in W.P. No. 31669 of 2013. That writ petition is pending. In the meantime, the Southern Regional Committee, in its 256th meeting held in December 2013, considered the case of the petitioner and passed an order withdrawing the recognition, on the ground that staff list has many deficiencies and that the request for shifting was rejected. Therefore, challenging the decision taken at the 256th meeting of the Southern Regional Committee, the petitioner has come up with the above writ petition.

On 20.12.2013, this Court ordered notice of motion in the above writ petition. Therefore, the first respondent also communicated their decision, by a letter dated 23.01.2014, withdrawing the recognition for the reasons stated therein. Therefore, the petitioner had their prayer amended, so as to challenge the communication dated 23.01.2014 also.

I have heard Mr. D. Rajagopal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for the first respondent and Mr. U. Venkatesan, learned counsel for the second respondent University.

As seen from the original order of recognition granted on 26.10.2006, the petitioner was granted temporary recognition, subject to the condition that they would shift to their own premises within three years from the date of recognition. This condition is to be traced to the Appendices to the NCTE, 2002 Regulations. Appendices 3 to 7 of the Regulations contained the "Norms and Standards for Pre-School Teacher Education Programme", "Norms and Standards for Nursery Teacher Education Programme", "Norms and Standards for Elementary Teacher Education Programme", "Norms and Standards for Bachelor of Elementary Education" and "Norms and Standards for Secondary Teacher Education Programme" respectively. In all these Appendices, paragraph 7(c) or paragraph 7(d) contained a stipulation that Management/Institutions shall, at the time of making application, have in their possession adequate land, land and building on ownership basis, free from all encumbrances. Though the Government land acquired on long term lease is also considered to be valid, the Appendices make it clear that pending construction of permanent building in the land, the institution may provide these facilities in suitable temporary premises up to a maximum period of three years, before the expiry of which, the institution should shift to its permanent building. Therefore, the petitioner was obliged to comply with the above condition and there was no escape from the same.

Previously, there was a doubt as to whether the above Regulations were directory or mandatory in nature. The Rajasthan High Court took a view that the Regulations were only directory in respect of the cut off dates specified in the Regulations. But, the said view was reversed by the Supreme Court in National Council for Teacher Education and Others Vs. Shri Shyam Shiksha Prashikshan Sansthan and Others etc. etc., . In the said decision, the Supreme Court held that the Regulations framed for the grant of recognition are mandatory in nature and that an institution is not entitled to recognition, unless it fulfills the conditions specified therein. As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court issued a mandate to the NCTE in paragraph 29 of the said decision that the Council shall not issue any recognition in future, unless the institutions fulfill the Regulations.

Therefore, it is clear that paragraph 7(c) or paragraph 7(d) contained in the Appendices to the Regulation is mandatory and that non fulfillment of the conditions stipulated therein would lead to withdrawal of recognition. The fact that the petitioner did not shift their premises within the period of three years, is almost an admitted fact. The petitioner made an application for permission to shift, only in the year 2012. Therefore, the withdrawal of recognition, has fallen as a natural consequence on the failure of the petitioner.

Drawing my attention to the order dated 19.6.2013 withdrawing the recognition, Mr. D. Rajagopal, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the only reason why recognition was withdrawn was that the institution did not submit the staff list duly approved by the University. Now, the petitioner has obtained approval of the staff list from the University and the petitioner has also succeeded before the Appellate Authority. Therefore, in the light of the approval of the staff list by the University, granted on 28.5.2013 and 11.6.2013 and in the light of the Appellate Authority''s order, Mr. D. Rajagopal, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned action of the first respondent was wrong.

It is true that the first respondent has proceeded to state in the impugned order, on a ground other than the one that is now canvassed. But, the fact remains that the mandatory requirement of the Regulations was not fulfilled by the petitioner. If the mandatory requirement of the Regulations, especially with respect to an educational institution is not fulfilled, the consequences should automatically follow. No Court can issue a Mandamus in favour of a person, who did not comply with the mandatory requirement of law.

In any case, it appears that today, it is impossible both for the NCTE and for this Court to do anything in view of a development that has taken place. It appears that the Supreme Court by an order dated 07.3.2014 in SLP (Civil) Nos. 4247 and 4248 of 2009, directed the NCTE not to consider any application till the new regulations are framed. As stated earlier, the recognition for the petitioner College was granted under the Regulations of the year 2002.

Since the NCTE could not issue a new set of Regulations, they made two applications before the Supreme Court in I.A. Nos. 56 and 57 of 2014. One was for extension of time till June 2014, to come up with a new set of Regulations. Another was for permission to process the pending applications. It appears that by an order dated 07.3.2014, the Supreme Court granted extension of time for issuing new Regulations. But, no order was passed granting permission to process the pending applications.

In view of the strict mandate, it appears that a batch of writ petitions were filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, before the Supreme Court in W.P. (Civil) Nos. 148, 152 and 155 of 2014, by three Colleges of Education in Punjab. The prayer in those writ petitions before the Supreme court was for a Mandamus to direct the NCTE to process and decide their applications for the academic session 2014-2015. But, these writ petitions were dismissed by the Supreme Court by an order dated 24.3.2014. Paragraph 2 of the said order reads as follows:

"It has been brought to our notice that this Court has passed orders in SLP(C) Nos. 4247-4248 of 2009 on 10th September, 2013 directing that those who are desirous of establishing Teacher Education Colleges/Institutions shall be free to make applications in accordance with the new regulations to be framed by the NCTE and their applications shall be decided by the competent authority keeping in view the relevant statutory provisions. By the said order, this Court has further directed that all pending applications shall also be decided in accordance with the new Regulations. The new Regulations have not been finalised and by an order passed by this Court on 7th March, 2014 in IA Nos. 56-57 of 2011 filed in SLP(C) No. 4247-4248 of 2009, this Court has granted extension of time till June, 2014 for the National Council for Teacher Education to revise the norms and standards of various Teacher Education Programmes and codify the new Regulations. The result is the National Council for Teacher Education has time upto June, 2014 to frame the new Regulations and till the new Regulations are framed, the pending application of the petitioners for recognition cannot be considered. Therefore, the consideration of the applications of the petitioner-institutions for the year 2014-2015 cannot be made by the National Council for Teacher Education before June, 2014, the academic session 2014-2015 would have commenced. We cannot, therefore, issue any direction to the National Council for Teacher Education to consider the applications of the petitioner-institutions for the academic session 2014-2015 in stead of 2015-2016."

Therefore, no Mandamus can be issued as prayed for by the petitioner, in the teeth of the order of the Supreme Court.

Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, M.P. Nos. 1 & 2 of 2013 and 2 of 2014 are also dismissed.