P.D. Rajan College of Education vs National Council for Teacher Education

V. Ramasubramanian, J.—The petitioner was established as a College of Education in the year 2005 and was granted recognition by the respondent-NCTE for conducting a B.Ed. Course with an annual permitted intake of 100 seats during the academic year 2005-06. The original permission was granted, for running the College at Pattukunnampatti, Pappireddipatti Post & Taluk, Harur Taluk, Dharmapuri District, in a property owned by a Trust by name Madras Educational and Research Integrated Trust. It was that Trust, which established the petitioner College. The premises, in which, the College was located was on lease.

Subsequently, the petitioner claims to have shifted the College to their own permanent building at Sekkampatti, Mobiripatti Post, Harur Taluk, Dharmapuri District. According to the petitioner, they have the necessary infrastructure and instructional facilities in their own permanent building.

The petitioner submitted an application on 08.8.2012 seeking the grant of permission to shift the College to a new place. An inspection was conducted by the respondent on 27.11.2012. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued on 15.3.2013, pointing out five deficiencies. The deficiencies pointed out were (i) the original building plan and building completion certification not produced, (ii) original fixed deposit receipts not available; (iii) notarized land use certificate not given, (iv) faculty of Assistant Professor for the Foundation Course not approved by the University, and (5) faculty of Fine Arts/Music not qualified.

The petitioner gave a reply on 05.4.2013 pointing out that the deficiencies are non existent. However, overruling their objections, the respondent passed an order dated 11.7.2013 withdrawing the recognition granted to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner filed a statutory appeal on 26.7.2013.

The Appellate Authority conducted an enquiry on 11.10.2013. Thereafter, the appeal was allowed by an order dated 12.11.2013, remanding the matter back to the Southern Regional Committee, with a direction to them to consider the explanation. The Appellate Authority also directed the order for withdrawal of recognition to be kept in abeyance.

Pursuant to the said order, the Southern Regional Committee issued a fresh show cause notice in May 2014 asking the petitioner as to why staff approval for the newly appointed Assistant Professors/Librarian and Physical Education Director was not obtained. Immediately, the petitioner submitted a requisition letter dated 07.7.2014 to the Tamil Nadu Teacher Education University, for necessary approval. The University granted approval only by an order dated 22.7.2014. Immediately, the petitioner forwarded the order of approval granted by the University to the respondent on 24.7.2014. But, the respondent did not pass any orders, forcing the petitioner to come up with the above writ petition seeking the issue of a writ of Mandamus.

Interestingly, the prayer made by the petitioner is not merely to pass orders on the show cause notice issued in May 2014, on the basis of the letter of approval granted by the University on 22.7.2014. But, the prayer in the writ petition is actually for a Mandamus to direct the respondent to pass orders on the application of the petitioner dated 08.8.2012 to shift the petitioner to the new premises, in compliance with the order of the Appellate Authority dated 12.11.2013.

I have heard Mr. K. Selvaraj, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

The respondent has filed a counter affidavit contending inter alia that the petitioner College is managed and administered by a Trust known as Madras Education and Research Integrated Trust (MERIT); that a conditional order of recognition was granted on 17.11.2005, permitting the petitioner to run the College in a temporary premises for three years and to shift to their own premises within three years; that the conditional grant of recognition was not complied with by the petitioner within the time stipulated, namely 16.11.2008; that after a lapse of four years from the date of expiry of the original period, the petitioner made an application on 08.8.2012 to shift the College to their own building; that though the recognition ought to have been withdrawn even in the year 2008, the respondent did not do so due to oversight; that upon realizing the mistake, the recognition was withdrawn by the order dated 11.7.2013; that since the Regulations are mandatory in nature, the non compliance of the Regulations by the petitioner disentitled them to the continuance of the recognition; and that in any case, a set of new Regulations are in the process of being issued and hence, the Supreme Court has directed the respondent not to consider any applications till the new Regulations are framed. Therefore, the respondent has prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition on the ground that as on date, they have no power to process the application.

From the pleadings on record, it is seen that the petitioner obtained temporary recognition, in terms of Section 14(1) of the NCTE Act, 1993, read with NCTE (Form of Application for Recognition, the Time Limit of Submission of Application, Determination of Norms and Standards for Recognition of Teacher Education Programmes and Permission to Start New Course or Training) Regulations, 2002. Paragraph 3(b) of the order dated 17.11.2005 granting recognition to the petitioner, made it clear that "the institution shall shift to its own premises within three years from the date of recognition (in case the Course is started in temporary premises)". Paragraph 6 of the same order made it clear that if the institution contravenes any of the conditions stipulated therein or any of the provisions of the NCTE, the Southern Regional Committee may withdraw the recognition in terms of Section 17(1) of the Act.

Appendix-3 to the 2002 Regulations contained the Norms and Standards for Pre-School Teacher Education Programme. Appendix-4 contained Norms and Standards for Nursery Teacher Education Programme. Appendix-5 contained the Norms and Standards for Elementary Teacher Education Programme. Appendix-6 contained the Norms and Standards for Bachelor of Elementary Education. Appendix-7 contained the Norms and Standards for Secondary Teacher Education Programme. All these Appendices contained one condition, which is common to all of them, is with reference to infrastructure. It is stated in the Appendices that the Institution/Management shall, at the time of making application, have in its possession, adequate land/land and building on ownership basis, free from all encumbrances. The Government land acquired on long term lease as per the law of the concerned State/Union Territory will also be considered valid for the purpose. Pending construction of permanent building in the above land, the institution may provide these facilities in suitable temporary premises, up to a maximum period of three years, before expiry of which, the institution should shift to its permanent building.

The above clause has been incorporated in the first order granting recognition to the petitioner dated 17.11.2005. Even according to the petitioner, they were located originally in the building that was not owned by them. The petitioner has produced a copy of the lease deed dated 10.10.2006 to show that a lease was granted on 16.10.2006. Even as per the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner submitted an application only on 08.8.2012 for the grant of permission to shift the College to a new place. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner violated the most fundamental condition and attempted to fulfill the same only after the expiry of a period of four years.

But, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the show cause notice dated 15.3.2013, proposing to withdraw the recognition, the respondent indicated only five deficiencies, one of which was not the failure to shift the premises within three years. The show cause notice indicated five deficiencies, but the Appellate Authority set aside the order of withdrawal of recognition passed in pursuance of the show cause notice. Therefore, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had already shifted to its own building and that this was not one of the reasons for withdrawal of the recognition.

Assuming that the petitioner is right in their contention that the failure of the petitioner to comply with the condition, was not the reason for withdrawal of recognition, the same cannot go to the rescue of the petitioner. The respondent cannot today process any application for the simple reason that the Supreme Court by an order dated 07.3.2014 in SLP (Civil) Nos. 4247 and 4248 of 2009, directed the respondent 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 respondent 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 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 application 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. No. 1 of 2014 is also dismissed.