Shri Ganesh College of Education vs National Council for Teacher Education and Others

Alok Sharma, J.—1. Heard on the stay application.

The issue is with regard to an additional (third) counselling for admission into the petitioner-College''s two year BSTC course for the academic session 2015-17. The petitioner-College admittedly is recognized by National Council for Teacher Education (hereinafter "NCTE") for intake of 100 students in the BSTC two year course. It has also been similarly granted an NOC by the State Government.

It appears that in respect of admission into the BSTC two year course 2015-17, the petitioner-College was in the first instance on the basis of preference given out by the successful students in BSTC examination allotted 72 students. However 47 of such students thereafter joined other colleges on vacancies being available as per their higher preference through upward movement permitted under the counselling. Thereafter in the second counselling held on or about 10.07.2015, 58 students chose the petitioner-College. Two of the 58 again under the upward movement permitted on the basis of higher preference, took a transfer. In the circumstances, the petitioner-College had 18 vacant seats in the BSTC 2015-17 course at the end of the second counselling ending 10.07.2015. Matters rested there. No steps were taken by the petitioner-College to secure students for the remainder vacant 18 seats in its BSTC course 2015-17.

Mr. S.P. Sharma, Sr. Advocate appearing with Mr. S.S. Shekhawat, for the petitioner-College has submitted that now on the ground of parity and in consonance with the interim order dated 05.01.2016, passed in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 34/2016 where additional counselling in respect of vacant seats in the BSTC course 2015-17 has been allowed by the Division Bench at the Principal Seat of this Court, the petitioner-College is entitled to a similar interim order and a direction for third/special counselling for admission to remainder 18 vacant seats in its BSTC two year course 2015-17, albeit subject to the outcome of the writ petition. Mr. Sharma submitted that even though the academic session for first year of the BSTC course in issue started in July, 2015 yet in the remainder period before the examinations (which he says are ordinarily held in October), the newly inducted students in the petitioner-College, following counselling under this Court''s interim order on parity with one dated 05.01.2016 and admission, will be able to complete their requisite 200 teaching days in the academic session and be eligible for examination as per NCTE''s Regulations of 2014.

Per contra, Mr. S.K. Gupta, AAG appearing for the Director and Principal Secretary, Elementary Education Department has referred to the minutes of meeting dated 22.01.2015 in the Department of Elementary Education headed by the Chairman, Elementary Education. Attention of this Court has been drawn to Clause-6 of the said minutes of meeting which reads as under:

It was emphatically submitted that this decision is not under challenge.

It has been submitted that pursuant to the aforesaid decision, subsequent to the second counselling, a third counselling was not held. Nor in fact any issue in regard thereto raised by the petitioner-College or any other similarly placed Colleges even though vacant seats vis a vis the intake permitted remained in several recognized Colleges. It was submitted that the first year session of BSTC course 2015-17 commenced in the month of July, 2015. In terms of NCTE''s obtaining Regulations 2014, a minimum of 200 teaching days is required in an academic year by BSTC students to render them eligible to write the examination. It was submitted that students if now admitted into the course, cannot in the normal course of instruction complete 200 teaching days to be eligible for the year end BSTC Part-I examination. Learned AAG submitted that counselling cannot be indefinitely continued on a rolling basis to ensure that each College approved by NCTE be able to fill up all the seats in respect of which intake is allowed to it. If it were so, the commencement of the academic session would be indefinitely postponed and NCTE''s Regulations, 2014 with regard to minimum 200 teaching days in each academic session for student enrolled would be violated. The whole academic calendar would be thrown in disarray. Accelerated instructions for sham compliance would only dilute the teaching and quality of instruction to potential teachers to public detriment. Alternatively the students admitted belatedly would be ineligible for writing the examination at the end of the academic year which would be disastrous for them. It was submitted that if the petitioner-College were indeed aggrieved of further counselling not being held subsequent to the second counselling on 10.07.2015, it ought to have approached the Court soon thereafter. Instead this writ petition has been filed on 07.01.2016. It was submitted that in the factual context of the case, the petition is belated and ought to be dismissed on the ground of laches alone. It was further submitted that the petitioner-College cannot find a fresh cause of action to approach this Court in the interim order passed by the Division Bench in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 34/2016 passed on 05.01.2016 or D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1082/2015 on 20.11.2015. Learned AAG submitted that even otherwise no interim order qua counselling or resultant admissions in the College of the petitioner should be passed as the Apex Court has been consistent in holding that admission through interim orders should be eschewed. Counsel finally submitted that to allow the petitioner-College to induct students by an interim order subject to the outcome of the writ petition as directed by the Division Bench in the two special appeals would put the students at gross risk and jeopardize their career for which there would be no recompense, in the event of the writ petition being finally dismissed.

Heard. Considered.

A bare look at the interim order dated 20.11.2015, passed in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1082/2015 indicates that it related to a set of colleges differently positioned and which were not allowed to participate in the first two counsellings because of a general ban on the opening of new institutions for BSTC course upto 2017. The Division Bench found such exclusion to be prima facie illegal and consequently directed in the interim that counselling be held qua such Colleges. Pursuant to the interim order dated 20.11.2015, the Coordinator, BSTC appears to have issued a notification dated 25.12.2015 making it clear that a special counselling was being held in respect of six new colleges, which were earlier excluded and as directed by the High Court. The said special online counselling was held between 27.12.2015 and 05.01.2016. The allotment of colleges to the students who participated in the said counselling was done by 06.01.2016.

The case of the petitioner-College now before this Court is on the face of it distinguishable from that of six colleges to which the order dated 20.11.2015, passed in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1082/2015 relates and the consequent notification dated 25.12.2015. It however appears that in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 34/2016 vide interim order dated 05.01.2016 in respect of a college i.e. S.S. College of Education, Udaipur which had a few vacant seats after the second counselling for 2015-17 in its BSTC two year course, the Division Bench at the Principal Seat directed the State Government to allow the said College to participate in the counselling and provisionally admit students to the extent of vacant seats in its BSTC two year course 2015-17 while making it clear that such admission to vacant seats in the appellant-College would be subject to the final decision in the appeal. It was also made clear that the interim order would not create any substantive right in favour of the appellant-College or for students admitted on the basis of counselling under the Court''s order. Such students were to be put to notice on this Count.

On a query to the counsel for the Coordinator, BSTC, it was stated that counselling for the student of SS College of Education, Udaipur pursuant to the interim order dated 05.01.2016 has yet not been held. Mr. S.K. Gupta, AAG points out that the interim order dated 05.01.2016 passed in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 34/2016 is an ex-parte order and the State Government is in the process of formulating its response thereto.

It can nobody''s case that the State Government is under an obligation or guarantees the admission of students to the BSTC course of each College to the extent of the intake approved by NCTE and in respect of which NOC has been issued by it. It also cannot be contested that counselling cannot be held on rolling basis till the admission of all students into all recognized Colleges to the extent of their intake happens. NCTE''s Regulations 2014 warrant that in respect of BSTC two year course 200 teaching days in each academic session be completed by students to be eligible to write the ensuing exam. In this context, it is obvious that the counselling has to be limited in time and number in the discretion of the State Government. This discretion appears to have been so exercised in providing for two counsellings in pursuance to the minutes of meeting of the Elementary Education Department held on 22.01.2015. A third counselling or further has been prohibited. Admittedly the second counselling was completed on 16.07.2015. A third one was not notified under the Government''s avowed policy. The petitioner-College if aggrieved, left with 18 vacant seats vis a vis the approved intake of 100 seats ought to have approached this Court at that point of time. This was admittedly not done.

A period of six months have elapsed since the commencement of the first year BSTC session 2015-16 in July, 2015. The petitioner-College however now has sought a cause of action in the interim order dated 20.11.2015 in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1082/2015 and more particularly in the interim order dated 05.01.2016 in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 34/2016. The relevance of interim order dated 20.11.2015 in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1082/2015 is misplaced because it related to a special category of institutions which were first excluded from counselling because of a policy decision, prima facie held to be arbitrary by the Court. The petitioner-College is not such a College. It cannot seek parity with the six aforesaid Colleges. Indeed the interim order dated 05.01.2016 in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 34/2016 has been passed in respect of a college similarly situate to the petitioner-College. But that order is evidently an ad interim order without notice to the State, NCTE and the Coordinator, BSTC, 2015. It has been stated by Mr. R.A. Katta, counsel for the Coordinator, BSTC, 2015 that counselling in pursuance to the said interim order dated 05.01.2016 has not been done and instruction from the State Government, to which the directions having been issued are awaited.

Even though in the overall facts of the case, I would have been disinclined to grant any interim relief to the petitioner-College on merits, yet on the principle of parity and comity of courts which counsel for the petitioner-College has very vehemently argued and from which there seems to be no escape for reason of judicial discipline, I am of the view that the case of the petitioner-College be treated at par with that of S.S. College of Education, Udaipur in terms of the interim order dated 05.01.2016 passed in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 34/2016. It goes without saying that in counselling being conducted by the State Government pursuant to the interim order dated 05.01.2016, the petitioner-College would be entitled to participate to the extent of 18 vacant seats in BSTC course 2015-17. It would be made clear to students seeking admission to the petitioner-College on the 18 vacant seats in BSTC course that their admission would be subject to the outcome of the writ petition and no equity would operate in their favour. This condition be incorporated in the admission letters of the students in issue.

The stay application stands disposed of accordingly.