AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.S. Verma, J.—Heard Mr. Pawan Mishra, Advocate for the Petitioner, Mr. Kartikey Hari Gupta, holding brief of Mr. U.P.S. Negi, Advocate for University and Mr. Sudhir Singh, Advocate for NCTE.
Mr. Kartikey Hari Gupta, Advocate for the University has submitted that the writ petition may be decided as on today without calling counter affidavit.
By means of this petition the Petitioner has sought the following reliefs-
(1) To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari, calling for the records and quashing the office order dated 17-9-2010(Annexure No. 5 to this writ petition), issued by Registrar, H.N.B. Garhwal Central University, Srinagar, Garhwal- Respondent No. 2.
(2) To issue a wit in the nature of mandamus, commanding the Respondent No. 2 not to enforce the Petitioner/institution to get its affiliation extended from the Respondent No. 2 every year for the permission, given by the Respondent No. 3 to M. Ed. course u/s 15(3)(a) of Act, 1993 and it may be declared that the affiliation, if so required, is always of permanent in nature.
According to the Petitioner institution he was granted permission to run M. Ed. course of 25 seats in terms and conditions contained u/s 15(3)(a) of National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993(hereinafter referred as ''NCTE Act''), vide order dated 07-03-2008.
The contention of the Petitioner is that there is no provision to obtain affiliation for every year. As per Section 14(6) of the Act, the examining body is obliged to grant affiliation to the institute where the recognition has been granted by the NCTE.
Mr. Kartikey Hari Gupta, Advocate appearing on behalf of the University has contended that as per regulation of U.G.C. there is specific provision and procedure of affiliation. The U.G.C. Regulations 2009 would be applicable to the Petitioner''s case and clause-3 deals with eligibility crieteria for temporary affiliation.
The argument of learned Counsel for the University is mis-conceived. In the case at hand the U.G.C. Act is not applicable but NCTE Act is applicable.
u/s 17 of the NCTE Act 1993 the NCTE may withdraw recognition of recognized institution in the event the regional committee of the NCTE is satisfied that a recognized institution has contravened any of the provisions of the NCTE Act, or any condition subject to which recognition under Sub-section (3) of Section 14 or permission under Sub-section (3) of Section 15 was granted.
Learned Counsel for the University further contended that in the recognition order dated 7-3-2008 condition No. 4 stipulates that ''the recognition is subject to fulfilment of all such other requirements as may be prescribed by other regulatory bodies like UGC and the State Govt. etc, whenever applicable''. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned order by which inspection cell was organised, is perfectly justified.
The above submission is without any substance. To my mind the above clause has been inserted for the purpose of reservation and to maintain the educational standard of the institution and not for the purpose of affiliation because the affiliation is to be given as per provision of Sub-section (6) of Section 14 of the Act, which provides that every examining body shall on receipt of the order under Sub-section 4(a), grant affiliation to the institution, where recognition has been granted.
The Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Sant Dhyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidhalaya and others, reported in 2006 AIR SCW 2048, has held that if the recognition is granted then the University is obliged to grant affiliation to such institution.
In view of the dictum of the Apex Court, the impugned order passed by the University is liable to be set aside.
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order 17-09-2010, contained in Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition, is set aside. However, the University may make an inspection of the institution after granting affiliation to the Petitioner/institution.