Dismissed

Jay Bajrang Pratisthan, through Managing Trustee, Rahul R. Khokale v. Union of India, through Secretary, Dept of School Education and Literacy and Ors.

Bombay HC3 Jul 2013WP/4160/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, a Public Charitable Trust sought recognition for a B.Ed. course for the 2013-14 academic year, relying on a Supreme Court order in a different case. The High Court distinguished the Supreme Court ruling, noting it was based on peculiar facts and not a precedent. The Court held the petitioner's six-year delay in compliance was unreasonable and rejected the petition.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner's prayer to direct NCTE to apply the recognition for the academic year 2013-14 and 2014-15 is rejected.

Jay Bajrang Pratisthan, through Managing Trustee… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2013)

wp4160.13

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.4160 OF 2013

¶7

Jay Bajrang Pratisthan )....Petitioner

¶8

V/s.

¶9

Union of India and Ors. )....Respondents

¶10

Mr.J.Shekhar i/by J.Shekhar & Co. for the petitioner. Mr.Girish Kulkarni with R.Ashokan for respondent no.1. Mr.Uday Warunjikar for respondent no.2. Ms.S.S.Bhende AGP for respondent no.5.

¶11

CORAM : V.M.KANADE & K.R.SHRIRAM,JJ

¶12

D ATE : 3^rd July, 2013.

¶13

P.C. ( Per : K.R.Shriram,J) :-

¶14

1 The petitioner is a Public Charitable Trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act 1950 and has also registered itself under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The petitioner has taken on lease for a term of 30 years the property mentioned in the petition and had started therein Diploma in Education (D.Ed) Course in the year 2006-2007. According to the petitioner in that area where the petitioner had started the D.Ed college, there was need to open a new college for B.Ed. According to the petitioner it created a requisite infrastructure in accordance with the guidelines prescribed

¶15

2 wp4160.13

¶16

by the National Council for Teacher Education Act 1993 (The 1993 Act) required for the B.Ed course. The petitioner applied for a grant of recognition for conducting B.Ed (M) (CO-ED) course and the respondent no.2 had accepted the application of the petitioner along with requisite fees therefor and commenced the registration procedure. The petitioner states that the respondent no.2 had given a Code to the petitioner for conducting the said course and had also directed the petitioner to appoint specific number of staff with requisite qualification in accordance with the classification and reservation under the Constitution. Accordingly the petitioner appointed all the staff and complied with the conditions of the respondent no.3. Thereafter the respondent no.3 in or about July2007 highlighted certain deficiencies in the proposal of the petitioner and called upon the petitioner to remove the said deficiencies. This exchange of listing of deficiencies and compliance was going on and finally in the meeting held on 3-5/4/2009 the respondent no.2 concluded that the petitioner had not complied with all its objections and closed the proposal by issuing an order dated 8.4.2009. The petitioner continued pursuing the matter with the respondent no.2 and finally in February-2010 filed a Writ Petition bearing No.1340 of 2010 before this Court. The said petition was allowed to be withdrawn by this Court by an order dated 24.2.2010 in which it was also directed that in case the petitioner made a fresh application, the

¶17

3 wp4160.13

¶18

respondent no.2 shall scrutinize the same according to law. The respondent no.2 finally issued a Letter of Intent dated 17.4.2012 wherein it confirmed that it was satisfied that the petitioner has complied with the norms and standards prescribed and also fulfilled all other conditions required for proper functioning of the institution for a Teacher Education Course. The petitioner was also directed that admission should not be made until formal recognition under clause 7(11) of the National Council for Teacher Education Act 1993 (Recommendation Norms and the Procedure) Regulations 2009 (the said Regulation) is issued by the Western Regional Committee of NCTE and affiliation was obtained from the University/examining body concerned and the petitioner was directed to comply with the said requirements before final recognition was obtained. The respondent no.2 had also forwarded a copy of Letter of Intent dated 17.4.2012 to its Registrar-respondent no.5 who was requested to grant affiliation to the petitioner only after the petitioner presented formal recognition order issued under the said Regulations. By a Corrigendum dated 23.4.2012 the respondent no.2 also permitted the petitioner to admit only 100 students as against 50 prescribed in the LOI dated 17.4.2012. The petitioner, before it could obtain a formal recognition under the said Regulation, was also required to initiate the process of appointment of qualified staff as per the policy of State Government or University Grants Commission or University and

¶19

4 wp4160.13

¶20

ensure that the staff or faculty was appointed as per NCTE terms within two months. The petitioner states that the respondent no.5 accorded an approval for the appointment of college teachers with effect from 27.8.2012 and issued the approval of appointment of college teachers vide their communication dated 3.10.2012 at Exhibit-E to the petition. The approval was relating to the 6 teachers mentioned in the said communication.

¶21

2 Following this, as the petitioner had submitted a staff list approved by the University of Pune viz. Respondent no.5 in which it was noticed that two teachers of Methodology were not appointed and no details about lecturers in Art Education and physical Education had been given the respondent no.2 issued a fresh Show Cause Notice dated 14/22.02.2013 to the petitioner, called upon the petitioner to give reply within 30 days before passing the refusal order on the application to run the B.Ed course.

¶22

3 In response, the petitioner after obtaining approval from the respondent no.5 in connection with teachers for Mathematics, Methodology, Science etc. from respondent no.5, by an application dated 20.2.2013 submitted its proposal and fees for renewal of approval to the respondent no.2 for the strength of 100 students for the academic year 2013-2014. The petitioner states that on or about

¶23

5 wp4160.13

¶24

20.3.2013 the respondent no.4 which functions under the supervision of respondent no.2 so as to decentralise the procedure of granting recognition to upcoming educational institutions, issued a recognition under the said Regulation to the petitioner for the Academic year 2014-2015. The petitioner states that the respondent no.6 had not yet started the process of admission for B.Ed in Government institutions for the Academic year 2013-2014 as on the date of the petition and CET was due in the month of May-2013 and the admission was likely to start in June-2013 and the admission process for self financing institution was likely to start in July-2013. The petitioner states that if they were to grant recognition only for the academic year 2014-2015, they would be suffering huge expenses by way of maintaining the teachers already employed and also maintaining the infrastructure.

¶25

4 Heard the parties.

¶26

5 The petitioner has relied on the order dated 10.5.2013 of the Apex Court in Writ Petition No.221 of 2013 in which the Apex Court had considered the formal order received by the 2^nd respondent in which the petitioner in that matter was granted recognition only on 4.4.2013 though the cut-off date was 3^rd March each year but as the formal order of recognition mentioned that it will

¶27

wp4160.13

¶28

¶29

apply only for the academic year 2014-2015 the Apex Court directed the NCTE (2^nd respondent) to apply the recognition for academic years 2013-2014 and 2014-2015. The petitioner therefore prayed that this Court also should follow the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and direct NCTE (2^nd respondent) to apply the recognition for the academic year 2013-14 and 2014-15.

¶30

6 We find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in said order dated 10.5.2013 in Writ Petition (C) No.221 of 2013 has observed as under :-

¶31

“4 On these peculiar facts, we allow this writ petition and direct that the recognition granted by the NCTE by the formal order dated 4^th April, 2013 will apply for the Academic Session 2013-2014 and 2014-2015.

¶32

5 This order has been passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and will not be treated as a precedent by the High Court to deviate from the time schedule fixed in the aforesaid judgment.”

¶33

7 As the Supreme Court has categorically mentioned that the order has been passed on the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case and will not be treated as precedent by the High Court in the time schedule fixed in Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya

¶34

wp4160.13

¶35

¶36

Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors reported in (2013) 2 Supreme Court

¶37

Cases 617, the said order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cannot have any binding effect and will have no bearing on the facts of this case. We are not inclined to grant the relief sought by the petitioner as we do not find any merit in the submissions of the petitioner. The petitioner had started B.Ed college way back in 2007 and took almost six years to finally comply with the requirements under the said Act and the said Regulations. If the petitioner was really concerned and serious, they would have taken all steps to comply with the requirements much earlier.

¶38

8 In the circumstances, we reject the petition with no order as to costs.

¶39

(K.R.SHRIRAM,J)

¶40

(V.M.KANADE,J)

Jay Bajrang Pratisthan, through Managing Trustee, Rahul R. Khokale v. Union of India, through Secretary, Dept of School Education and Literacy and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jay Bajrang Pratisthan, through Managing Trustee, Rahul R. Khokale v. Union of India, through Secretary, Dept of School Education and Literacy and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ichalkaranji Municipal Council, through Chief Officer Vs Raoso Narsagonda Patil and Ors.

Mr. Gajanan Kashinath Mhatre (Bhivandikar) Vs Mira-Bhayander, Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Shri. Shantaram Rangnath Katake and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Election Commissioner and Ors.

M/S. Muscovite Agro Trading Co., through Prop. Mrs. Mittal H. Madiyar Vs Union of India, through Secretary and Ors.

Shri. Hiraman Parvat Mondhe Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Dept of Revenue and Ors.

Pandurang Mahadev Jadhav and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.