Allowed

Vidyaniketan Shaikshanik Samajik Sanskrutik Bahuudeshiya Sansthas College of Education. Special B.E v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC4 Aug 2014WP/4797/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three college education institutions sought to admit students for a Special B.Ed. degree course. The college authorities were prohibited from doing so by the North Maharashtra University, which cited UGC norms regarding NET/SET qualifications for teachers. Reversing the prohibition, the Court held that Rehabilitation Council of India norms prescribe the essential qualifications for such courses, w

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions allowed; communication prohibiting student admissions for the academic year 2014-15 quashed and set aside; University directed to accept proposals for regular faculty within eight weeks

Vidyaniketan Shaikshanik Samajik Sanskrutik… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

wp479114.odt

¶2

{1}

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4791 OF 2014

¶4

Shri Sant Gadgebaba Shikshan Sanstha Pachora's Pradip M. Pande, Special B.Ed. (Mentally Retarded) College, Pachora, Tq.Pachora, District Jalgaon, through its Secretary, Pradip Motiram Pande, age: 55 years, Occ: Business, R/o Pachora, Tq.Pachora, District Jalgaon.

¶5

Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

1 The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Higher Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶8

2 The Rehabilitation Council of India, (A Statutory Body under the Ministry of Social Justice and Employment) B-22, Qutub Institutional Area, New Delhi110016, through its Member Secretary.

¶9

3 The University Grants Commission, Bahadursha Jafar Marg, New Delhi – 110 002, through its Secretary.

¶10

4 The Joint Director of Higher Education, Higher Education Department, Jalgaon Region, Jalgaon.

¶11

5 The North Maharashtra University, UMAVI Nagar, Jalgaon, District Jalgaon, through its Registrar.

¶12

{2} wp479114.odt

¶13

6 Maharashtra Vina Anudanit Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya Sanstha Chalak Association, Shardul Apartment, Old Toll Naka, Near Utsav Mangal Karyalaya, Bombay Banglore Bypass Road, Wadgaon (Bk), Tq. & District Pune, through its President. Respondents

¶14

WITH

¶15

WRIT PETITION NO.4794 OF 2014

¶16

Chamunda Mata Bahuudeshiya Vikas Anuyayi College of Education, (Special B.Ed.) (Mentally Retarded), Parola, Tq. Parola, District Jalgaon, through its President, Yogesh s/o Raghunath Mahajan, age: 39 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Parola, Tq. Parola, District Jalgaon. Petitioner

¶17

Versus

¶18

1 The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Higher Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶19

2 The Rehabilitation Council of India, (A Statutory Body under the Ministry of Social Justice and Employment) B-22, Qutub Institutional Area, New Delhi110016, through its Member Secretary.

¶20

3 The University Grants Commission, Bahadursha Jafar Marg, New Delhi – 110 002, through its Secretary.

¶21

4 The Joint Director of Higher Education, Higher Education

¶22

{3} wp479114.odt

¶23

Department, Jalgaon Region, Jalgaon. 5 The North Maharashtra University, UMAVI Nagar, Jalgaon, District Jalgaon, through its Registrar. 6 Maharashtra Vina Anudanit Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya Sanstha Chalak Association, Shardul Apartment, Old Toll Naka, Near Utsav Mangal Karyalaya, Bombay Banglore Bypass Road, Wadgaon (Bk), Tq. & District Pune, through its President.

¶24

Respondents

¶25

WITH

¶26

WRIT PETITION NO.4797 OF 2014

¶27

Vidyaniketan Shaikshanik, Samajik, Sanskrutik Bahuuddeshiya College of Education, Special B.Ed. (Visually Impaired) College, Dhamdod, Post: Umarde Khard, Tq. & District Nandurbar, through its Secretary, Laxman s/o Sadashiv Marathe, age: 42 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Dhamdod, Post: Umarde Khard, Tq. & District Nandurbar. Petitioner

¶28

Versus

¶29

1 The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Higher Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶30

2 The Rehabilitation Council of India, (A Statutory Body under the Ministry of Social Justice and Employment) B-22, Qutub Institutional Area, New Delhi110016, through its Member

¶31

wp479114.odt

¶32

Secretary.

¶33

3 The University Grants Commission, Bahadursha Jafar Marg, New Delhi – 110 002, through its Secretary.

¶34

4 The Joint Director of Higher Education, Higher Education Department, Jalgaon Region, Jalgaon.

¶35

5 The North Maharashtra University, UMAVI Nagar, Jalgaon, District Jalgaon, through its Registrar.

¶36

6 Maharashtra Vina Anudanit Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya Sanstha Chalak Association, Shardul Apartment, Old Toll Naka, Near Utsav Mangal Karyalaya, Bombay Banglore Bypass Road, Wadgaon (Bk), Tq. & District Pune, through its President.

¶37

Respondents

¶38

Mr.Pralhad D. Bachate, advocate for the petitioner Mr.S.K.Tambe, A.G.P. for Respondents No.1 & 4.

¶39

Mr.S.B.Deshpande, Assistant Solicitor General for Respondent No.2.

¶40

Mr.Alok Sharma, advocate for Respondent No.3. Mr.A.B.Girase, advocate for Respondent No.5. Respondent No.6-formal party.

¶41

CORAM : R.M.BORDE & V.L.ACHLIYA, JJ. DATE :04th August, 2014

¶42

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per R.M.Borde, J.):

¶43

1 Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties.

¶44

{5} wp479114.odt

¶45

2 The petitioner-Institutions are engaged in training rehabilitation professionals for imparting special education to mentally retarded students. The course conducted by the petitioner-Institution i.e. Special B.Ed. (M.R.) is stated to be recognised by Rehabilitation Council of India. It is also not a matter of dispute that the Rehabilitation Council of India has accorded permission to the petitioner-Institutions for conducting the courses imparting training to professionals and train them in imparting special education leading to Special B.Ed.( M.R.) degree. The State of Maharashtra as well as North Maharashtra University have accorded permission and affiliation to the petitionerInstitutions.

¶46

3 It is the contention of petitioners that although training is being imparted by the Institutions leading to Special B.Ed. Degree during the current academic year, the Academic Council of the University has clamped prohibition for admitting students in view of Resolution adopted on 30.05.2014. The University has raised objection for admitting students on the ground that teaching staff appointed by the College does not fulfill the requirements laid down by the University Grants Commission and as such, their appointments have not been recognised by the University. The contention of the University appears to be that teachers appointed for imparting training leading to Special B.Ed. Degree do not possess NET/SET qualification, which, according to the University, is mandatorily required as per the University Grants Commission's guidelines.

¶47

Learned Counsel appearing for petitioners contends

{6}

wp479114.odt

that view adopted by the University is improper since essential qualification laid down by the Rehabilitation Council of India does not prescribe acquisition of SET or NET qualifications. It is further contended that the University Grants Commission does not hold SET/NET examination for Special B.Ed. (M.R.) degree course. Since there is no mechanism provided for acquisition of NET/SET qualification for Special B.Ed. (M.R.) students, the question of acquisition of such qualification does not arise and cannot be permitted to be raised by the University.

¶52

5 It would be advantageous to refer to certain provisions incorporated in Rehabilitation Council of India Act, 1992. Section 18 of the Act provides that the Council may prescribe the minimum standards of education required for granting recognised rehabilitation qualification by Universities or institutions in India. Section 28 provides for rule making power of the Central Government, whereas, Section 29 provides that with the previous sanction of the Central Government, the Council may make, by notification, regulations generally to carry out the purposes of the Act. The rule making power is specified in Section 29(a) to 29(h). The courses and period of studies or of training, to be undertaken, the subjects of examination and standards of proficiency therein to be obtained in any University or any Institution for grant of recognised rehabilitation qualification is provided in Section 29(i). Section 29(j) provides for the standards of staff, equipment, accommodation, training and other facilities for study or training of the rehabilitation professionals. Section 29(k) provides for the conduct of examinations, qualifications of examiners, and the condition of the admission to such examinations. Section 29 (l)

¶53

{7}

¶54

wp479114.odt

¶55

speaks of the standards of professional conduct and etiquette and code of ethics to be observed by rehabilitation professionals.

¶56

6 Learned Counsel appearing for petitioners has contended that in exercise of the powers vested in Section 29, the Rehabilitation Council of India has prescribed minimum qualifications for Special M.Ed./B.Ed. Courses. So far as qualifications prescribed for appointing lecturers/teachers is concerned, the essential qualification is (a) Master's Degree in any Discipline with not less than 50% of marks; (b) M.Ed. Degree in specific disability area with not less than 55% of marks or an equivalent grade of B in 7 point scale or an equivalent degree from a foreign University recognised by the Rehabilitation Council of India. Desirable additional qualification is Ph.D./M.Phil in Education with research emphasis on Special Education and experience for a period of at least 3 years as teacher or researcher in the area of specific disability or 3 years of teaching experience at Diploma level.

¶57

7 Learned Counsel for petitioners submits that the teachers appointed to impart training do possess essential qualifications prescribed by Rehabilitation Council of India. The appointment of teachers having proficiency is approved by the University, however, no permanent approval has been accorded since the University has sought guidance from University Grants Commission, as to whether the qualifications such as NET/SET are essential qualifications.

¶58

8 Shri Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for University

¶59

{8}

¶60

wp479114.odt

¶61

Grants Commission, placing reliance on UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2010, submits that on reading paragraph 1.1.1 of the Annexure, NET/SET qualification does not appear to be a prescribed qualification by the University Grants Commission. Paragraph 1.1.1 of the Annexure reads thus:

¶62

1.1.1 For teachers in the Faculties of Agriculture and Veterinary Science, the norms / Regulations of Indian Council of Agricultural Research; for Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry, Nursing and AYUSH, the norms/Regulations of Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India; for Faculty of Education, the norms / Regulations formulated in consultations with National Council of Teacher Education; for Engineering and Technology, Pharmacy and Management / Business Administration, the norms / Regulations formulated in consultations with All India Council for Technical Education; and the qualifications in the field of rehabilitation and special education at Degree, PG Diploma and Masters level, the norms / Regulations formulated in consultations with Rehabilitation Council of India, shall apply.

¶63

9 It is not a matter of doubt that the Rehabilitation Council of India has not prescribed NET/SET qualifications as essential one for faculty members. In this view of the matter, opinion/guidance sought by the University in respect of necessity of acquisition of NET/SET qualification as a precondition for appointment of permanent teachers appointed by the petitionerInstitutions stands answered.

¶64

wp479114.odt

¶65

{9}

¶66

10 For the reasons recorded above, writ petitions deserve to be allowed and same are accordingly allowed. The communication issued by Respondent-University on 30.05.2014, directing petitioner-Institution not to admit students for Special B.Ed. (M.R.) course for the academic year 2014-2015 stands quashed and set aside. The petitioner-Institutions shall take appropriate steps for making appointment of regular faculty members in accordance with the norms prescribed by the University and shall tender proposals with the University within a period of eight weeks from today. On receipt of such proposals, Respondent-University shall take appropriate steps and pass necessary orders expeditiously.

¶67

11 Rule is accordingly made absolute. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶68

V.L.ACHLIYA R.M.BORDE JUDGE JUDGE

¶69

R.M.BORDE

¶70

adb/wp479114

Vidyaniketan Shaikshanik Samajik Sanskrutik Bahuudeshiya Sansthas College of Education. Special B.E v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vidyaniketan Shaikshanik Samajik Sanskrutik Bahuudeshiya Sansthas College of Education. Special B.E v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ghanshamdas Pannalal Agrawal and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sant Bhagwan Baba Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Nagaon Education Societys Gangamai College of Engineering Nagaon Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Varsha Arif Sayed Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dattatraya Bhanudas Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Vitthal Vinayak Pungale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others