Dismissed

Pali Education Society (Regd) v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Apr 2014WP/879/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed writ petitions filed by educational institutions seeking immediate renewal of affiliation for the M.Ed. course for the 2013-14 academic year. Recognizing violations regarding admissions made without valid affiliation or NCTE recognition, the Court held the petitions lacked merit and ordered refunds to students.

What did the court decide?

Petitions dismissed; institutions ordered to refund fees collected from students; affiliation applications to be processed only after refund verification.

Pali Education Society (Regd) Vs the State of… — Education and Admissions | Karnataka HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF APRIL 2014

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION Nos. 1994 AND 2527 AND 2528-2530

¶7

AND 2531-2534 OF 2014 (EDN-RES)

¶8

CONNECTED WITH

¶9

WRIT PETITION No.879 OF 2014 (EDN-AD)

¶10

IN W.P.Nos. 1994 AND 2527 AND 2528-2530

¶11

AND 2531-2534 OF 2014

¶12

BETWEEN:

¶13

Karnataka International

¶14

Education Trust (Regd.) No.60/1, 7^th Cross,

¶15

Bismillanagar, Bannerghatta Road,

¶16

Bangalore – 560 029,

¶17

Represented by its Chairman,

¶18

Haji Miyan Jamadar,

¶19

Aged about 49 years,

¶20

Son of Janab Abdul Sattar,

¶21

Resident of No.1, 31^st Main, 3^rd Cross,

¶22

B.T.M. Layout,

¶23

¶24

Bangalore – 560 068.

¶25

Resitha Rama O.P., Aged 33 years, Daughter of O.P. Ramachandran,

¶26

Asha Kumari, Aged 26 years, Daughter of R.P. Singh,

¶27

Indira .H, Aged 48 years, Daughter of Hanumantharaya,

¶28

Dixy Abraham, Aged 31 years, Daughter of Simon Abraham,

¶29

Sachin Kumar Choudhry, Aged 31 years, Son of Ramlal Singh,

¶30

Shankuntala L Badigar, Aged 25 years, Daughter of Lakshman,

¶31

Sonam Gadia, Aged 27 years, Daughter of Susheel Gadia,

¶32

Supatra Latelia M Fernandez, Aged 37 years, Daughter of Walter Fernandez,

¶33

Mihir Kumar Maharana,

¶34

¶35

Aged 24 years, Son of Sanathan Maharana,

¶36

All are students of M.Ed., K.I.E.T. College of PG and Research in Education (M.Ed.), No.60/1, 7^th Cross, Bismillanagar, Tank Bund Road, Bannerghatta Main Road, Bangalore – 560 029.

¶37

[cause title amended as per Court order dated 10.4.2014]

¶38

…PETITIONERS

¶39

(By Shri. Subramanya Jois, Senior Advocate for Shri. K.C. Shantakumar, Advocate)

¶40

AND:

¶41

The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Education Department, M.S.Building, Vidhana Veedhi, Bangalore – 560 001.

¶42

The Bangalore University, Jnana Bharathi, Bangalore – 560 056, Represented by its Registrar.

¶43

The Vice Chancellor, Bangalore University, Jnana Bharathi,

¶44

¶45

Bangalore – 560 056.

¶46

The Centralised Admission Cell, Government of Karnataka, Department of Public Instruction, Central Junior College Building, K.G.Road, Bangalore – 560 002, Represented by its Special Officer.

¶47

…RESPONDENTS

¶48

(By Shri. T.P. Rajendra Kumar Sungay, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3

¶49

Smt. Prathima Honnapur, Government Pleader for Respondent No.1)

¶50

¶51

These Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the second respondent – University to accord and communicate to the petitioner, renewal of affiliation that the petitioner had applied for the academic year 2013-14 without brooking any further delay of the matter but keeping in view the directions contained in Annexure-C dated 6.1.2014 in particular and etc;

¶52

IN W.P.No.879/2014

¶53

BETWEEN:

¶54

Pali Education Society (Regd.) No.1, 2^nd Main, BDA Layout, Pattegarapalya, Prashanthnagar, Vijayanagar West, Bangalore – 560 079, Represented by its Administrator

¶55

¶56

Smt. Rupa P Murthy, Aged 38 years, Wife of H.S. Palakshamurthy, Resident of Bangalore.

¶57

Ravi Kumar Y.H., Aged 29 years, Son of Hanumanthegowda,

¶58

Nagaraju H.C, Aged 26 years, Son of Channabasappa,

¶59

Abbas S.K, Aged 25 years, Son of Dilsat S.K,

¶60

Prabhavathi A.L, Aged 38 years, Daughter of D. Lingarajaiah,

¶61

Syed Muen, Aged 27 years, Son of Syed Ubead,

¶62

K.N. Lalithamba, Aged 33 years, Daughter of K.H. Somashekar,

¶63

Harisha, Age:Major, Son of Nagaiah,

¶64

Shinto Moni .J, Aged 35 years,

¶65

¶66

Son of A.U. Joseph,

¶67

Sridhar H.S, Aged 40 years, Son of H.B. Shivanna,

¶68

Mrs. Lourdes Anusha .M, Aged 30 years,

¶69

All are students of M.Ed., Pali Education Society (Regd), No.1, 2^nd Main, BDA Layout, Pattegarapalya, Prashanthnagar, Vijayanagar West, Bangalore – 560 079. [cause title amended As per order dated 10.4.2014]

¶70

…PETITIONERS

¶71

(By Shri. Subramanya Jois, Senior Advocate for Shri. K.C. Shantakumar, Advocate)

¶72

AND:

¶73

The State of Karnataka, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Government of Karnataka, M.S.Building, Bangalore – 560 001.

¶74

The Bangalore University, “Jnana Bharathi”, Bangalore – 560 056, Represented by its Registrar.

¶75

¶76

The Vice Chancellor, Bangalore University, “Jnana Bharathi”, Bangalore – 560 056.

¶77

The Registrar (Evaluation), Bangalore University, Pariksha Bhavan, Jnana Bharathi Campus, Bangalore – 560 056. …RESPONDENTS

¶78

(By Shri. N.K. Ramesh, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4)

¶79

¶80

This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the respondents no. 2 to 4 to furnish to the petitioner the admission tickets in respect of the bonafide M.Ed., students of St. Paul’s College of Teacher Education, Bangalore, run by the petitioner for the ensuing M.Ed., 1^st semester P.G. Examination notified in Annexure-H dated 4.1.2014 without brooking any further delay in the mater, by receiving from the petitioner the applications, examination fee etc., in respect of the said students; for enabling the petitioner to submit the application of the said students to take the said examination as has been scheduled and notified in Annexure-H dated 4.1.2014.

¶81

These Writ Petitions coming on for Hearing this day, the court made the following:

¶82

¶83

O R D E R

¶84

These petitions are disposed of together having regard to

¶85

the fact that the circumstances pertaining are the same.

¶86

Re.WP 1994/2014 & WP 2527/2014, WP 2528-30/2014, WP 2531-34/2014

¶87

Petitioner no.1 is said to be a registered Trust, which is running a College of Education amongst other institutions. The said College, namely, KIET B.ed . & M.ed. College is claimed to have been recognized by the National Council for Teacher Education (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘NCTE’, for brevity) and was also said to have been accorded affiliation by the Bangalore University. The college is said to have been functioning since the academic year 2005-2006.

¶88

It transpires that the NCTE had resolved to withdraw recognition granted to the aforesaid college of the petitioner. The same had been questioned by the petitioner in a writ petition before this court in WP 17162/2013, the same had been

¶89

¶90

allowed by this court by its order dated 10.12.2013. In the result, the recognition granted earlier continued to subsist. So also did the affiliation conferred by the University. However, the application filed by the petitioner seeking renewal of affiliation, had not been acted upon by the University.

¶91

The College having admitted students for the academic year 2013-14 and the examination for the M.Ed. Course which was about to commence and the fate of those students hanging in the balance, the present writ petition was filed, seeking a direction to the University to consider the application for renewal of affiliation. And further directing the Centralized Admission Cell, the fourth respondent, to allot candidates for admission to the M.Ed. Course for the academic year 2013-14.

¶92

Re. WP 879/2014

¶93

Petitioner no.1 is said to be a Society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. The St. Paul College of Teacher Education is said to be one of the

¶94

¶95

Institutions under the management of the said petitioner. The said Institution is said to have been granted recognition by the NCTE and is duly affiliated to the Bangalore University.

¶96

The petitioner had sought to challenge the withdrawal of recognition granted to the aforesaid institution by the NCTE, in writ proceedings before this court in WP 17161/2013. The same was allowed in terms as follows :

¶97

��

¶98

The petitions coming on for Preliminary hearing in ‘B’ Group, are considered together and disposed of by this common order.

¶99

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶100

3. The petitioners in all these petitions are aggrieved by similar orders passed in respect of their institutions. The impugned orders in each of these petitions, is passed by the Southern Regional Committee, National Council for Teacher Education, who is one of the respondents in each of these petitions. Though the said respondent has been served, there is no representation on behalf of the said respondent. Therefore, the complaint of the several petitioners would have to be summarily accepted.

¶101

¶102

In any event, the order impugned in each of these petitions, appears to have been passed without notice to the petitioners and without affording them an opportunity of hearing. In a similar situation, this Court in W.P.No.33166/2013 by order dated 8.11.2013, had allowed the petition on that very ground and had directed that the petitioner be given due notice and afforded an opportunity of hearing, before any adverse orders were passed. The present petitioners also would be entitled to a similar such relief.

¶103

Therefore, the impugned orders in the respective petitions are hereby quashed. The Southern Regional Committee, National Council for Teacher Education which is one of the respondents in each of these petitions, shall, in the event that it seeks to proceed against the respective institutions, issue appropriate notice to the petitioners and after affording them an opportunity of hearing as against any such notice, pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. The petitions stand disposed of accordingly.

¶104

In respect of W.P.Nos.17161-17162/2013, it is needless to mention that the recognition conferred earlier, continues.”

¶105

It is pursuant to the above Order, that the petitioner has

¶106

been making repeated representations to the University to renew the affiliation for the academic year 2013-14, to no avail.

¶107

¶108

In the backdrop of the examination for the M.Ed. Course which was to commence on 23.1.2014, the present petition is filed with the following prayer.

¶109

(i) to issue a writ in the nature of a mandamus directing the second respondent – University to accord and communicate to the petitioner, renewal of affiliation that the petitioner had applied for the academic year 2013-14, without brooking any further delay in the matter, but keeping in view the directions contained in Annexure–C bearing No.ED 314 UBV 2013 dated 6.1.2014 in particular.

¶110

(ii) to issue a similar direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus directing the Centralised Admission Cell – fourth respondent to allot to the College of Education run by the petitioner, 9 candidates/students for admission to B.Ed/M.Ed courses for the academic year 2013-14, particularly keeping in view the interim direction issued by this court vide Annexure – B in W.P.No.58051/2013 dated 20.12.2013, expeditiously and without further loss of time,

¶111

¶112

and

¶113

(iii) to grant such other or further reliefs to which the

¶114

petitioner may be found entitled in the totality of the circumstances of the case, including the award of the costs of this petition, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶115

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the University has filed an Endorsement said to have been issued to the Institution run by the petitioner in the first of these petitions, alleging that the same has been withheld by the petitioner and hence is guilty of suppression. The said endorsement is reproduced verbatim, as it is apparently sought to be read in opposition to the petition.

¶116

“BANGALORE UNIVERSITY

¶117

No.Aca-III/KIET/M.Ed/2013-14

¶118

Jnanabharathi, Bangalore-56, Date: 16-01-2014

¶119

ENDORSEMENT

¶120

SUB: Renewal of affiliation to M.Ed course at KIET College of Education, Bangalore,

¶121

¶122

For the year 2013-14 – reg.

¶123

REF: 1. Letters dated 1-01-2014 and 2-01-2014 From the Principal. KIET College of Education, Bangalore

¶124

Resolutions of the Academic Council Dated 29-10-2013.

¶125

The Principal, KIET College of Education, Bangalore vide his letters dated 01.01.2014 and 2.01.2014 has requested renewal of affiliation for the year 2013-14 for M.Ed Course including staff approval for the academic year and also approval of admissions made in their college for the year 2013-14 to M.Ed. course by enclosing the copy of orders in the W.P.No.32300-32301/2013 dated 16.09.2013, W.P.No.17161-162/2013 dated 10.12.2013, W.P.No.1141/2008 dated 17.09.2008 passed by the Honourable High Court.

¶126

The request made by the Principal has been examined. As per interim orders of the Honourable High Court in W.P.No.3230032301/2013 dated 6.8.2013 the application made by the said college has been considered for only B.Ed. course as university had invited applications for renewal of affiliation to B.Ed. course only and processed as per provisions of the section 59 of the K.S.U.Act, 2000. With regard to the M.Ed programme the application of the college was not considered due to the fact that as on that date NCTE had withdrawn its recognition for the M.Ed. programme in the said college as per the decision of the Southern Regional Committee, Bangalore in its 241^st Meeting held on 29^th and 31^st March 2013 and 1^st April 2013. And the college has not submitted NCTE recognition order.

¶127

The Honourable High Court in its orders dated 10.12.2013 in W.P.No.17161-17162/2013 has ordered as follows:

¶128

“In respect of W.P.Nos.17161-17162/2013, it is needless to mention that the recognition conferred earlier, continues.”

¶129

¶130

This order has been passed by the Honourable High Court on 10.12.2013. The Principal letter dated 01.01.2014 was received when the M.Ed I Semester ended.

¶131

The Counselling for the P.G.Courses of the University including that of M.Ed course was held from 28.08.2013 to 08.09.2013. In the Department of Education, Bangalore University, Bangalore, M.Ed classes commenced from 02.09.2013 and term of the I Semester ended on 02.01.2014.

¶132

The college cannot admit the students to any course without the valid affiliation order as per provisions under section 60 of the K.S.U.Act, 2000. Hence, college was not supposed to make any admissions without the affiliation and without the valid NCTE recognition which is mandatory under section 59(13) of the KSU Act, 2000 as on that date. The affiliation of the college has not been issued for the academic year 2012-2013 also, for the M.Ed course. Hence the college was not supposed to make M.Ed admission during August/September 2013.

¶133

Further, in the Academic Council at its meeting held on 29.10.2013, while considering the request for renewal of affiliation to M.Ed course by Vijaya Teachers college, it was resolved not to consider the request for admission for the year 2013-14, in view of the fact that the classes for M.Ed. course were started on 2^nd September 2013.

¶134

In view of the above, the University is unable to consider request of the college with regard to approval of admissions of students admitted to M.Ed. course in the said college for the year 2013-14, as the college had no authority to make admission at the time of M.Ed admissions. With regard to renewal of affiliation application of the college, it will be processed for 2014-15 along with other applications.

Sd/-

REGISTRAR

To,

The Principal, KIET College of Education, No.60/1, 7^th Cross, Bismillah Nagar, Bannergatta Road, Bangalore – 560 029.”

¶139

¶140

In the second of these petitions, statement of

¶141

objections are filed to contend that the college of petitioner no.1 had the recognition of the NCTE and affiliation of the University for the academic year 2010-11 and 2011-12 with an intake of 25 and 35 students, respectively. However, during the academic year 2012-13, it is stated that renewal of affiliation was not granted by the University, based on the report of a Task Force, followed by a resolution of the Syndicate not to grant renewal of affiliation. However, in the interest of the students – who had already been admitted , the decision was relaxed and the said students were allowed to take the exams and their results were also said to have been announced. Hence there was no renewal of affiliation on record, for the academic year 2012-13. Therefore granting renewal of affiliation for the academic year 2013-14 did not arise.

¶142

It is contended that the University had not invited applications for the grant of affiliation for the M.Ed. Course.

¶143

¶144

That in fact there are no M.Ed. courses conducted for the academic year 2013-14.

¶145

It is pointed out that the NCTE had withdrawn the recognition granted to the college of the petitioner, by its order dated 1.4.2013. The said order was the subject matter of the petition in WP 17161-162/2013, wherein it was observed that the recognition conferred on the petitioner’s college continued. It is hence urged that admissions could not have been made without there being any affiliation for the year 2013-14. The academic session for the academic year 2013-14 is said to have commenced on 2-9-2013 and had ended on 2-1-2014. The University had no information of any admissions made by the petitioner, there is no material placed on record. In the absence of approval of admission of the students or granting affiliation for the said purpose is impermissible in law. It is contended that the application of the petitioner can at best be considered for the next academic year only.

¶146

¶147

The learned counsel would submit that the legal position is settled by the apex court in this regard and reliance is placed on NCTE v. Venus Public Education Society, AIR 2013 SC 941 and also Adarsha Shiksha Mahavidyalaya v. Subash Rangdale, 2012 SCALE 82 . In other words, an institution is disabled from making admissions when it is not duly affiliated or when there is no renewal of affiliation for that particular year. Hence, it is contended that the petition be dismissed with costs.

¶148

The facts as stated by the respondent in both the above

¶149

petitions is not disputed by the petitioners by way of any rejoinder. In the light of the undisputed circumstances, the petitions lack merit and are dismissed.

¶150

The petitioner – colleges shall refund the fees and other amounts collected from the students to them forthwith. The acknowledgement of receipts of the said amounts by the respective students shall necessarily be produced for verification by the University which shall be one of the

¶151

¶152

requirements to consider any applications for affiliation or

¶153

renewal of affiliation, as per this order.

¶154

Sd/-

¶155

JUDGE

¶156

nv*