Dismissed

Shri Vaishno Devi Shiksha Samiti v. Maharishi Dayanand University and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC6 Oct 2012CWP/17478/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner college challenged University order reducing its student intake from 200 to 100 seats based on a Grade C rating. Court held that pending NAAC accreditation and a contemporaneous High Court direction exempted the college from intake reduction.

What did the court decide?

Order reducing intake from 200 to 100 seats set aside; petitioner entitled to admit 200 students subject to provisional conditions in University advertisement.

Shri Vaishno Devi Shiksha Samiti Vs… — Education and Admissions | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CWP No.17478 of 2012

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No.17478 of 2012(O&M) Date of Decision : 06.10.2012

¶5

Shri Vaishno Devi Shiksha Samiti

¶6

... Petitioner

¶7

versus

¶8

Maharishi Dayanand University & others

¶9

... Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH

¶11

Present : Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Arjun Pratap Atma Ram, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Dr. Bal Ram Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Shreesh Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.1.

¶13

Mr. S.C.Sibal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Atul Arya, Advocate for respondent No.3.

¶14

Mr. Naveen S. Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent No.4. ****

¶15

RANJIT SINGH, J.

¶16

The petitioner society is running a college by name of Sant Jai Ram Das College of Education, Village and Post Office Pali, Tehsil and District Mohindergarh, Haryana. Earlier this institution was known as Baba Jai Ram Dass College of Education. It is a private self-financing college of Education and is not receiving any grant in aid from the State Government.

¶17

On 02.12.2006, the petitioner-institution was approved with intake capacity of 100 seats by the National Council for Teacher Education (for short ‘NCTE’) for academic session 2006-07. On 07.12.2006 the petitioner-institution was granted affiliation by respondent No.1-University namely Maharishi Dayanand University,

¶18

CWP No.17478 of 2012

¶19

-2-

¶20

Rohtak. The intake capacity of this institution was subsequently enhanced to 200 seats by NCTE on 13.02.2007(Annexure P-3). Respondent No.1 – University was also granted affiliation for the additional intake capacity on 15.05.2008.

¶21

NCTE has framed Regulations called the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2009, which are duly notified. Regulation 8(4) and 8(5) deals with the conditions for grant of recognition. An institution shall be permitted to apply for new course of Master of Education and Master of Physical Education and enhancement of intake in Bachelor of Education, Bachelor of Physical Education, Master of Education and Master of Physical Education Programme, after it has been accredited by the National Assessment and Accreditation Council (hereinafter referred to as NAAC) with at least a letter Grade B developed by NAAC. So far as additional intake in Bachelor of Education and Bachelor of Physical Education teacher training courses after promulgation of the Regulations, 2005 i.e. the 13^th day of January 2006 the institution shall have to get itself accredited by National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) with a letter Grade B under the new grading system developed by NAAC, on or before the 1^st day of April, 2010. This was subsequently amended to 1^st day of April, 2012 and failing this the additional intake granted could be withdrawn w.e.f. the academic session 2010-11, which was also accordingly amended. Similarly, provision was made for institution having Master of Education and Master of Physical Education courses shall have to get NAAC Accreditation with at least a letter Grade B on or before the 1^st day of April, 2012, failing which such Masters courses

¶22

CWP No.17478 of 2012

¶23

-3-

¶24

recognition granted to the institutions shall stand withdrawn w.e.f. academic session 2012-13.

¶25

The petitioner college submitted an application to respondent No.2 – NAAC for grant of accreditation, which was registered by the NAAC. The petitioner thereafter was required to file self appraisal report accompanied by an amounting of Rs.50,000/-. The petitionerinstitution complied with the same on 03.02.2012. It is averred that inspection of the college by NAAC was conducted on 21.06.2012 and 22.06.2012. Till 09.07.2012 no letter of final accreditation was conveyed.

¶26

Counsel appearing for NCTE submits that decision was taken on 06.07.2012 but the same was subsequently conveyed vide letter on 10.07.2012.

¶27

The petitioner has made a reference to the 17^th meeting of the NCTE, which was held and had taken a decision for withdrawing additional intake. A decision was also taken for bringing appropriate amendment to the regulations and in this regard letter dated 13.07.2012 (Annexure P-6) followed.

¶28

The perusal of Annexure P-6 would show that instructions in respect of regulation 8(5) of NCTE was issued through this communication. The institution conducting Bachelor of Education and Bachelor of Physical Education teacher training courses with additional intake and those conducting Master of Education and Master of Physical Education courses had to get itself accreditated with NAAC on or before the 1^st day of April, 2012. This matter was taken with the NAAC and the Director NAAC vide E-mail dated 26.07.2012 had furnished a list of teacher training institutions those have applied to

¶29

CWP No.17478 of 2012

¶30

-4-

¶31

NAAC and their applications were under process at various stages. Such cases were pending at following stages:

¶32

(i) Peer Team vists are being conducted

¶33

(ii) Results of Peer Team vists are awaited.

¶34

(iii) Institutional Eligibility for Quality Assessment passed but Self Appraisal Report not submitted etc., which are also disclosed in the communication.

¶35

Based on this, NCTE Committee in its 17^th meeting held on 19.07.2012 has decided that in respect of all the above mentioned applications pending with NAAC, action need not be taken for withdrawal of additional intake/recognition. Appropriate amendment to the regulations was to be made in due course. Though Annexure forming part of this communication is not attached with the Annexure but has been placed before me during the course of the argument, which shows that the name of petitioner-institution is reflected at serial No.4. This Annexure would also show that the petitionerinstitution had submitted the SSR on 13.02.2012 and the assessment team had visited institution on 21.06.2012 and 22.06.2012.

¶36

Immediately thereafter, another communication

¶37

(Annexure P-10) followed on 17.07.2012, which was in continuation of the earlier communication dated 13.07.2012 (Annexure P-6). After making reference to Annexure P-6, the letter dated 17.07.2012 (Annexure P-10) has issued directions to the Regional Directors, NCTE that in the light of decision of NCTE Committee of 09.07.2012 all institutions, which had applied for accreditation of NAAC prior to 1^st day of April, 2012 including the institutions listed in the enclosure attached with Annexure P-6, no action need to be taken for

¶38

CWP No.17478 of 2012

¶39

-5-

¶40

withdrawal of additional intake/recognition.

¶41

Based on these communications, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioner would challenge the decision of the respondent-University to reduce the intake of the petitioner-institute from 200 seats to 100 seats as is ordered vide impugned Annexure P-11. The petitioner-institution has accordingly impugned this order based on the instructions issued by NCTE Committee extending this concession across the Board to all the institutions, which had applied for accreditation on or before 1^st April, 2012.

¶42

It is not in dispute in any manner before me that petitioner-institution has already submitted the application for grant of accreditation on 03.02.2012. The resultant effect of Annexure P-6 read with Annexure P-10 therefore, would be that the intake capacity of the petitioner-institution could not be reduced from 200 seats to 100 seats. This would be more so as the name of the petitionerinstitution is duly reflected in the Annexure attached with Annexure P-6 and it is when read with NOTE 2 given under the list of institutions in the impugned order Annexure P-11 would clearly indicate that the additional intake of all these colleges, including the petitioner-institution, could not be withdrawn if they had applied for accreditation or those which have atleast letter Grade B, which was mandatory in view of letter of NCTE dated 07.02.2012.

¶43

The decision taken by the University to withdraw this intake is on the ground that the NCTE has now graded the petitionerinstitution with letter Grade C and as such the petitioner-institution is not graded letter Grade B and hence it will not be covered by the concession extended by NCTE vide Annexure P-6 and P-10. In

¶44

CWP No.17478 of 2012

¶45

-6-

¶46

addition, it is also revealed during the course of argument that University has itself also carried out the assessment of these institutions for the purpose of grading and on that basis, it is being made out before me that institution has been Graded C by the University as well.

¶47

In this regard, the counsel for the petitioner has also invited my attention to an order passed by first Division Bench in Public Interest Litigation titled as Prashikshit Adhyapak Sangh vs. State of Haryana and others (CWP No.20056 of 2009) decided on 18.09.2012 where this Hon'ble Court has issued direction to the University to carry out fresh inspections of the colleges affiliated with them and in the meantime, has modified the order declining permission to admit students and has now permitted the admission subject to a fresh inspection by the University as per the grading norms. As per counsel for the petitioner this would take care of the objection raised by the University where the petitioner-institution has been graded with letter Grade C by the University.

¶48

Counsel appearing for NCTE, however, states that there seems to be some confusion in regard to Annexure P-10. The counsel wants me to read Annexure P-10 in continuation of Annexure P-6. To my mind even if we adopt that course it may not lead to any different situation. What is stated in Annexure P-6 is that the NCTE has taken a decision in its meeting held on 09.07.2012 that action need not be taken for withdrawing the additional intake/recognition of all those institutions, whose applications are pending with NAAC. The name of the petitioner-institution is reflected in the list of the institutions attached with Annexure P-6. Obviously, the action, if any, taken to

¶49

CWP No.17478 of 2012

¶50

-7-

¶51

withdraw the intake of this institution, has to pend as per Annexure P- 6. The necessary consequence has to be that action to withdraw the intake of this institution cannot be taken specially so when the institution is listed in the Annexure.

¶52

The counsel appearing for NCTE obviously is making reference to the assessment made by NAAC, which has graded the petitioner-institute with letter Grade C. His submission obviously would be that once the petitioner institution has been graded, it may not be termed as an institution whose application for consideration is pending. If the matter is considered only in the light of Annexure P-6, the counsel would appear justified in so submitting. This was followed immediately thereafter by Annexure P-10. The decision now is taken across the Board and all the institutions, who had applied for accreditation of NAAC prior 1^st April, 2012, and this include the institutions, which were listed with the enclosure attached with Annexure P-6, thus including the petitioner-institution. Obviously, the petitioner-institution cannot be excluded from the perview of Annexure P-10.

¶53

The effect of the order passed by First Division Bench has to be kept in view. The petitioner in Prashikshit Adhyapak Sangh (supra) has approached this Court for issuing directions to respondents No.1 to 4 to initiate the process of de-affiliation of those private self-financing institutions/colleges imparting education in Bachelor of Education and diploma in Education who do not have infrastructure as per standards laid down by NCTE. If the First Division Bench has permitted the admission by these institutions after thoroughly considering the response of the University as well as NCTE

¶54

CWP No.17478 of 2012

¶55

-8-

¶56

subject to fresh inspection obviously the effect of the order cannot be denied to the petitioner-institute as well.

¶57

It is noticed that learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1-University has emphasised before me that University has passed the impugned order (Annexure P-11) only on the basis of grading of the petitioner-institution done by NAAC. As per the counsel resultantly, effect thereof would have to be given effect to. However the directions issued by First Division Bench in Prashikshit Adhyapak Sangh(supra) cannot be ignored and doing so may not be proper.

¶58

At this stage, my attention is invited to a copy of the advertisement issued by respondent No.3-University of Phase-III counseling for vacant/leftover seats in SFS Colleges, which is placed before the Court during the course of argument. The photostat copy of this advertisement is kept on record as Mark 'X'.

¶59

The counsel appearing for University-respondent No.3 submits that the University has not taken any action in reducing the intake capacity. In this advertisement, it is clearly mentioned that admission in colleges of category 'C' are purely provisional and condition is as under:

¶60

“The admission in the colleges against which category 'C' (due to gross deficiencies pointed out in the report with regard to teaching faculty, infrastructure's facilities and other support system in terms norms of NCTE/University/State Govt.) has been mentioned shall be made purely provisional and subject to final decision against whom disciplinary proceedings are pending at the University level. Students shall take admission in these 'C' category colleges at their risk and responsibility.”

¶61

This would clearly show that intake of colleges

¶62

CWP No.17478 of 2012

¶63

-9-

¶64

graded 'C' can not be and has not been reduced as per the orders of First Division Bench.

¶65

Resultantly, the action of the University in reducing the intake capacity of the petitioner-institution from 200 seats to 100 seats cannot be sustained. The same is set aside. It is held that the petitioner-institution would be entitled to make admission for full intake capacity of 200 seats for the course. It shall be subject to the conditions as are imposed in the advertisement. The students should be put to sufficient notice in this regard so that nobody is taken unaware of these conditions that admission would be at their risk and resposibility.

¶66

06.10.2012 sonia

¶67

(RANJIT SINGH) JUDGE

Shri Vaishno Devi Shiksha Samiti v. Maharishi Dayanand University and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Vaishno Devi Shiksha Samiti v. Maharishi Dayanand University 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

Nishan Singh Vs State of Haryana

Kaushik Balasubramaniam Vs State of Punjab

Jai Parkash Vs State of Haryana

Attar Singh Vs State of Haryana etc.

Kusum Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Mohamad Salman Vs State of Haryana and Ors.