Disposed

Prashikshit Adhayapak Sangh v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Sept 2012CWP/20056/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The bench disposed of remaining CWP appeals regarding substandard B.Ed. colleges in Haryana by directing Universities and NCTE to conduct inspections, verify norms, and establish a process for certificate issuance and de-affiliation.

What did the court decide?

Directing Universities and NCTE to verify infrastructure/faculty norms, constitute committees, issue certificates only after verification, and initiate de-affiliation after hearing.

Prashikshit Adhayapak Sangh Vs State of… — Education and Admissions | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CWP No.20056 of 2009(O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

¶4

AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

CWP No.20056 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision: 18.09.2012

¶6

Prashikshit Adhyapak Sangh

¶7

…..Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

State of Haryana and others

¶10

……Respondents

¶11

CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh, Acting Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain

¶12

Present: Mr.Rajan Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.B.S.Rana, Additional Advocate General, Haryana Mr.A.S.Virk, Advocate for respondent No.2 Dr.Balram K. Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr.Shirish Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.3 Mr.Naveen S. Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent No.4 Mr.Rajiv Atma Ram, Senior Advocate with Mr.Arjun Partap Atma Ram, Advocate for respondent No.5 Mr.N.S.Shekhawat, Advocate Mr.Pankaj Maini, Advocate Mr.B.S.Sidhu, Advocate

¶13

Jasbir Singh, Acting Chief Justice (Oral)

¶14

C.M. Nos.13242-13243-2012

¶15

Applications allowed, documents are taken on record.

¶16

CWP No.20056 of 2009

¶17

This order shall dispose of CWP Nos.20056 of 2009 and 55 of 2010 involving similar questions of law and facts. For facility of reference facts are being mentioned from CWP No.20056 of 2009.

¶18

This writ petition has been filed seeking directions to respondent Nos.1 to 4 to initiate process of de-affiliation against those private self financing institutions / colleges imparting education in Bachelor

¶19

CWP No.20056 of 2009(O&M)

¶20

¶21

of Education and Diploma in Education who do not have infrastructure as per standards laid down by National Council of Teachers Education (NCTE) and the Universities with which those are affiliated. To show that a number of colleges are running without proper faculty and other infrastructure, many documents have been placed on record. During the course of hearing various directions were issued by this Court from time to time and on 3.8.2012 following order was passed by this Court:-

¶22

“Dispute in this writ petition pertains to deficiency of faculty and other infrastructure facilities in the B.Ed Colleges in the State of Haryana.

¶23

Dr. Ram Kishor, Regional Director, Northern Regional Committee, National Council for Teacher Education, Jaipur, has come present in the Court. He has brought to our notice that out of 490 B.Ed Colleges in the State of Haryana, recognized by the National Council for Teacher Education (hereinafter referred to as “NCTE”), in 428 Institutions inspection is complete and for deficiencies in infrastructure facilities, show cause notices have been issued to 285 Institutions. Dr.Ram Kishor further states that pursuant to the directions issued by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in National Council for Tech. Edu. & Anr. v. Vaishnav Inst. of Tech. & Mgt. (Civil Appeal No. 3505 of 2012, decided on 12.4.2012) , the inspection reports will now be forwarded to NCTE for taking necessary action. As per the judgment, referred to above, NCTE shall undertake an exercise of inspection of all

¶24

CWP No.20056 of 2009(O&M)

¶25

¶26

the Institutes, for which purpose it is stated that two months time is required. Time prayed for is granted. The inspections will be completed within the said period and action shall also be taken against the defaulting Institutions.

¶27

Dr. Balram K. Gupta, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Shirish Gupta, Advocate, appearing on behalf of respondent No.3-Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak and Mr. A.S. Virk, Advocate, appearing on behalf of respondent No.2Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra have stated that both the Universities have also conducted inspections and in many cases deficiencies were found so far as faculty and infrastructure facilities are concerned.

¶28

Let a concise report be put up before the Court, on or before the next date of hearing, so that necessary directions be issued to initiate action for de-affiliation of those defaulting Colleges.

¶29

On request, adjourned to 4.9.2012 to know the progress of the inspections and resolution thereof made by the Universities.

¶30

A copy of this order, under the signatures of the Court Secretary of this Court, be furnished to all the concerned for onward transmission and compliance.

¶31

Personal appearance of Dr. Ram Kishor is exempted.”

¶32

¶33

CWP No.20056 of 2009(O&M)

¶34

Pursuant to directions issued by this Court, NCTE started process of investigation/ verification regarding availability of faculty and infrastructure in the colleges approved by it, for which purpose on 3.8.2012, the Court had granted two months time to NCTE to complete the investigation with a direction that action be taken against the defaulting colleges thereafter. The Universities were also directed to verify the availability of infrastructure of the colleges affiliated with them.

¶35

In pursuance to order mentioned above, verification report had been placed on record by counsel for the Kurukshetra University – respondent No.2 and Maharishi Dayanand University – respondent No.3. In the report filed by respondent No.3, it was stated that as per evaluation done by the University, 181 colleges were found lacking so far as availability of infrastructure facilities are concerned, list of such colleges placed on record as Annexure R3/1. Similarly, in the affidavit filed on behalf of Kurukshetra University – respondent No.2, it was stated that after verification four colleges were found in category 'C', 63 in category 'A' and 89 in category 'B'. Considering the averments made by the Universities, the Chairman of NCTE was directed to file an affidavit stating as to whether method for evaluation adopted by the University was as per NCTE norms or not and in this regard on 4.9.2012, following order was passed by this Court:-

¶36

“Pursuant to an order passed by this Court on 3.8.2012, respondent No. 2-Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra and respondent No. 3-Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak have placed on record respective status reports regarding the inspection done, to know the availability of the infrastructure

¶37

CWP No.20056 of 2009(O&M)

¶38

¶39

in the Colleges affiliated with these Universities.

¶40

In the status report filed by respondent No. 3-Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak, it is stated that evaluation of the infrastructure available with the Colleges was done, on the basis of the criteria which is mentioned in document (Annexure R3/2). As per that criteria, after inspection 181 colleges were found lacking so far as the availability of infrastructure facilities are concerned. List of such colleges has been placed on record as Annexure R3/1. On the same lines, affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 - Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, wherein it is stated that four colleges, detail of which is given at page 6 of the status report, were found Category “C” colleges out of which inspection of three colleges could not be done because their cases are pending for approval. It is further stated that 63 colleges were found in Category “A” and 89 were in Category “B”.

¶41

The criteria for evaluation has been disputed by Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Arjun Partap Atma Ram, Advocate, appearing on behalf of respondent No.5 contending that the evaluation could only be done as per the rules and regulations issued by respondent No.4-National Council of Teachers Education (hereinafter referred to as “NCTE”) and not otherwise.

¶42

Be that as it may, we direct Dr. Balram Gupta, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Shirish Gupta, Advocate, appearing

¶43

CWP No.20056 of 2009(O&M)

¶44

¶45

on behalf of respondent No.3 to hand over a copy of the status report to Mr.Naveen S. Bhardwaj, Advocate, appearing on behalf of respondent No.4-NCTE, he is directed to forward the same along with the annexures to the authority concerned. The Chairman of the NCTE is directed to file an affidavit before the next date of hearing indicating as to whether the evaluation done by the respondents No.2 and 3, the Universities is correct and, if needed, he may get the re-evaluation done through his/her own sources. If such an affidavit is not filed, the Chairman of the NCTE shall come present in this Court on the date fixed.

¶46

Adjourned to 14.9.2012.

¶47

A copy of this order, under the signatures of the Court Secretary, be furnished to Mr. Naveen S. Bhardwaj, Advocate, appearing on behalf of respondent No.4NCTE for onward transmission and compliance.”

¶48

In response to our order, mentioned above, an affidavit of Dr.A.B.Sharma, Deputy Secretary, NCTE has been placed on record, in which it is stated that as per the provisions of Sections 14 and 15 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (in short the Act), the colleges are required to fulfill the conditions mentioned therein to get recognition originally and to run additional courses. It is further stated that as per order passed by this Court on 3.8.2012, the process of verification of availability of infrastructure available with the institutions is going on. In that regard the following statement has been made in the affidavit:-

¶49

CWP No.20056 of 2009(O&M)

¶50

¶51

“That thereafter, in terms of the orders passed by this Hon'ble Court also keeping in view the aforesaid letters dated 24.1.2012 and 10.2.2012, the NRC carried out inspection of 428 institutions out of 490 institutions in the State of Haryana. The NRC has also issued show cause notice to 285 institutions. It is also relevant to note that in addition to the inspections carried out by the NRC, the Universities concerned have also inspected the Institutions.”

¶52

It is further stated in the affidavit that after verification, show cause notices have been issued to 285 institutions. It is also stated that the concerned Universities have also carried out inspections of the colleges affiliated with them.

¶53

At the time of arguments, counsel for the respondents – colleges have failed to raise any objection to the verification carried out regarding availability of infrastructure with the colleges by the Universities and NCTE.

¶54

In this writ petition, it is specifically stated that many colleges are being run without providing proper faculty and other infrastructure facilities. The reports filed by the Universities after inspections made so far indicate that a thorough verification of the availability of faculty and infrastructure is required to be done to ensure that all the colleges running B.Ed. and D.Ed. courses are working as per norms set down in the Act and Rules and the Regulations framed by the concerned Universities or NCTE. Since the process of verification of faculty and infrastructure available in such colleges is being undertaken by the concerned universities and the

¶55

CWP No.20056 of 2009(O&M) 8

¶56

NCTE, we feel that no further monitoring is required to be done by this Court. Accordingly, we dispose of these writ petitions, directing Kurukshetra University – respondent No.2, Maharishi Dayanand University – respondent No.3 and also Chaudhary Devi Lal University, Sirsa to carry out the inspections of the Colleges affiliated with them to verify availability of faculty and other infrastructure facilities as per norms laid down under the Act and Rules and Regulations framed by the concerned Universities and are in existence as on today. NCTE is directed to continue with its exercise regarding verification of infrastructure available with the colleges as has been mentioned in affidavit placed on record today of the Court. NCTE is also directed to take action against the colleges violating the norms laid down by it after proper verification as per Act, Rules and Regulations. All the three Universities are further directed to constitute Committees to look into the functioning of the Colleges. After verification by the Universities, a certificate will be issued to those colleges which will be allowed to function, by the competent authority not below the rank of Registrar of the University that the college has provided requisite faculty and infrastructure facilities. If any certificate is given against the facts, the petitioner shall be at liberty to bring that fact to the notice of the Court. On a complaint made by the petitioner or its any member regarding lack of infrastructure facilities, action be taken against the college concerned for its de-affiliation. However, an opportunity of hearing would be granted to the concerned college/ management before passing of punitive order on such complaint received against it.

¶57

It is made clear that admissions shall not be granted in any

¶58

CWP No.20056 of 2009(O&M)

¶59

¶60

college which is not affiliated to any University or recognized by NCTE. If any college is aggrieved by an order passed by any of the Universities or NCTE, liberty shall also remain with the college management to lay

¶61

challenge to the same as per law.

¶62

(Jasbir Singh) Acting Chief Justice

¶63

18.09.2012 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) gk Judge

Prashikshit Adhayapak Sangh v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prashikshit Adhayapak Sangh v. State of Haryana 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

Court on Its Own Motion Vs State of Punjab, Haryana & U.T. Chandigarh

Hy. Distillery Yamunanagar Vs Central Pollution Control Board and Ors.(Main Disposed of)

Tanvir Hussain Vs State of Punjab and Others

Achhar Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Court on Its Own Motion Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Dalip Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.