Banshi College of Education and Another vs State of U.P. and Others

Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.—The Petitioner institution sought affiliation/recognition for running a BTC course for which he had approached this Court and Writ Petition No. 56159 of 2010 was disposed of observing that the Division Bench judgment referred therein was binding and the State Government should pass an appropriate order within 3 weeks.

Three deficiencies have been pointed out in relation to the Petitioner''s institution entailed in the impugned order dated 27.1.2011. The first objection is that the area for running the said training course inside the premises has not been earmarked. The second objection is that the Hall which has been constructed by the institution is short of the norms fixed by the authority and the third objection is that the faculty members are not approved.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that these objections had been raised by the State Government and the said objections were replied to by the Petitioner in its reply dated 14.4.2010. After receipt of the said reply the Director, SCERT made recommendations in favour of the Petitioner and forwarded the claim to the State Government particularly the concerned Secretary Mr. Anil Sant to whom the said letter is addressed indicating that the Petitioner has already submitted his documents which should be processed and order should be passed.

As far as the three objections are concerned learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that in his reply he had submitted the documents including the map earmarking the area for running the course and had also indicated that an additional room adjacent to the Hall has been amalgamated to bring the area of the Hall within the norms as prescribed. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that approval to the faculties appointed has to be given by the Examination Regulatory Authority and the request of the Petitioner has already been sent through registered post to the Examination Regulatory Authority about a year ago without there being any objection thereon. He therefore submits that there was no deficiency on the part of the Petitioner and it is the Examination Regulatory Authority which had to issue the said approval.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Examination Regulatory Authority in the case of another institution namely Shaheed Smarak College Bithur Kanpur Nagar, Kanpur has clarified that such documents should be processed after orders of the recognition are obtained.

The last and the most important submission of Sri Tiwari is that the Director SCERT vide letter dated 11.2.2010 pointed out that out of the recommendations received for grant of recognition 45 institutions are not eligible. A copy of the same has been filed as Annexure 8. The said letter was sent to Mr. Anoop Chandra Pandey the then Principal Secretary of Basic Education. The said Mr. Pandey vide order dated 17.3.2010 which is a government order has granted recognition to all the 45 institutions inspite of the deficiencies pointed out by the Director.

Sri Tiwari submits that the very same order entails the deficiency on the one hand and grants recognition subject to completion of such deficiencies. He therefore contends that the Petitioner stands on a similar footing but he has been discriminated and the Secretary Mr. Anil Sant passed the impugned order ignoring all the aforesaid aspects. He further contends that Mr. Anil Sant has himself granted similar recognition to another institution subject to removal of deficiencies namely Institute of Teacher Education, Delhi Meerut Road, Karabad Modinagar, Ghaziabad vide order dated 30.11.2010 and a copy of the order has been filed as Annexure 16 to the writ petition.

This Court had also come across such instances earlier in Writ Petition No. 70300 of 2010 and noticing such discrimination on the part of the concerned Secretary had called upon the State Govt. to get the affidavit of the same Secretary filed in order to explain such stand. A copy of the order had been communicated to the Chief Secretary bringing to his notice the aforesaid facts.

This is yet another petition giving rise to such grave situations about the functioning of the Government and the orders on record.

In view of this let a copy of this order be brought to the notice of the Chief Secretary who may now seriously consider the matter and take an appropriate action on account of the indiscriminate orders passed by these two Secretaries namely Mr. Anil Sant and Mr. Anoop Chandra Pandey.

The Respondents shall file a counter affidavit within two weeks. They may also produce the records by 21.2.2010 which is the date fixed in Writ Petition No. 70300 of 2010 relating to the same matter as referred to herein above.

The matter shall be listed on 21.2.2011.

The affidavit shall be filed by the concerned Secretary who has passed the order. The Examination Regulatory Authority Respondent No. 3 represented by the learned standing counsel shall furnish an explanation by filing an affidavit as to why formal approval to the Petitioner in relation to the faculties has not been granted till date and whether such recognition can be withheld on account of such deficiencies.

A copy of this order may be given to the learned standing counsel within 24 hours free of cost.