Billgates College of Education vs The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Teacher Education University

P. Jyothimani, J.—The writ petitioner has filed the present writ petition, challenging the order of the respondent-University dated 5.10.2009,

by which, the respondent has refused to consider the application of the petitioner for granting affiliation to start a new College of Education in the

name and style of Billgates College of Education, Villupuram District to offer B.Ed. degree course for the academic year 2009-2010 on the ground

that as per the inspection Committee report dated 22.9.2009, certain deficiencies were pointed out, which are as follows:

In the individual report the inspection commission members observed that 3057 books are available. But most of the books are not related to

Teachers Education, Books related to Teachers Education are to be purchased.

The Educational Technology Lab, Psychology Lab and Science labs are to be established separately. All the three labs lack sufficient equipments

and apparatus. There is no provision for S.U.P.W. Activities, Music, The Physical Education equipment and play materials are not sufficient.

Looking into the instructional and infrastructural facilities available there it is recommended that provisional affiliation need not be granted to

Billgates College of Education, Villupuram District.

Further, it is also pointed out that the Structural Soundness Certificate and Fire Prevention Certificate obtained from the competent authority have

not been produced to the University.

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner-Institution was recognised by the Southern Regional Committee of the National Council for

Teacher Education from the academic year 2008-2009 with an annual intake of 100 students. The petitioner had submitted an application to

NCTE to start B.Ed. course. After obtaining recognition from the NCTE, the petitioner has approached the respondent-University

It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had submitted all the required documents and requested the respondent to make an inspection

for granting affiliation to commence the course for the academic year 2009-2010. Since the respondent has not taken any steps, the petitioner has

sent a representation on 5.1.2009, requesting for inspection.

Since there was no positive response from the respondent, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing W.P. No. 13338 of 2009 for a

direction against the respondent-University to dispose of the representations dated 5.1.2009 and 6.7.2009, which relate to grant of affiliation to the

petitioner''s institution for the academic year 2009-2010. The said writ petition came to be disposed of by an order dated 20.07.2009, with a

direction to the respondent to dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 6.7.2009 within a period of four weeks. As it is seen from the

impugned order, pursuant to the order of this Court dated 20.07.2009, the respondent has passed the impugned order, rejecting the claim of the

petitioner for affiliation for the reasons stated above.

It is not in dispute that before passing the impugned order, the respondent has not given any notice to the petitioner or calling upon the petitioner

to rectify the deficiencies which are stated to have been detected by the inspection Committee as seen in the impugned order. It is the contention of

the learned Counsel for the petitioner that when once the NCTE has granted recognition, which was granted after the inspection and having been

satisfied about the infrastructure facilities, it is automatic on the part of the respondent-University to grant affiliation, by relying upon various

decisions.

Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent would rely upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court in G. Jayakumar Vs. Union of India

(UOI) and The General Manager (Developmental Project), Larsen and Tubro Ltd., E.C.C. Construction Group, , wherein it was held that even

though it is true the NCTE being the authority under the Central Act granted recognition, it is open to the University to act as per the statute while

granting affiliation and the University cannot be treated as rubber stamp for the purpose of approving whatever stated in the recognition order.

However, it is held by the Full Bench that the University cannot impose onerous conditions than that of the NCTE under the NCTE Act.

Be that as it may, the fact that before passing the impugned order refusing to grant affiliation to the petitioner''s institution for the academic year

2009-2010, the respondent has not given any opportunity to the petitioner for the purpose of rectifying the mistake. It would be suffice the

impugned order insofar as it relates to refusal to grant affiliation is set aside. Accordingly, the said portion of the impugned order is set aside. The

other portion of the order dated 5.10.2009, which relate to various inspection Committees'' reports regarding various deficiencies, shall be treated

as show-cause notice to the petitioner.

It is open to the petitioner to give his reply to the said show-cause notice dated 5.10.2009 and the records to be produced before the

respondent within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is also entitled to make any further

representation for the said show-cause notice. Thereafter, the respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders on merits and in

accordance with law regarding grant of affiliation within a period of two weeks thereafter.

Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent would bring to the notice of this Court that as per the Government order, the last date for

admission of students is 28th October, 2009 and the approval of such admission as stated by the Government is 31.10.2009. Hence, it may not be

possible for the University to consider the case of the petitioner for the academic year 2009-2010. It is true that such order has been passed by

the Government. However, the case of the petitioner has to be taken as special case because of the reason that the impugned order was passed

without giving any opportunity to the petitioner for rectifying the mistake and inform the same to the University. Hence, for the delay beyond the

period of 28th October, 2009, the respondent shall consider the case of the petitioner as a special case and pass appropriate orders regarding

grant of affiliation as expeditiously as possible. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. Consequently, the connected M.Ps. are

closed. No costs.