B.M. Educational Society vs National Council

Heard counsel for the parties. This petition takes exception to the order dated 11th December, 2012 passed by the Member Secretary, National Council for Teacher Education.

On a bare perusal of that order, it is noticed that the competent Authority has referred to the deficiencies pointed out by the visiting team, namely, (i) the piece of land measuring 4180 sq. mts is not an adjoining land but is far away from the college building located on the piece of land measuring 1151 sq mts; (ii) the instructional facilities created by the society are also poor and cover limited area, not fulfilling the minimum stands; and (iii) the college is not capable to run D.Ed. course with the existing facilities.

Indeed, in the penultimate paragraph, the Authority has noted that the holding of land of the petitioner was less than minimum land area of 2500 sq. mts. The principal challenge in this petition, therefore, is regarding the said finding and conclusion. No doubt, the petitioner owns two plots in the neighbourhood, one admeasuring 1143 sq. mts. and the second 4108 sq. mts. The aggregate area of both the plots would be 5251 sq. mts. However, these two plots are separated by a public road by 50 ft. Thus, these plots are not contiguous plots and, therefore, not in the same campus area of the building where the proposed college will be set up.

The argument of the petitioner, however, is that although the plot area is 1143 sq mts, the building constructed by the petitioner on the said plot admeasures more than 1500 sq. mts. In other words, the built up area is in excess of minimum 1500 sq. mts. specified by clause 5(1) (a) of the Norms and Standards for diploma in elementary teacher education programme leading to Diploma in elementary education (D.El.Ed).

The argument though attractive at the first blush, will have to be stated to be rejected. Clause 5(1) (a) of the above said Norms and Standards postulates that the institution must possess 2500 sq. mts. of exclusive well demarcated land for the initial intake of fifty students. Admittedly, in the present case, the land on which building has been constructed by the petitioner admeasures only 1143 sq. mts., which is obviously deficient. The question is: whether the area of abutting land owned and possessed by the petitioner admeasuring 4108 sq. mts. can be reckoned for determining whether the petitioner possesses more than 2500 sq. mts. of exclusive well demarcated land. As aforesaid, the requirements specified in clause 5(1)(a) pre-suppose that there should be 2500 sq. mts. of land and it must be exclusive well demarcated land. When this requirement is read in the context of the further requirement specified in clause 5(1)(c) of the same Norms and Standards, it is amply clear that the building, parking space, open space of lawns, gardening activities etc. should be in one compound/complex and not separated by any public road, as in the present case. Sub-clause (f) postulates that the institution campus, building, furniture etc. "should be barrier free". This expression if read with the expression ''exclusive well demarcated land'' occurring in clause (a) of 5(1), it leaves no manner of doubt that the entire activities of the college must be in one complex/land which is exclusive well demarcated and not separated by public road. The Appellate Authority may have highlighted this aspect in the penultimate paragraph, but has also noted the observation of the visiting team in the third last paragraph of the impugned order which, inter alia, mentions that the instructional facilities created by the society are also poor and cover limited area. Even for that reason, no indulgence can be shown to the petitioner as the mandatory infrastructure to be provided by the institution has been noted in sub-clause (c) of clause 5(1) of the Norms and Standards. In this context, the argument of the petitioner, is that, if the report of the visiting team is perused, it transpires that they have made positive noting in respect of every head pertaining to infrastructure to be provided by the institution; but without disclosing any details observation has been made at the end of the report that the institution has not provided proper and adequate infrastructural facilities. In our opinion, even if this contention is to be accepted, the matter at the best will have to be sent back to the visiting team for identifying the areas of deficiencies and to give opportunity to the petitioner to explain the same. However, that may not be necessary in the fact situation of the present case since the petitioner does not fulfill the basic requirement of having 2500 sq. mts. of exclusive well demarcated land which is barrier free and in one complex. Accordingly, this petition ought to fail.

We may place on record that the learned counsel for the respondents had invited our attention to the exposition of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. Shah Goverdhan L. Kabra Teachers College, . In paragraph 11, the Apex Court has noted that the conclusion of an expert body should not be lightly tinkered with by a court of law without giving due weightage to the conclusion arrived at by such expert body. Suffice it to observe that the main ground urged before us in this petition is devoid of merits and for which reason the petition ought to fail. Hence, dismissed. Ordered accordingly.