Committee of Blooming Buds Degree College and Another vs State of U.P. and Others

V.K. Shukla, J.—Committee of Management Blooming Buds Degree College, Siktaur Maniram, District Gorakhpur has approached this Court by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 58530 of 2011 to grant recognition w.e.f Academic Session 2007-08 in continuation of recognition dated 24.1.2007 and further prayer has been made to provide examination forms to the student of Petitioners'' institution for Academic Session 2008-09 and conduct their examination also and declare their result. Through amendment prayer has been made to modify order dated 24.9.2010, and grant recognition with retrospective effect.

Brief background of the case is that in the district of Gorakhpur there is an institution with name and style as Blooming Buds Degree College, Siktaur Maniram, District Gorakhpur and the affairs of the said institution is duly managed by the Petitioner No. 2 being Manager. The said institution claims to be imparting education of B.A. and B.Ed courses. The said institution claims to be running under the Self Finance Scheme and not receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Exchequer and running under its own resources. Petitioners claim that Regional Level Committee of N.C.T.E., Jaipur on 24.1.2007, found Petitioners institution fit for recognition, subject to appointment of qualified staff through duly constituted selection committee, as per the norms of N.C.T.E./State Government/Affiliating Body/, befolre commencement of the course. Petitioner claims that appointment of faculty had been made and same was approved by Vice Chancellor on 20.8.2007 affiliation for one year was accorded by State Government u/s 37(2) on 23.11.2007. The Registrar of the Respondent-University thereafter issued an order on 8.12.2007 granting permission to the Petitioners'' institution to run the classes of B.Ed courses. Thereafter a Joint Entrance Examination (B.Ed) 2007 was conducted by Chhatrapathi Shahu Ji Maharaj University, Kanpur and on the basis of the aforesaid Entrance Examination 97 students were made available for admission in the Petitioners'' institution through counselling and three students were admitted by the college through NRI quota and as such total 100 students were admitted. The aforesaid students were granted admission in the Petitioners'' institution and they perused there studied in B.Ed course during the Session 2007-08 and were also allowed to appear in the examination conducted by the Respondent University and they also passed out the aforesaid examination and their Mark sheets and certificates have also been issued by the Respondent University. The Respondent University constituted a panel of 3 persons for making an inspection for grant of permanent affiliation to the Petitioners'' institution. The committee inspected the institution and submitted its report based where upon the Respondent University sent a letter to the State Government recommending therein for grant of permanent affiliation to the Petitioners'' institution. On receiving of the aforesaid papers which were sent by the University the State Government passed an order on 28.2.2009 granting permanent affiliation to the Petitioners'' institution. The Respondent University thereafter on 14.4.2009 passed an order granting permission to the Petitioners institution to take admission and to run B.Ed. Classes. Again a Joint Entrance Examination of B.Ed. 2008 was conducted by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar University, Agra. On the basis of the aforesaid entrance examination a list of 99 students were recommended for admission in the Petitioners'' Institution and Petitioners have claim that they not admitted any student beyond it. All the students were granted admission and they have completed their studies in the Petitioners'' institution. The N.C.T.E. Northern Regional committee, Jaipur passed refusal order dated 24.7.2009 refusing to grant recognition. The Petitioners institution feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order preferred an appeal u/s 18 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 before the Respondent No. 2 and the Petitioners institution again enclosed all the documents as required by the N.C.T.E. alongwith memo of appeal which was submitted earlier. The Respondent No. 2 vide its order dated 17.11.2009 issued a notice to the Petitioners institution to sent depute an officer/employee of the institution for the presentation of the case and fixed a date on 1.12.2009 for hearing. The aforesaid appeal was heard by the Respondent No. 2 on 5.1.2010 allowed with following observations "and whereas the council noted that the institution was granted conditional recognition on 24.1.2007 to the appointment of qualified faculty selected through duly constituted selection committee as per the norms of the NCTE/State Government/affiliating University/Body. in compliance to this the institution appointed the faculty adopting the procedure laid down in the norms and the staff list approved by the university was sent to the NRC on 20.9.2007 and also on 7.12.2007. However, the faculty detail forwarded by the institution were not available in the NRC''s file, the Council also noted that as per a letter No. 3366/Ref/2009 dated 20.7.2009, the examining body namely the Deen Dayal Upadhaya Gorakhpur Vishwavidyalaya has informed the NRC that it had granted affiliated to the institution for the Session 2007-08, and students were admitted, examination was conducted for the year 2007-08 and results were also declared. In view of the above the Council came to the conclusion that there was adequate justification in accepting the appeal to be remanded to NRC for examination of the faculty profile and the institution is directed to resubmit the faculty details as required under norms". After considering the facts and circumstances of the case the Respondent No. 2 has allowed the appeal and set aside the refusal order dated 24.7.2009 and remanded the matter back to the Northern Regional Committee for fresh decision and it has been further provided in the said order that the institution is also directed to resubmit the faculty details as required under norms".The Respondent No. 3 vide its letter dated 31.3.2010 addressed to the Petitioners institution again pointed out some deficiency and directed the institutions to reply within 90 days from the issuance of the letter. The Northern Regional Committee (NCTE) in its minutes held on 19.7.2010 granted recognition to the Petitioners institution for running B.Ed course u/s 7(11) of Regulation 2007 for academic session 2010 2911. The Respondents affiliating University issued a notification in the daily news paper namely, ''Dainik Jagaran" in which a notification has been made with the effect that the examination forms of B.Ed courses Session 2008-09 will be distributed from 1 to 7th September, 2010 and some of the institution including the Petitioners institution is not entitled to conduct the B.Ed examination 2008-09 as they have not been recognised by the NCTE for said academic session.

At this juncture Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 58530 of 2001 had been filed by the Committee of Management of the institution and this Court had passed following order:

Learned Standing Counsel accepted notices on behalf of Respondent No. 1. Sri R.A. Akhtar, Advocate, accepted notices on behalf of Respondents No. 2 & 3. Smt. Sunita Agrawal, Advocate, accepted notices on behalf of Respondents No. 4 & 5. All the Respondents may file counter affidavit within three weeks. Petitioners will have one week, thereafter, to file rejoinder affidavit. List after expiry of the aforesaid period. Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioners submits that by order dated 24.01.2007 a decision has been taken by Respondent-N.C.T.E. to give recognition to the Petitioner''s Institution for running B.Ed. course for 100 seats subject to appointment of qualified staff through duly constituted Selection Committee. On the aforesaid basis, the Respondent-University has granted temporary affiliation and the Petitioners-Institution has admitted students and one batch of 2007-2008 has passed out. Now, by order dated 24.07.2009 the recognitionhas been withdrawn that too without assigning any reason only on the ground that granting of recognition was subject to condition of appointment of qualified staff. Petitioners'' Institution filed an appeal and appellate authority set aside the order and remanded the matter to thecompetent authority to decide afresh by order dated 05.01.2010. The competent authority in its meeting dated 19.07.2010 has decided to grant recognition and issued a letter u/s 7(11) of the Regulations 2007. Further, Petitioners have submitted that the Division Bench of this Court has granted permission to the students to appear in the examination to be held by the University and has held that in such circumstances the students admitted cannot be made to suffer and if such formal recognition has been granted the Institution cannot be saidto be on fault in admitting the students. Now, the Respondent-University is not issuing the form to the students for the purposes of appearing in theexamination, therefore, the present writ petition is being filed for a direction to Respondent No. 2 to grant recognition with effect from Academic Session 2007-08 in continuation of the earlier recognition. Further, the University may be directed to provide examination form to the students of Petitioners'' Institution for the Session 2008-09 and to conduct their examination.

Sri R.A. Akhtar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents submits that the letter dated 24.01.2007 cannot be said to be order u/s 7(11) of the Regulations 2007. It was a decision subject to certain conditions. As the conditions were not satisfied, therefore, the order cancelling the recognition has been passed.

In such circumstances, in my opinion, as the matter after recognition was pending before the authorities and refusal order dated 24.07.2009 has already been set aside by the appellate authority, therefore, a presumption can be that the recognition dated 24.01.2007 is in existence. In such circumstances, if the students have been givenadmission on the basis of counselling, then they are entitled to appear in the examination conducted by the University. Therefore, by way of interim arrangement, Respondent-University is directed to issue examination forms to the students of Petitioners'' Institution for the Session 2008-09 within a period of two weeks and permit them to appear in the examination. The issuance of forms as well as appearance in the examination will be subject to decision of the writ petition.

4.Thereafter students in question have been permitted to fill up the examination forms and as their result has not been declared, then two separate Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19980 of 2010 and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29290 of 2011 have been filed praying therein for declaration of the result.

In the leading writ petition, pleadings inter-se parties have been exchanged by way of counter and rejoinder affidavit and thereafter present writ petition has been taken up for final hearing/disposal with the consent of the parties.

From the side of Petitioner Sr G.K. Singh, Advocate, Sri Girijesh Tiwari, Advocate and Sri Abhishekh Srivastava, Advocate advanced argument by contending that in the present case National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) had accorded recognition, the State Government had accorded affiliation and University also accorded permission and qua students of Academic Session 2007-08 result has been declared, but in reference to Academic Session 2008-09 result has not been declared and once appeal had been allowed and thereafter, recognition has been accorded, then during the said interregnum period also recognition should be accepted as continuing, as such writ petitions deserves to be allowed.

Countering the said submission, Sri R.A. Akhtar, Advocate contended that for academic session 2008-09 by No. means it could be accepted that course in question had been recognised, as has been claimed, in such a situation relief as has been claimed, cannot be accorded.

Smt. Sunita Agarwal, Advocate, representing Respondent-University on the other hand contended that University was not prepared to conduct examination for Academic Session 2008-2009 as course in question was not at all recognised and as such writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

After respective arguments have been advanced, factual situation which is emerging in the present case is that Petitioners'' institution namely Blooming Buds Degree College, Gorakhpur had moved an application for grant of recognition for running B.Ed Course in term of Section 14(1) and 15(1) of NCTE Act, 1993. Said application moved by the institution was considered by Northern Regional Committee at its 113th meeting held on 18/19.1.2007 at Conference Hall, NRC-NCTE, Jaipur. After careful examination of the relevant documents, replies received from the institution, Visiting Team Report, Video Recording. Institution in question which was inclusive of Petitioners'' institution also was found fit for grant of recognition of course qua intake mentioned against their names subject to the condition of appointment of qualified staff through duly constituted selection committee as per norms of N.C.T.E./State Government/Affiliating/Body. Petitioners claim that thereafter pursuant to the aforementioned recognition which has been so accorded, Selection Committee was constituted and faculty was appointed and entire papers were transmitted to the University for approval and the University concerned in its turn approved the same on 20.8.2007. Petitioners have further contended that State Government in exercise of its authority vested u/s 37(2) of U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 granted temporary affiliation and further Northern Regional Committee, Jaipur was informed of the entire development by letter dated 7.12.2007 and Registrar of the University concern on 8.12.2007 granted permission to the institution to run B.Ed course for Academic Session 2007-08. Joint Entrance Examination was conducted by Chhatrapati Sahu Ji Maharaj, University and on the basis of aforesaid entrance examination, 97 students were made available for admission through counselling and Petitioners claim that three students were accorded admission under N.R.I. quota. Petitioners have stated that students who have been admitted in Academic Session 2007-2008 were allowed to appear in the examination conducted by the University and said students have passed out. It has also come on record that University concern constituted panel of three members for making inspection for grant of permanent affiliation to the Petitioner''s Institution and report was submitted. State Government acting on the said report, on 28.2.2009 had granted permanent affiliation, thereafter, University concern on 14.4.2009 passed order based on granting permanent affiliation to the Petitioner''s institution to take admission of students to run B.Ed course. Again Joint Entrance Examination of B.Ed, 2008 was conducted by Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar University, Agra and in the aforesaid entrance examination, list of 95 students were recommended for admission at the Petitioners'' institution, said students have accorded admission and have pursued their course. N.C.T.E. thereafter, passed order on 24.7.2009 and therein giving reference of 141 of meeting held on 22/24.5.2009 and by mentioning that list of appointed faculty as per NCTE norms has not been submitted till date. It was also mentioned that therefore, grant of recognition to Blooming Buds Degree College, Gorakhpur in the courses for B.Ed is hereby refused. Against the same Petitioners'' institution preferred appeal and said appeal has been allowed on 5.1.2010 as follows:

Whereas the appeal of Blooming Buds Degree College, Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh dated 31.8.2009 is against the Order No. F. NRC/NCTE/F.7/UP-2146/14 Ist Meeting/2009 and 24.7.2009 of the Northern Regional Committee, refusing recognition for conducting B.Ed course on the grounds" The list of appointed faculty as per NCTE norms has not been submitted till date".

And whereas the CorRespondent, Blooming Buds Degree College (hereinafter referred to as the Appellant), preferred an appeal dated 31.8.2009 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi(hereinafter referred to as the Council) u/s 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said order. and whereas Shri, Ravi Pratap Singh, Coordinator Blooming Buds Degree College (hereinafter refereed to as the Appellant), preferr4d an appeal dated 31.8.2009 to the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi ( hereinafter referred to as the Council) u/s 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 against the said orderer.

And whereas Shri Ravi Pratap Singh, Co-ordinator, Blooming Buds Degree College, Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh presented the case of the Appellant institution on 1.12.2009. In the appeal and during personal presentation, it was submitted that the institution advertised for the appointment of faculty and the candidates was selected by the selection, committee and this selected faculty was approved by the Registrar of the Officiating University. During the presentation, the representative also stated that affiliation was given by the Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Gorakhpur Vishwavidlayala and students were admitted for the academic years 2007-08 and 2008-09. The representative also claimed that the institution had furnished the list of selected faculty to the NCR, Jaipur vide institution''s letter dated 7.12.2007.

And whereas the Council noted that the institution was granted conditional recognition on 24.12--7 to the appointment of qualified faculty selected through duly constituted selection committee as per the norms of the NCTE/State Government/Affiliating University/Body, in the compliance to this the institution appoint4ed the faculty adopting the procedure laid down in the norms and the staff list approved by the University was sent to the NRC on 20.9.2007 and also on 7.12.2007. However, the faculty details forwarded by the institution were not available in the NRC''s file, the Council also noted that as per a letter No. 3366/Ref/2009 dated 20.7.2009, the examining body namely the Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Gorakhpur Vishwavidyalaya has informed the NRC that it had granted affiliated to the institution for the session 2007-08 and students were admitted, examination was conducted for the year 2007-08 and results were also declared. In view of the above the Council cane to the conclusion that there was adequate justification in accepting the appeal to be remanded to NRC for examination of the faculty profile and the institution is directed to resubmit the faulty details as required under norMs.

And whereas after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit and after considering oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was adequate ground to accept the appeal and set aside NRC''s order dated 24.7.2009 and remand the case to NRC for examination of the faculty profile within the direction tot he institution to resubmit the faculty details to NRC for further scrutiny. Now therefore, the council hereby remands back the case of Blooming Buds Degree College, Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh to the NCTE, for necessary action as indicated above.

After the said order has been passed recognition had been accorded and it has been mentioned therein that it is w.e.f. Academic Session 2010-11. Petitioners at this juncture are contending that letter dated 24.1.2007, was formal order of recognition, and same is fortified from the circumstances, as it contained a condition of action being taken for withdrawing of recognition, and and further it has also been sought to be suggested, that the said session in question is fully saved by the provisions of Section 14(5) of the 1993 Act.

To appreciate the submission so made, the relevant provisions, prevalent at the said point of time is being looked into:

With a view to achieve planned and co-ordinated development of theteacher education system in the whole of the country and for regularization and proper maintenance and the norms and standards in the teacher education system. N.C.T.E. Act, 1993 came into force on 1.7.1995 and Chapter-IV of aforementioned Act deals with recognition of the institution offering course or training in teacher education. Relevant Regulations are being extracted below:

National Council For Teacher Education Act

Recognition of institutions offering course or training in teachereducation. (1) Every institution offering or intending to offer a course or training in teacher education on or after the appointed day, may, for grant of recognition under this Act, make an application to the Regional Committee concerned in such form and in such manner as may be determined by Regulations:

Provided that an institution offering a course or training in teachereducation immediately before the appointed day, shall be entitled to continue such course or training for a period of six months, if it hasmade an application for recognition within the said period and until the disposal of the application by the Regional Committee.

(2) The fee to be paid along with the application under Sub-section (1) shall be such as may be prescribed.

(3) On receipt of an application by the Regional Committee from any institution under Sub-section (1), and after obtaining from the institution concerned such other particulars as it may consider necessary, it shall,

(a) if it is satisfied that such institution has adequate financial resources, accommodation, library, qualified staff, laboratory and that it fulfils such other conditions required for proper functioning of theinstitution for a course or training in teacher education, as may be determined by Regulations, pass an order granting recognition to such institution, subject to such conditions as may be determined by Regulations; or

(b) if it is of the opinion that such institution does not fulfil the requirements laid down in Sub-clause (a), pass an order refusing recognition to such institution for reasons to be recorded in writing:Provided that before passing an order under Sub-clause (b), the Regional Committee shall provide a reasonable opportunity to the concerned institution for making a written representation.

(4) Every order granting or refusing recognition to an institution for a course or training in teacher education under Sub-section (3) shall be published in the Official Gazette and communicated in writing for appropriate action to such institution and to the concerned examining body, the local authority or the State Government and the Central Government.

(5) Every institution, in respect of which recognition has been refusedshall discontinue the course or training in teacher education from the end of the academic session next following the date of receipt of theorder refusing recognition passed under Clause (b) of Sub-section (3).

(6) Every examining body shall, on receipt of the order under Sub-section (4),-(a) grant affiliation, to the institution, where recognition has been granted; or'' (b) cancel the affiliation of the institution, where recognition has been refused.

Permission for a new course or training by recognised institution. (1) Where any recognised institution intends to start any new course ortraining in teacher education, it may make an application to seek permission there for to the Regional Committee concerned in suchform and in such manner as may be determined by Regulations. (2) The fees to be paid along with the application under Sub-section (1)shall be such as may be prescribed.

(3) On receipt of an application from an institution under Sub-section (1), and after obtaining from the recognised institution such other particulars as may be considered necessary, the Regional Committee shall,-

(a) if it is satisfied that such recognised institution has adequate financial resources, accommodation, library, qualified staff, laboratory, and that it fulfils such other conditions required for proper conduct of the new course or training in teacher education, as may be determined by Regulations, pass an order granting permission, subject to suchconditions as may be determined by Regulation; or

(b) if it is of the opinion that such institution does not fulfil the requirements laid down in Sub-clause (a), pass an order refusingpermission to such institution, for reasons to be recorded in writing:

Provided that before passing an order refusing permission under Sub-clause (b), the Regional Committee shall provide a reasonable opportunity to the institution concerned for making a written representation.

(4) Every order granting or refusing permission to a recognisedinstitution for a new course or training in teacher education under Sub-section (3), shall be published in the Official Gazette and communicated in writing for appropriate action to such recognised institution and to the concerned examining body, the local authority, theState Government and the Central Government.

Affiliating body to grant affiliation after recognition or permission by the Council. Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, No. examining body shall, on or after the appointed day,

(a) grant affiliation, whether provisional or otherwise, to any institution; or

(b) hold examination, whether provisional or otherwise, for a course or training conducted by a recognised institution, unless the institutionconcerned has obtained recognition from the Regional Committee concerned, u/s 14 or permission for a course or training u/s 15.

CONTRAVENTION of PROVISIONS of THE ACT and CONSEQUENCES THEREOF.

(1) Where the Regional Committee is, on its own motion or on anyrepresentation received from any person, satisfied that a recognised institution has contravened any of the provisions of this Act, or therules, Regulations, orders made or issued thereunder, or any condition subject to which recognition under Sub-section (3) of Section 14 orpermission under Sub-section (3) of Section 15 was granted, it may withdraw recognition of such recognised institution, for reasons to be recorded in writing:

Provided that No. such order against the recognised institution shall be passed unless a reasonable opportunity of making representation against the proposed order has been given to such recognised institution:

Provided further that the order withdrawing or refusing recognitionpassed by the Regional Committee shall come into force only with effect from the end of the academic session next following the date ofcommunication of such order.

(2) A copy of every order passed by the Regional Committee under Sub-section (1),

(a) shall be communicated to the recognised institution concerned and a copy thereof shall also be forwarded simultaneously to the University or the examining body to which such institution was affiliated for cancelling affiliation; and

(b) shall be published in the Official Gazette for general information.

(3) Once the recognition of a recognised institution is withdrawn under Sub-section (1), such institution shall discontinue the course or trainingin teacher education, and the concerned University or the examining body shall cancel affiliation of the institution in accordance with theorder passed under Sub-section (1), with effect from the end of the academic session next following the date of communication of the saidorder.

(4) If an institution offers any course or training in teacher education after the coming into force of the order withdrawing recognition under Sub-section (1) or where an institution offering a course or training in teacher education immediately before the appointed day fails or neglects to obtain recognition or permission under this Act, the qualification in teacher education obtained pursuant to such course ortraining or after undertaking a course or training in such institution, shall not be treated as a valid qualification for purposes of employmentunder the Central Government, any State Government or University, or in any school, college or other educational body aided by the CentralGovernment or any State Government.

Regulation2005

In exercise of authority vested u/s 32(2) of the Act, 1993 Regulations have been framed known as (National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms & Procedure) Regulations, 2005. Relevant para 7 and sub-para 7,10,11 and 12 are being extracted below alongwith Regulation 8(12).

Regulation 7 -Processing of Application.

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

The Regional Committee shall decide grant of recognition or permission to an institution only after satisfying itself that the institution fulfills all the conditions prescribed by the N.C.T.E. under the NCTEAct, Rules or Regulations, including inter-alia, the norms and standards laid down for the relevant teacher education programme/course.

(10) In the matter of grant of recognition, the Regional Committeesshall strictly act within the ambit of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993, the National Council for Teacher Education Rules, 1997 as amended from time to time and the Regulations make under the NCTE Act, 1993 including the norms and standards for various teacher education programmes and shall not make any relaxation thereto. The Regional Director who is the convener of the Regional Committee, while putting up the proposal to the Regional Committee, shall ensure that the correct provisions in the NCTE Act,Rules and Regulations including Norms and Standards for various teacher Education programmes are brought to the notice of the Regional Committee to enable the Regional Committee to take appropriate decisions.

(11) The institution concerned shall be informed, through a letter, of the decision for grant of recognition or permission subject to appointment of qualified faculty members before the commencement of the academic session. The letter issued under this clause shall not be notified in the Gazette. The faculty shall be appointed on the recommendations of the Selection Committee duly constituted as per the policy of the State Government/Central Government/University/UGC or the concerned affiliating body, as the case may be. The applicant institution shall submit an affidavit in the prescribed form that the Selection Committee has been constituted as stated above. A separate staff list with the details would be submitted in the Prescribed form. The Regional Committee would rely on the above affidavit and the staff list before processing the case for grant of formal recognition.

(12) The institution concerned, after appointing the requisite facultystaff shall put the information on its official website and also formally inform the Regional Committee concerned. The Regional Committeeshall then issue a formal unconditional recognition order

Regulation 8(12) Conditions for grant of recognition. An institution shall make admission only after it obtains unconditional letter of recognition from the Regional Committee concerned and affiliation from the examining body.

Fact of the present case clearly reflect that qua institution concern for academic session 2007-08, 2008-09 till date, at No. point of time, after issuance of conditional recognition letter dated 24.1.2007, formal unconditional letter of recognition has been issued, but in spite of the same, it is reflected from the record that both the State Government as well as the University concern proceed to treat the said letter as a letter of recognition. Said letter in question also contained condition No. 4, if any, of the institution contravenes any of the above condition or even provision of N.C.T.E. Rules and Regulations, Regional Level Committee may withdraw the recognition under the provision of Section 17(1) of N.C.T.E. Act 1993.

Under old Regulation of National Council for Teacher Education, known as National Council for Teacher Education (Recognitions Norms & Procedure) Regulations 2005 as quoted and noted therein clear cut provision has been provided for that after application has been moved u/s 14 of N.C.T.E. Act and matter has been considered for grant of recognition, then under Regulation 7(11) institution was to be informed of the decision for grant of recognition or permission subject to the appointment of qualified faculty member before the commencement of academic session and thereafter, as per Regulation 7(12) of the Act, the institution concern after appointment of faculty/staff was required to put information on official website and also inform the University concern and then Regional Level Committee was to issue formal un-conditional recognition order. Regulations, 2005 are thus clear that after recognition matter was considered by the Regional Level Committee, then information was to be furnished to the institution concern for appointing faculty staff and after aforementioned faculty staff was appointed, then Regional Level Committee was required to issue formal un-conditional order, and only after issuance of the same then in term of Regulation 8(12) admission could have been accorded.

In the present case, accepted position is that at No. point of time any order in consonance with Regulation 7(12) of Regulation 2005 formal unconditional recognition order has been issued but on the strength of the communication sent under Regulation 7(11) institution in question claims that it has got un qualified order of recognition. Regulation 2005 envisages two stages for issuance of communication. (i) First stage is when recognition is to be communicated with condition of appointment of qualifying faculty staff (ii) the second stage commences after qualified staff has been appointed, then Regional Level Committee issues formal unconditional recognition order. No. order under Regulation 2005 in term of Regulation 7(12) had been issued but the fact of the matter is that even in the absence of same, concern institution proceeded to treat and behave as if it had formal unconditional recognition order though it was misconception and the State Government as the examining body proceeded on the premises that there is unconditional recognition order in favour of the Petitioners'' institution and said fact is fortified from the circumstances that permission to run Classes was accorded by the University, affiliation was accorded by the State Government and from Central Counselling, students have been sent to the Petitioners'' institution.

Factual situation, which has emerged in the present case that even for Academic Session 2008-2009 institution in question had sent its name and through Central Methodology of selection, students who have undertaken joint entrance test had been recommended and had been getting instruction, at No. point of time, in between any objection whatsoever has been raised. It appears that problems arose when communication was sent on 24.7.2009 informing the Petitioners'' institution that faculty staff in question was not at all there. Petitioners preferred appeal and Appellate Forum in its turn has proceeded to allow the matter and same was remanded back. Most surprising feature is that in the present case recognition which has been so accorded is for conducting B.Ed. Course for Academic Session 2010-2011 and National Council of Teacher Education has maintained complete silence in reference to the academic session 2007-08, 2008-09, and till date nothing has been said qua aforementioned two academic session in the order which has been so passed, whereas the Appellate forum has taken note of the aforementioned factual situation.

This Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 677 of 2010 Amrit Bushan Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. decided on 3.7.2010 in reference to the institution namely Lal Bahadur Shastri Post Graduate College, Anand Nagar, District Mahrajganj, wherein appeal had been allowed with the direction to grant formal recognition in pursuance to the conditional recognition, took the view that after the appeal was allowed, order of N.C.T.E. was set aside by the appellate authority, formal recognition has been granted in continuance of conditional recognition then prior to it, taking of admission is in breach of 7(ii) of 2007 Regulation. Against the said order, Special Appeal had been filed, and said Special Appeal No. 1223 of 2010 has been allowed, by taking note of the fact, that appeal had been allowed instead of remanding the matter, and Appellate Forum had clearly proceeded to mention, that Appeal was allowed with clear direction to grant formal recognition pursuant to conditional recognition, and thereafter, formal recognition has been accorded w.e.f 11.6.2007.

The facts of present case are clearly distinguishable, as here in Appeal matter had been remanded to be decided on merits, and thereafter, Regional Level Committee has proceeded to accord formal recognition for academic session 2010-2011. However, in the facts of the case, as Appellate forum had taken note of academic session 2007-2008,2009-2009, the Regional Committee of N.C.T.E. should have taken care to pass positive orders, in black and white, qua the said two academic session, and also as to why similar order as has been passed while dealing with the Lal Bahadur Shastri (PG) College, Anand Nagar, had not been passed, while dealing with the case of Petitioners institution. It has also been informed, that N.C.T.E. has accepted Special Appeal judgment and said order has attained finality, as No. further challenge has been made on higher forum.

The question of applicability of Section 14(5) as well as Section 17 is also being looked into. After enforcement of 1993 Act, every institution offering or intending to offer course in teacher training, on or after the appointed day, are required to move an application to Regional Committee, in such form and manner as determined by Regulations, in terms of Section Section 14(1). A proviso has been added to the same, qua institution offering course or training in teacher education immediately before the appointed day, shall be entitled to such a course of training for period of six months, if it has made application before Regional Committee with fees, and till said application is decided the course in question can be run. In short, till such application is not decided the course will run, and if application is rejected, then Section 14(5) will come into play and the institution concerned would be free to carry out said course till end of academic session. Vis-a-vis such institutions law on the subject has already been clarified in the case of Sampoora Nand Sanskrit University v. State of U.P. and Ors., when view taken by Single Judge has not been approved and in Special Appeal of Ekta Shukla (Supra) law on the subject has been clarified and same has also got the approval of Full Bench of this Court in the case of Bhupendra Nath Tripathi v. State of U.P. decided on 6.1.2009, in Special Appeal No. 858 of 2008, while deciding issue No. 2. Vis-a-vis institution; who had been intending to offer a course or training for the first time after enforcement of 1993 Act, said provision in question is not sat all applicable or attracted, as only those institution qua whom recognition has been refused are to discontinue the course and the said category is clearly referable to said category of students, who have been offering course or eduction prior to appointed date, and whose application has been refused u/s 14(3)(b). Any other category of institution, falling in second class, i.e. who intend to offer course for the first time, cannot admit any student until and unless formal order of recognition is issued under Regulation 7(12), 8(12) of Regulation 2005 and Regulation 7(11), 8(12) of Regulation 2007. Section 17 will come into play, after formal order of recognition is passed, as same deals with the situation of contravention of the provisions of the Act and consequences thereof. Before any action is taken u/s 17, the institution has to be recognised. The institution, under the provisions of Section 14 and 15 of N.C.T.E. Act and the Regulations framed thereunder, can be treated as recognised, only when formal unconditional recognition order under 2005 Regulation or formal recognition order under 2007 Regulation is issued and then Regional Committee is to take action u/s 17, on pre conditions mentioned there being in existence and on such action being taken, it is effective w.e.f. the end of academic session next, following the date of communication of such order. In the present case accepted position is that formal unconditional recognition order has not at all been issued, then merely because, in the order dated 24.1.2007, reference has been given of Section 17, same will not make the order, as unconditional recognition order, specially when on its face value it is conditional order in term of Regulation 7(11) of 2005 and No. order in term of Regulation 7(12) of 2005 is there, which clearly requires unconditional recognition order, and admission of student is also to follow thereafter in term of Regulation 8(12) of Regulation 2005. In such a situation neither Section 14(5) nor Section 17 will come to the rescue of Petitioners. Request of Petitioners, that as application of institution was pending for grant of permanent recognition, shall be treated to be deemed recognition after grant of permanent recognition by N.C.T.E., can not be also be accepted as the legislature in its wisdom had never though of any situation to be met by introducing deeming provisions, rather the scheme of things provided for two stages for according recognition (i) qualified recognition order (ii) unqualified recognition order, and before issuance of unqualified recognition order, institution was prohibited from admitting students and even to obtain affiliation. This Court cannot import deeming provision, on its own, without there being any statutory provision, in support of the same.

Here in the present case as at No. point of time any formal letter of recognition has been issued for academic session 2007-08, 2008-09 and in the letter issued it has been mentioned that same will operate for Academic Session 2010-2011 and No. reason whatsoever has been given qua academic session 2007-08, 2008-09 and the Appellate Forum had taken note of the said fact, and qua other institution recognition has been accorded, in continuation of letter of intent, in this background, as according of recognition is in the domain of Regional Level Committee of N.C.T.E., the matter requires reconsideration by Regional Level Committee of N.C.T.E., as such Regional Level Committee is directed to take fresh decision preferably within next six weeks, from the date of receipt of certified copy of order qua academic session 2007-08,2008-09, and the out come of the same be informed to the institution as well as the University concerned, for further follow up action, and declaration of result, would abide by decision of Regional Level Committee of N.C.T.E. With these observations, all the three writ petitions are disposed of.