AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Jayant Patel, J.—All the petitions are preferred by the students with the common prayer and, therefore, they are being considered by this
common order.
The petitioners have preferred the petition for the relief, inter alia, to direct the respondents to make necessary changes in the policy of the
Government for counting of the internal marks in PTC Examinations for the purpose of recruitment of Vidhya Sahayak and other posts. The
petitioners have also prayed to give directions to respondent No. 4 to cancel the recognition of the respondent No. 5 College.
Heard Mr. Baheti, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shah, learned AGP for respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 and Mr. Shastri, learned Counsel
for respondent No. 4 and Mr. Nanavati, learned Counsel for respondent No. 5.
It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there are large number of illegalities committed by the management of respondent No. 5
college, including that of collection of more fees from the students, pressurising the students to pay the amount, failing which less internal marks are
being given at the examinations and the college does not maintain the basic facilities as required for running a PTC College. It has been submitted
that since the students did not succumb to the pressure of the management, their internal marks are lowered down and consequently the students
have not secured the internal marks, which has adversely affected the career of all the students, who are petitioners herein for their employment in
Vidhya Sahayak and other posts in the Government Service and, therefore, it has been submitted that appropriate directions may be issued by this
Court.
Mr. Baheti, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in furtherance to his submission, has relied upon various reports of the State authorities,
including that of the Director of Primary Education, intimating to the Secretary, Education Department as well as to NCTE that illegalities are being
committed by the college management, but no actions are taken by NCTE and, therefore, this petition.
Whereas, on behalf of the respondent college, it has been submitted by Mr. Nanavati that the college has acted as per the decision of this Court
in earlier litigation for collection of the fees. He submitted that on the contrary, the management has not pressurised the students to pay the fees. He
also contended that the allegations of mismanagement and illegalities are without there being any material and are also not correct. He also
submitted that the present petition is filed with extraneous considerations at the instance of some other persons interested to see that the functioning
of the college is affected and, therefore, he submitted that the petition may be dismissed.
Mr. Shah, learned AGP while supporting the case of the petitioners, has submitted that the State Government has taken various actions,
including that of the inquiry based on the complaint of the students and parents of the students. However, final action is to be taken by NCTE and
in spite of the recommendation, no action is taken. He also relied upon the documents produced by the petitioners for showing that the actions
permissible by the State Government have been taken to explore the truth and the same is also forwarded to the NCTE.
Mr. Shastri, learned Counsel appearing for NCTE submitted that based on the information received, NCTE had undertaken the inspection and
earlier the matter was considered. However, he further submitted that in view of the directions issued by this Court on 14.8.2007, the matter was
required to be reconsidered by the NCTE, but as the Western Regional Committee of NCTE was suspended from 21.8.2007 pursuant to the
order passed by the Central Government u/s 29 of the NCTE Act, the matter could not be reconsidered and the report could not be placed before
the Court, but he submitted that the Committee is restored in December, 2007 and is to consider the matter. He also submitted that NCTE is open
to any directions of this Court for the larger interest of the education of the students. He submitted that the matter shall be considered by NCTE
and if found that there is material for de-recognition, the appropriate action shall also be taken.
It may be recorded that earlier when this Court (Coram: D.A. Mehta, J.) considered the matter for the first time on 2.5.2007, following order
was passed:
Heard learned Advocate for the petitioners in each of these matters only in relation to prayer Clauses 16B, 16C & 16D. In so far as the relief as
sought vide prayer Clause 16A is concerned, the issue being stale, the petitions are not required to be entertained.
NOTICE returnable on 19.6.2007. Direct service by Registered Post Acknowledgment Due for respondent No. 5 only.
Registry to place copy of this order in all connected matters.
The aforesaid shows that the Court did not consider the aspect of entertaining of the petition for prayer Clause 16(A) and the matter was
considered for the remaining prayers 16(B), (C) and (D). It may be recorded that prayer 16(A) pertains to the prayer for directing the respondents
to exclude the consideration of the internal marks while considering the merits of the students in the recruitment of Vidhya Sahayak and other such
posts. Therefore, if the matter is considered for the remaining prayers, the substantive prayer is only for giving directions to NCTE to cancel the
recognition under NCTE Act, 1993. Prayer 16(C) relates to the interim stay for not to admit the students pursuant to the recognition granted by
NCTE.
It appears that thereafter the matter was considered by this Court (Coram: D.A. Mehta, J.) and on 14.8.2007 following order was passed:
Mr. A.J. Shastri, learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No. 4-authority, states that the order/communication bearing No.
WRC/322009/NCTE/2006, dated 5.5.2007 shall be reconsidered in light of the report of the Visiting-Team relating to inspection conducted on
14th March, 2007 (Annexure-R4/12). It is further stated that for the purposes of reconsideration, respondent No. 4-authority shall take all
necessary steps like hearing respondent No. 5-Institute and representative of the petitioner as well as carry out further inspection, if so warranted.
The exercise shall be completed, according to the learned advocate, within a period of five weeks from today, and respondent No. 4 shall place
on record report of the exercise of reconsideration. Needless to say that such a report will not have any effect due to pendency of the petitions on
the rights of the affected parties. Petitions to be listed on 25th September, 2007.
As such, it was required for NCTE to comply with the order passed by this Court and to submit the report. However, it appears that on
account of the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances of suspension of the Western Committee of NCTE, the matter is not reconsidered and
the report is not placed on record, but as per the declaration made by the learned Counsel for NCTE, the matter is still under reconsideration of
NCTE and, therefore, it can be said that the issue is yet to be reconsidered and finalized by NCTE.
It deserves to be recorded that NCTE is a national level body enjoined with the duty to see that the standard of education is not only
maintained as per the requirement of the Act and the instructions issued from time to time, but it is also enjoined with the duty to ensure that such
standard is continued to be maintained from time to time, by inspection at an interval. The same is coupled with the circumstances that if genuine
and reliable complaint is brought to its notice, it is required for the NCTE to inquire about the same and if the substance of the material is found
therein, appropriate directions are required to be issued by NCTE and it may also be, to the extent of de-recognition of the institution if the
circumstance so warrants for de-recognition of the institution.
The inquiry is undertaken by the State Government and more particularly the Director of Primary Education, who is also supposed to be
directly concerned with the Primary Education in the State and thereby concerned with the education of the teachers, who are to teach the students
in PTC Colleges. The material produced in the record of this petition pertaining to the inquiry by the Director of Primary Education prima facie
refers to various lapses on the part of the respondent No. 5 College. It may be that the inquiry undertaken by Director of Primary Education may
not fully bind NCTE, but when the statutory authority has exercised the power, may be by the then Officer of the State Government concerned
with the Primary Education of the students or the teachers, as the case may be, it would be required for NCTE to act upon the same and it will be
for NCTE to have the detailed scrutiny of the matter and thereafter if the material is found to the satisfaction of NCTE that the college has
committed any serious illegalities or there are serious lapses, it would be required for NCTE to take appropriate action in accordance with law, of
course, after giving opportunity of hearing to the concerned college.
It appears that earlier decision by NCTE for not taking any action whatsoever, except giving a warning, prima facie cannot be said as any
proper exercise of the power and as such, in view of the said material, this Court (Coram: D.A. Mehta, J.) vide order dated 14.8.2007 did direct
for reconsideration. The fact remains that it has not been reconsidered and prior that to, the matter is further heard by this Court. Therefore, when
the matter is at large to be considered by NCTE, it would be required for NCTE to examine the materials, which are produced in the petition and
the further materials which may come on record on account of the inquiry by NCTE itself or may be produced by the college authorities or the
State authorities and it will be required for NCTE to take appropriate decision in the larger interest of all students, who are to get or who have got
the education of primary teachers in the State or the College as the case may be.
As it appears, the next academic year is to start from July 2008 and in any event, prior there to the NCTE would be required to decide the
matter, therefore, if the time bound direction is given, the same would be in the ends of justice and it would also balance the situation inasmuch as
the career of the students, who may be admitted in the next academic year is not to be at stake in the event NCTE decides to de-recognise the
college upon the satisfaction arrived at in accordance with law.
In view of the aforesaid, I find that the following directions shall meet with the ends of justice:
(a) NCTE shall reconsider the whole matter for continuing or de-recognition of respondent No. 5 college, keeping in view the aforesaid
observations made by this Court and in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of hearing to respondent No. 5 college authority as well as
one authorised representative of the petitioner.
(b) It would also be open to NCTE to incidentally examine the matter, including that of holding the inquiry, if required. However, suffice it to state
that the decision shall be taken, keeping in view the larger interest in the field of education of primary teachers and in accordance with law.
(c) The aforesaid exercise shall be completed on or before 31.3.2008 and the decision shall also be communicated to the petitioner as well as to
respondent No. 5 college by Registered A.D. Post.
(d) It is also clarified that in the even the decision of NCTE is against the petitioner or against the respondent No. 5 college, either party shall be at
liberty to resort to appropriate proceedings, as may be permissible in law.
The petitions are disposed of in terms of the aforesaid directions. No order as to costs.