Keshav Suryamukhi College of Education vs State of Uttarakhand and Others

V.K. Bist, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is not the stand of the respondents that the petitioner''s institution has not fulfilled the requirement, which are required for affiliation. If the petitioner''s institution has not fulfilled the requirements, which are required for grant of affiliation, in that event, the University/State Government may make a request to N.C.T.E. for withdrawal of the recognition, but unless and until the recognition is not withdrawn by the N.C.T.E., the University is obliged to grant affiliation to the petitioner''s institutions as per provision of Section 14(6) of the N.C.T.E. Act. Under the N.C.T.E. Act, the State Government has no role to play to grant affiliation in view of the judgment in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya and Others, .

In the case in hand, application for affiliation was filed by the petitioner institution on 10.09.2012. The University constituted Inspection Team on 27.09.2012, but inspection was made after seven months i.e. on 13.05.2013, whereas as per norms, constitution should have been done within four months. Even thereafter, the matter was not placed before the Executive Committee and due to this reason the matter was not sent in proper manner to the Chancellor, therefore the question of approval from the side of Chancellor never arose. This action of the University is not appreciated.

Learned Senior Advocate for the University submitted that inspection was made on 13th May, 2013, papers of the petitioner institution were not found correct, therefore inspection report could not be placed before the Executive Council.

Considering the fact that petitioner institution submitted application for affiliation on 10.09.2012 and Inspection Team was constituted on 27.09.2012 and thereafter University Authority slept over the matter, the petitioner institution should not be punished for inaction on the part of the University. Also considering the fact that Inspection Team found everything in order, I direct the University to grant provisional affiliation to the petitioner institution and send recommendation of the University under power conferred on it u/s 13(6) of the Universities act within a week. In the meantime, the University is also directed to permit the petitioner institution to participate in the counseling provisionally.

Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Advocate for the respondent no. 3 pointed out that in fact, it has come to the notice of the Chancellor that in some cases the N.C.T.E. has granted recognition to some B.Ed. colleges without following the norms as prescribed by the N.C.T.E. Act and Regulations. Mr. T.A. Khan, Senior Advocate appearing for NCTE submitted that he could not obtain the record. He sought sometime enabling him to produce the same. Time upto 25th July, 2013 is granted to him.

List this matter on 25.07.2013 alongwith WPMS No. 1189 of 2013. By that time, all the respondents may file their counter affidavits.

Stay application (CLMA No. 7284/2013) stands disposed of. Let certified copy of this order be supplied to the counsel for the parties, within 24 hrs, on payment of usual charges.