Mata Surajmukhi Girls Degree College of Commerce and Economics Shahdara, district Agra & Anr. vs State of U.P.& Ors.,

Dilip Gupta, J.—Mata Surajmukhi Girls Degree College of Commerce and Economics (hereinafter referred to as the ''Institution�) and its Secretary have filed this petition for quashing the order dated 11th June, 2009 passed by the National Council for Teachers Education, New Delhi by which the appeal filed by the petitioners under Section 18 of the National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993 against the order dated 6th January, 2009 passed by the Regional Director was dismissed.

The Institution submitted an application before the Regional Director, National Council for Teachers Education, Northern Region on 28th January, 2008 for grant of recognition to B.Ed. course under the Self Financing Scheme. This application was rejected by the Regional Director by the order dated 6th January, 2009 on the ground that as per the National Council for Teachers Education (Regulation Norms and Procedure) Regulation 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the ''2007 Regulations�) private lease documents were not acceptable. The petitioners filed an appeal under Section 18 of the Act which was dismissed by the order dated 11th June, 2009 on the ground that as per the Regulation 8(7) of the 2007 Regulations which had come into force on 10th December, 2007, no Institution could be granted recognition unless it was in possession of the required land on the date of application and such land should not only be free from all encumbrances but should also be either on ownership basis or on lease from the Government/Government Institution for a period not less than 30 years.

I have heard Sri J.K. Srivastava learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri R.A. Akhtar learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Learned Standing Counsel has put in appearance on behalf of the State respondent No. 1.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that though the petitioners had submitted the application for grant of recognition on 28th January, 2008 and the 2007 Regulations had come into force on 10th December, 2007, but as the form submitted by the petitioners made reference to the 2005 Regulations and the 2005 Regulations did not contain the condition as stipulated under Regulation 8(7) of the 2007 Regulations, the petitioners were not required to comply with the said condition. In this connection learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon paragraphs 5.3 and 6.1 contained in the application. It is also his contention that mere acceptance of the form shows that the Council applied the 2005 Regulations because otherwise under the 2007 Regulations the application could have been rejected on the ground of delay. He, therefore, submits that the application submitted by the petitioners was required to be examined under Regulation framed by the National Council for Teachers Education in the year 2005 and not the 2007 Regulations.

Sri R.A. Akhtar learned counsel appearing for the respondents, however, submitted that the 2007 Regulation had come into force on 10th December, 2007 when they were published in the Official Gazette and in view of Regulation 8(7) of the Regulations, the recognition could not be granted to the Institution. He also submitted that mere reference to the earlier Regulations of 2005 in the form issued to the petitioners will not make the 2005 Regulation applicable to their case particularly when the 2005 Regulations have been repealed. He further submitted that the form had been supplied to the petitioners in June, 2007 prior to 10th December, 2007 when the 2007 Regulations came into force and so reference to the 2007 Regulations was not contained in the application form.

I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties.

The dispute in the present petition relates to Regulation 8(7) of the 2007 Regulations which is as follows:

"8(7). Conditions for grant of recognition: No institution shall be granted recognition under these regulations unless it is in possession of required land on the date of application. The land free from all encumbrances could be either on ownership basis, or on lease from Government/Govt. Institutions for a period of not less than 30 years. In cases where under relevant State/UT laws the maximum permissible lease period is less than 30 years, the State Government/UT Administration law shall prevail. However, no building could be taken on lease for running any teacher training course."

Learned counsel for the petitioners does not dispute that the Institution does not satisfy this condition. He has, however, submitted that the conditions stipulated under Regulation 8(7) of the 2007 Regulations will not be applicable to the petitionerInstitution as the application had been submitted pursuant to the earlier Regulations framed in the year 2005 which did not contain such a requirement.

This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. Regulation 12 of the 2007 Regulations repeals, amongst others, the earlier Regulations framed in the year 2005. The application was submitted by the petitioner on 28th January, 2008 when the 2007 Regulations had come into force. Mere reference to 2005 Regulations in certain paragraphs of the application form provided to the petitioner in June, 2007 prior to the coming into force of the 2007 Regulations, will not mean that the application of the petitioner should be examined under the earlier 2005 Regulations.

The next submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that acceptance of the application submitted by the petitionerInstitution after the expiry of the date stipulated in the 2007 Regulations by the Regional Director implies that the earlier Regulations of 2005 were made applicable to the case of the petitioner cannot also be accepted. The application submitted by the petitioner has to be examined under the existing Regulations and the respondents committed no infirmity in examining the case of the petitionerInstitution for recognition to the B.Ed. Course under the existing 2007 Regulations.

There is, therefore, no merit in this petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed.