AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The main point involved in these cases is, ''Whether the withdrawal of recognition of the B.Ed course to Shri Rawatpura Sarkar Sansthan (the Institute) is illegal.''
It arises in these writ appeals against the order of the single judge dated 02.05.2013 disposing of Writ Petitions (C)-2874 and 2875 of 2011 filed by the Institute.
THE FACTS
There is a trust known as Rawatpura Sarkar Lok Kalyan Trust (the Trust). It started a university in the name of Rawatpura Sarkar International University (the Rawatpura-University) at Raipur. It was a private university and was granted recognition of a deemed university by the University Grants Commission (the UGC). The Institute was affiliated to the Rawatpura-University.
Subsequently, the Institute got affiliated to Ravishanker Shukla University (the Ravishanker-University).
The Institute decided to start a B.Ed course. The Western Regional Committee (the WRC) constituted under the National Council of Teachers Education Act (the Act) granted recognition to it. Thereafter, the Institute applied for grant of recognition to start M.Ed. course.
The WRC not only cancelled the recognition to B.Ed course, but dismissed the application for grant of recognition for the M.Ed. course. The appeals of the Institute against these orders were also dismissed.
These orders were challenged by the Institute in the two writ petitions that were disposed of by the single judge by issuing a direction to conduct spot inspection and then take a decision. This order of the single judge is challenged in these appeals: The WRC challenges the direction; whereas, the Institute challenges non-quashing of the impugned orders.
Facts Regarding B.Ed Course
The Institute had filed an application on 07.10.2003 before the WRC for grant of recognition to start B.Ed course under NCTE (Form of application for recognition, the time limit of submission of application, determination of norms and standards for recognition of teacher education programmes and permission to start new course or training) Regulations, 2002 (the 2002-Regulations).
In the application, it was mentioned that B.Ed course was to start at rented premises at C-1, Sector-1, Devendra Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (the Raipur-premises). But, it was also mentioned in the application that the Institute will construct its own building and shift there.
Along with the application, a sale-deed of the land was also annexed that showed that the Institute had purchased 5 acres of land in village Chouraha, Ahirwar, tehsil Dhamdha (now tehsil Kumhari) district Durg (the Durg-premises), over which, the building was to be constructed.
A team of the WRC conducted inspection of the proposed Institute on 17.05.2004. After considering its report, the WRC granted temporary recognition to the Institute on 08.07.2004 to run the B.Ed course for the academic session 2004-05 at the Raipur-premises on the condition that the Institute will submit the list of the staff/faculty duly approved by the Registrar of the affiliating university.
The WRC granted recognition on 23.11.2005 for the academic session 2005-06 on the condition that the Institute should shift to its own premises within a period of three years from the date of recognition.
According to the Institute, it shifted to its own building at Durg-premises in the month of December, 2005. This fact is not specifically denied by the WRC but it is said that it was informed about this fact on 28.04.2009.
The WRC issued show-cause notice dated 28.04.2010 to the Institute to show-cause why the recognition for the B.Ed course be not cancelled as it had shifted the premises without obtaining permission of the WRC under sub-clause (9) of clause 8 {clause 8(9)} of the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms & Procedure) Regulations, 2005 (the 2005-Regulations).
The Institute filed its reply on 20.05.2010. However, a decision was taken to withdraw the recognition on 14.06.2010 on the ground that the recognition was granted to run the B.Ed course at Raipur-premises, but it was shifted to the Durg-premises, without obtaining permission of the WRC. Thereafter, the order withdrawing the recognition was also passed on 06.07.2010.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Institute filed an appeal before the appellate authority. It was dismissed on 26.04.2011, affirming the finding of the WRC.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the Institute filed Writ Petition (C)-2875 of 2011.
Facts Regarding M.Ed. Course
The Institute submitted another application on 31.10.2008 for running M.Ed. course at the Durg-premises. It is at the same place where the Institute was running its B.Ed course after shifting.
Initially, the aforesaid application was rejected on 05.08.2009. However, the case was remanded back to the WRC by the Appellate Authority on 11.09.2009.
Later on, a team of the WRC inspected the Durg-premises, then the WRC issued a show-cause notice on 12.03.2010 to the Institute to show-cause, why the recognition for M.Ed. course be refused on the ground that the Institute was not running any B.Ed course at the Durg-premises.
The Institute filed its reply on 10.04.2010. The WRC refused to grant recognition for M.Ed. course at the Durg-premises on 05.05.2010 on the ground that the Institute was not running B.Ed course at the Durg-premises.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Institute filed an appeal before the appellate authority. It was also dismissed on 26.04.2011, affirming the finding of the WRC.
Against the aforesaid orders, the Institute filed Writ Petition (C)-2874 of 2011.
Orders on the WPs
Writ Petition (C)-2874 of 2011 and Writ Petition (C)-2875 of 2011 were taken up together. The court did not quash the orders passed by the WRC and the appellate authority. However, considering the future of the students, the single judge,
� Granted liberty to the WRC to impose penalty in respect of violation of provisions of the regulations, if any; but
� Directed that the case of the Institute may be reconsidered after making fresh spot inspection of the building at the Durg-premises.
The WRC has filed Writ Appeals-427 and 428 of 2013 against the direction issued by the single judge. The Institute has filed Writ Appeals-466 and 467 of 2013 against the order of the single judge for not quashing the impugned orders. The writ appeals are now being taken up for decision.
POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
We have heard counsel for the parties. There is delay in filing the writ appeals. The counsel for the parties have no objection in condoning the delay in filing the writ appeals. The delay in filing the writ appeals is condoned and with the consent of the parties, the writ appeals are being finally decided.
The following points arise for determination:
(i) Whether the writ appeals are maintainable;
(ii) Whether the order withdrawing the recognition for B.Ed course is illegal;
(iii) Whether the refusal to grant recognition for M.Ed. course is illegal;
(iv) In case answers to the aforesaid points are affirmative, then what relief should be granted to the Institute.
1st POINT: WRIT APPEALS ARE MAINTAINABLEM (For some general observations and suggestions regarding this point, see Appendix-1)
An appeal lies to a division bench against the order of the single judge under the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006 (the 2006-Act).
u/s 2 of the 2006-Act, an appeal lies against the order passed by the single judge in exercise of original jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution. However, no appeal lies against the order passed in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under article 227 of the Constitution.
The counsel for the parties agree that the WRC as well as the appellate authority exercise powers under a statutory provision and also exercise quasi-judicial power. However, according to them, the single judge had exercised the power under article 226 of the Constitution and not under article 227 of the Constitution.
There is no dispute between the parties on the point that the single judge has exercised power under article 226 and not under article 227 of the Constitution. Nevertheless, if the single judge has exercised power under article 227 then the writ appeals are not maintainable: a concession of the parties will not confer jurisdiction, if the writ appeals are not maintainable.
In Dr. Bhagwant Singh vs. Pt. Ravi Shankar Shukla University and another (Writ Appeal-190 of 2007, decided on 25.06.2013) and M/s. Sony India Private Limited and Another vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others (Writ Appeal No. 214 of 2013 decided on 18.06.2013), it has been held that a statutory authority exercising quasi-judicial power is a Tribunal within the meaning of article 227 of the Constitution.
In SKS Ispat Limited Vs. Union of India and others (Writ Appeal-1006 of 2012, decided on 12.12.2012), it has been held that it is not the heading of the writ petition, but substance of the order passed by the single judge is material. It is substance of the order passed that determines, whether the order was passed under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution.
The question is, considering the substance of the order passed by the single judge here, whether the order is passed under article 226 or under article 227 of the Constitution.
The WPs were filed under article 226 /227 of the Constitution. The reliefs prayed for, were for quashing of the impugned orders and a direction was prayed that the respondents-authorities may not withdraw the recognition granted earlier for running B.Ed course or to grant recognition for running M.Ed. after satisfying the compliance of the conditions laid down under the Act on inspecting the Durg-premises.
The second relief prayed for in the WPs is not clear. However, it appears that the Institute prayed that irrespective of the past conduct, a fresh spot inspection may be conducted to consider continuance of the B.Ed course or grant of recognition to the M.Ed. course.
The single judge did not quash the impugned orders. However, directed that:
The respondents shall consider the case of the petitioner afresh after having spot inspection of the building in question having regard to the future of the students and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law, if necessary by imposing penal compensation for violation of provisions of regulations, if any, within a period of two months.
The question is, is this order in substance under article 226 or 227 of the Constitution.
It has been held that the power of ''superintendence'' conferred upon the High Court under article 227 of the Constitution is not confined to administrative Waryam Singh and Another Vs. Amarnath and Another, Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai and Others, Jasbir Singh Vs. State of Punjab, superintendence only, but includes the judicial superintendence, akin to revisional or corrective jurisdiction, as well Banerjee, DN v. PR Mukherjee: AIR 1953 SC 58; Achutananda Baidya Vs. Prafullya Kumar Gayen and others, ; Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai and Others, Jasbir Singh Vs. State of Punjab, and can be exercised suo motu Hari Vishnu Kamath Vs. Syed Ahmad Ishaque and Others, ; J.D. Jain Vs. Management of State Bank of India and another, Jasbir Singh Vs. State of Punjab,
Had the single judge quashed the impugned orders; and thereafter issued any directions, then it could be said that the single judge has exercised power under article 227 of the Constitution as it may be done under this article. But in this case, the impugned orders are not set aside but a direction has been issued. Such a direction is in nature of mandamus to the WRC and can be passed under article 226 of the Constitution and not under article 227 of the Constitution. The writ appeals are maintainable.
2nd POINT: ORDER WITHDRAWING B.Ed RECOGNITION--ILLEGAL
The WRC and the appellate authority have withdrawn the recognition on the ground that the B.Ed course was illegally shifted from the Raipur-premises to the Durg-premises, as no approval of the WRC was obtained. Is this reasoning correct?
The counsel for the Institute challenges the reasoning and finding. He submits that:
� The B.Ed course was shifted from the Raipur-premises to the Durg-premises in December, 2005, when the building was completed at Durg;
� There was no necessity to take permission from the WRC as shifting was done in view of the condition for granting recognition; and
� The recognition for the B.Ed cannot be withdrawn for not following a condition that was not applicable.
Whereas, the counsel for the WRC supports the reasoning and finding. He submits that:
� The Institute should have taken permission from the WRC before shifting its B.Ed course as mandated under clause 8(9) of the 2005-Regulations;
� The Institute had not taken such a permission; and
� The shifting of the Institute to Durg-premises was illegal.
Let us consider, who is correct, but first, as to when the B.Ed course was shifted to the Durg-premises.
Shifted in December, 2005
The Institute had filed an application under the 2002-Regulations for grant of recognition to run B.Ed course on 07.10.2003. In the application, it was also mentioned that the course would ultimately be conducted in its own building for which the land was purchased at Durg (i.e. at the Durg-premises) but for time being, the permission was sought to start B.Ed course temporary, from the tenanted Raipur-premises. Along with the application, a sale-deed of the land was also annexed to show that the Institute had purchased 5 acres of land in Durg.
A team of the WRC had also conducted inspection on 17.05.2004 and has also found the aforesaid facts to be correct. The temporary recognition was granted to the Institute on 08.07.2004 to run the B.Ed course for the academic session 2004-05 from the tenanted Raipur-premises.
Subsequently, the recognition was granted for the academic session 2005-06 on 23.11.2005 on the condition that the Institute should shift B.Ed course in its own premises, within a period of three years from the date of recognition.
According to the Institute,
� It completed its building and thereafter shifted the B.Ed course in the month of December, 2005;
� Initially, the administrative office continued at the Raipur-premises but it also shifted to the Durg-premises in the year 2009.
This assertion of the Institute is not specifically denied by the WRC. However, it has been said that the information regarding shifting was supplied to the WRC for the first time on 28.04.2009.
The Institute was initially affiliated to the Rawatpura-University. The recognition of many private universities including that of the Rawatpura-University was cancelled by the Supreme Court in Prof. Yashpal and Another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others, .
Thereafter, the Institute filed an application for affiliation to the Ravishankar-University. The Executive Council of the Ravishankar-University granted temporary affiliation for the academic session 2005-06 and the order to this effect was also issued on 20.04.2006. Since then, it has been extended from time to time.
In the order granting affiliation by the Ravishankar-University, it is mentioned that the Institute is at the Durg-premises. A copy of the order was also sent to the WRC. This supports the assertion of the Institute that it had shifted its B.Ed course earlier. As there is nothing to deny the assertion of the Institute that it shifted B.Ed course to the Durg-premises in December, 2005, we accept it.
In our opinion, the Institute shifted its B.Ed classes to the Durg-premises in December, 2005 though, the administrative office was shifted later on.
2005-Regulations--Not Applicable
The Institute had filed an application for grant of recognition of the B.Ed course under the 2002-Regulations. Admittedly, in the 2002-Regulations, there was no such condition of taking approval for shifting.
The 2005-Regulations were published in the official gazette on 13.01.2006 and they were enforced from that date. The Institute had already shifted its B.Ed course to the Durg-premises before enforcement of the 2005-Regulations. Clause 8(9) of the 2005-Regulations was not applicable; and no permission for shifting was required: the recognition for the B.Ed course could not be withdrawn on the ground that no permission was obtained.
Nevertheless, even if the 2005-Regulations were applicable, the impugned orders cannot be supported. They are neither legal nor proper.
Even If 2005-Regulations Applicable--Withdrawal Illegal
The Institute had filed an application for grant of recognition to run B.Ed course on 07.10.2003. A reading of this application along with the annexures, indicates that the Institute wanted to start the B.Ed course in a temporary tenanted premises at Raipur and thereafter shift to its own building for which it had already purchased the land at Durg.
The WRC itself granted recognition to the Institute on 23.11.2005, on the condition that it will shift to its own premises within three years. In case, the Institute shifted to its own premises then no fault can be found in it, as this was the condition for granting recognition.
It does not lie in the mouth of the WRC to grant recognition for B.Ed course on the condition that the Institute shall shift the B.Ed course to its own building and when shifting is done to fulfill the condition of the WRC, then to withdraw it on the ground that no permission was taken: it cannot blow hot and cold at the same time.
Withdrawal Improper
It is relevant to point out that the recognition for B.Ed course is not withdrawn on the ground of lack of infrastructure or faculty strength or any other deficiency, but on the alleged technical ground that no permission was taken to shift the premises.
The future of our country depends on the advancement of education. It is necessary that we open more educational institutions; provide better educational facilities rather than to act in a manner to close the educational institutions on technical grounds.
The matter would have been different, had the Institute did not have proper infrastructure or the staff or was lacking in any other facilities as required under the law. But this is not the case here. The impugned orders were not passed on this ground but on the assumed alleged technical flaw that was not there. This was improper.
In view of above, the order of the WRC dated 06.07.2010 and the order of the appellate authority dated 26.04.2011 are set aside.
3rd POINT: THE ORDER REFUSING PERMISSION FOR M.Ed. COURSE--ILLEGAL
The WRC issued a notice to the Institute to show cause as to why the recognition for M.Ed. course be not refused on the ground that no B.Ed course was going on at the Durg-premises.
Thereafter, an order was passed by the WRC refusing to grant permission for M.Ed. course on the ground that the Institute was not running any B.Ed course at the Durg-premises. This finding was upheld by the appellate authority.
In our opinion, the notice issued by the WRC as well as the orders passed by the WRC and the appellate authority are contrary to the stand taken by the WRC, while withdrawing the recognition for B.Ed course; perhaps this confusion arose as the separate orders were passed.
It is admitted case of the WRC that on the date of the application to grant permission for M.Ed. course, B.Ed course was running at the Durg-premises, but according to the WRC, the Institute had illegally shifted. This is different than to say that no B.Ed course was not running. The notice as well as the order by the WRC and the appellate authority are illegal.
Apart from above, we have already held that there was no illegality in shifting the B.Ed course to the Durg-premises and withdrawal of recognition of B.Ed course is illegal.
In view of above, the orders of the WRC dated 05.05.2010 and the order of the appellate authority dated 26.04.2011 are illegal and are set aside.
4th POINT: RELIEF GRANTED
The order to withdraw recognition for B.Ed course was passed on 06.07.2010. It was mentioned in the order that this recognition was withdrawn from the end of the academic session next to the following date of this withdrawal order. It is admitted that by this order recognition of B.Ed course was withdrawn after the end of academic session 2011-12 i.e. from the academic session 2012-13.
The Institute filed writ petitions and obtained an interim order. In view of the said interim order, it has admitted the students in the academic session 2012-13 and 2013-14. In view of the same and the fact that we have already set aside the orders withdrawing the recognition for B.Ed course, we direct that:
(i) The WRC may conduct a fresh inspection of the premises and thereafter take appropriate decision in accordance with law with regard to B.Ed course as well as for granting recognition for M.Ed. course. This may be done by a consolidated order so that confusion, which took place in the impugned orders, may not occur again;
(ii) The recognition for the B.Ed course will continue till the fresh order is passed by the WRC and will be subject to it.
A Clarification
Nevertheless, we clarify that:
� The WRC will neither be entitled to reject the recognition for B.Ed course on the ground that the Institute had illegally shifted its premises to Durg, nor impose any penalty on the Institute for making alleged violation that does not exist;
� It will be open to the WRC to consider the question of withdrawing recognition for B.Ed course or granting recognition for M.Ed. course on the ground that the infrastructure or the other facilities are not in accordance with the regulations.
CONCLUSIONS
Our conclusions are as follows:
(a) The writ appeals are maintainable;
(b) The orders withdrawing recognition for B.Ed course and refusing to grant permission for M.Ed. course are illegal.
In view of our conclusions, the Writ Appeals-427 and 428 of 2013 filed by the WRC are dismissed and Writ Appeals-466 and 467 of 2013 filed by the Institute are allowed:
(a) The following reliefs are granted:
(i) The orders, passed by the WRC dated 06.07.2010 withdrawing recognition to the B.Ed course and the order of the appellate authority dated 26.04.2011 affirming it, are set aside;
(ii) The orders, passed by the WRC dated 05.05.2010 refusing to grant recognition to the M.Ed. course and the order of the appellate authority dated 26.04.2011 affirming it, are set aside.
(b) The following directions are issued with the restrictions and liberty mentioned under the sub-heading ''A Clarification'' under heading ''4TH POINT: RELIEF GRANTED'':
(i) The WRC may conduct a fresh inspection of the premises and thereafter take appropriate decision in accordance with law with regard to B.Ed course as well as for granting recognition for M.Ed. course. This may be done by a consolidated order so that confusion, which took place in the impugned orders may not occur again;
(ii) The recognition for the B.Ed course will continue till the fresh order is passed by the WRC and will be subject to it.