Shri Meharishi Dadhich Sanskrit Teacher Training College vs State of Rajasthan

This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 2-6-

2016 issued by the Commissioner, College Education, Government

of Rajasthan (hereinafter `the Government'') and seeking a direction

to the Government to issue a no objection certificate (NOC) to the

petitioner college for running the M.Ed. (Siksha Acharya) course for

the academic session 2017-18.

The relevant facts of the case, briefly stated are that the Shri

Meharishi Dadhich Siksha Samiti (hereinafter `the Samiti'') running

the Shri Meharishi Dadhich Sanskrit Teacher Training College,

Keshavpura, Kota (hereinafter `the College'') moved an online

application to the Regional Director, North Regional Committee,

National Council for Teacher Education (hereinafter `the Council'')

within the notified last date of 30-6-2015 along with the requisite

fee for the petitioner College''s recognition for a M.Ed. Course (Siksha

Acharya) in the academic session 2016-17. The petitioner college

was also issued a conditional no objection certificate (NOC) from the

Jagadguru Ramanandacharya Rajasthan Sanskrit University

(hereinafter `the University'') vide letter dated 9-2-2016 stating that

following the Council''s recognition in the event of a NOC from the

State Government it would grant affiliation, no doubt on its

requirements being complied with. Pursuant to the application for

recognition being complete with the University''s NOC, the Council

inspected the college of the petitioner Samiti under Section 14/15 of

the NCTE Act, 1993 (hereinafter `the Act of 1993) and NCTE

Regulations, 2014 (hereinafter `the Regulations of 2014''). Thereafter

the Council vide letter dated 1-3-2016 sought the comments of the

Principal Secretary, Higher Education Government of Rajasthan in

respect of the application for recognition of the M.Ed. Course (Siksha

Acharya). No adverse comment was received. The council then in its

252nd meeting held between 19-4-2016 and 2-5-2016 considered

the case of the petitioner college for recognition of its M.Ed. Course

(Siksha Acharya) for the academic session 2016-17 and issued a

letter of intent (LOI) under regulation 7(13) with an intake capacity

of 50 students, subject to certain compliances. Recognition under

Regulation 7(16) of the Regulations of 2014 followed on 2-5-2016.

The petitioner Society then made a representation/ application to the

Principal Secretary, Higher Education, Government of Rajasthan,

Director, Higher Education and to the Vice-Chancellor of the

Sanskrit University for issuing of NOC and grant of affiliation. The

Commissioner, College Education Government of Rajasthan however

refused vide the impugned order dated 2-6-2016 to issue the

requisite NOC to the petitioner college for its M.Ed. Course academic

session 2016-17. Hence this petition.

Mr. R.P. Singh Senior Advocate appearing with Mr. Indresh

Sharma for the petitioner college submitted that the NRC, NCTE

having recognized the M.Ed. Course (Siksha Acharya) of the

petitioner college and the University having earlier issued a NOC

therefor, the refusal of NOC by the State Government is wholly

arbitrary and ultra vires the NCTE Regulations of 2014 aside of

being in the cross hair of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case

of State of Rajasthan Vs. LBS B.Ed. College [Civil Appeal

No.9193/2016, decided on 8-9-2016] wherein it has been held that

once NCTE grants recognition to a teacher training course, such

grant of recognition vis-a-vis the State Government and the

affiliating body attains supremacy. Mr. R.P. Singh submitted that

even otherwise the purported policy of the State Government inter

alia limiting grant of recognition only to composite B.Ed. cum M.Ed.

three year integrated course in pre existing teacher training colleges

is based on its ipse dixit without disclosing the requisite underlying

statistics. Neither any such details warranting opposition to the grant

of recognition were communicated to the Council in response to its

letter dated 1-3-2016 inviting comments on the petitioner college''s

application for grant of recognition for its 2 year M.Ed. Course

(Siksha Acharya) for academic session 2016-17. Mr. R.P. Singh

submitted that as the illegality of the impugned order dated 2-6-

2016 passed by the State Government has occasioned the petitioner

college loosing academic session 2016-17, it be directed to now

issue a NOC to the petitioner college''s M.Ed. Course (Siksha Acharya)

for academic session 2017-2018.

Mr. S.K. Gupta, AAG appearing for the State has emphatically

submitted that the recognition by NRC, NCTE to the petitioner

college''s two year M.Ed. Course (Siksha Acharya) is wholly ultra

vires the procedure prescribed under the Regulations of 2014. He

submitted that the Regulations of 2014, particularly 7(4) to 7(6)

mandate NRC seeking the comments/ recommendations of the State

government on each application received for grant of recognition of

a teacher training course for the reason that the input of the State

Government reflects the local conditions which may or may not be

conductive to the commencement of a teacher training course--not

the least because of the lack of capacity of the State to absorb trained

teachers in gainful employment--both in state run and private run

teacher training colleges. The importance of the State''s input is

reflected from Regulations 7(5) and 7(6) which mandate two

reminders of 45 days and 30 days respectively before deeming that

State has no objection to grant of the recognition to the teacher

training course in issue. Mr. S.K. Gupta submitted that in the instant

case vide letters dated 21-12-2015 and 12-3-2016 both addressed

to the Chairman NCTE at New Delhi it was communicated that the

State had taken a policy decision not to permit standalone M.Ed.

Courses in the academic session 2016-17. Yet the State''s

communication and its policy formulation was overlooked in breach

of Regulations 7(5) and 7(6) of the Regulations of 2014. neither of

the two reminders warranted under the Regulations were sent. The

policy of the State duly communicated was not even adverted to and

considered by the Council before grant of recognition to the

College''s M.Ed. Course. Hence the State Government is not obliged to

issue a NOC no matter that the NCTE has illegally granted

recognition to the petitioner college. Mr. S.K. Gupta submitted that

the very recognition to the petitioner college for its M.Ed. Course

(Siksha Acharya) for academic session 2016-17 being ultra vires the

Regulations of 2014, the judgment of the Apex Court in the LBS B.Ed

college (supra) does not attract. The fact situation in the LBS B.Ed.

College (supra) and the observations of the Apex Court therein

cannot be applied in the present case. Mr. S.K. Gupta submitted that

in any event the State Government''s policy in its letters dated 21-12-

2015 and 12-3-2016 is not under challenge before this court and

has to be reckoned for while deciding the petition. In the

circumstances, Mr. S.K. Gupta submitted that the impugned order

dated 2-6-2016 reflective of the State Policy in respect of grant of

recognition to standalone M.Ed. College cannot be faulted with or set

aside. Mr. S.K. Gupta further submitted that even otherwise the

petitioner college has no affiliation dependent as it was in terms of

the Sanskrit University''s NOC in the first instance, on the State

Government having no objection to the commencement of the

course.

Mr. Gaurav Sharma, appearing for the respondent University

has submitted that counselling for admission in M.Ed. Course

(Siksha Acharya) for the academic session 2016-17 was completed

in June, 2016 and the academic session started by August, 2016. The

prayer of the petitioner college cannot now be granted by sheer

eflux of time. He further submitted that the University had informed

the petitioner college that affiliation of its M.Ed. Course (Siksha

Acharya) would be subject to its obtaining NOC from the State

Government. In absence of the NOC from the State Government, the

affiliation cannot be granted by the respondent University. The

conditional offer of affiliation granted by the University to the

petitioner college was in the circumstances cancelled vide letter

dated 26-5-2016, and the Council so informed. Mr. Gaurav Sharma

submitted that the Sanskrit University created by the State is bound

by its policy formulations.

Mr. Rajkumar Suthar, appearing for the Council submitted

that the petitioner college''s application moved online on 30-6-2015

for recognition of M.Ed. Course (Siksha Acharya) for the academic

session 2016-17 was duly processed in accordance with Regulations

of 2014. In accordance with 7.4 of the Regulations of 2014 a

communication was sent to the State Government for its

recommendation/ commence qua the petitioner college''s application.

No comments were received in opposition. The case of the petitioner

college for its M.Ed. Course (Siksha Acharya) was then considered by

the Council in its 252nd meeting held between 19-4-2016 and 2-5-

2016 and after due process recognition for the 2 year M.Ed. Course

(Siksha Acharya) 2016-17 was issued on 2-5-2016. He submitted

that in terms of LBS B.Ed. College (supra) decided by the Apex Court

the said recognition holds supremacy vis-a-vis the affiliating body

and the State Government. And it therefore be so held also by this

court, submitted Mr. Rajkumar Suthar.

Heard. Considered.

LBS B.Ed college (supra) was a case decided holding that

where recognition and affiliation had been granted by the NCTE to a

teacher training institute under the NCTE Act, 1993 and Regulations

framed thereunder, the State Government cannot obstruct the

commencement of such course. The said judgment however left

open the State Government''s refusal where the recognition was

vitiated by illegality. In this context it has to be first seen whether the

petitioner college aside of recognition from the Council has

affiliation from the affiliating body--the University in this case. The

answer from the facts on record is no. The University had no doubt

issued a NOC at the time the petitioner college applied for

recognition of its M.Ed. Course by the Council under the Regulations

of 2014. But the NOC was conditional stating that the affiliation

would follow a NOC for the purpose by the State. The University''s

NOC dated 9-2-2016 is not under challenge. The condition holds.

The State has admittedly not issued a NOC for reason of its policy

under letters dated 21-12-2015 and 12-3-2016 also addressed to

the Chairman, NCTE New Delhi, whereunder a decision was taken

by an exclusion, not to grant standalone M.Ed. Course permission in

academic session 2016-17, but permission inter alia only to 3 year

B.Ed. M.Ed. Teacher training courses. This has not been denied by the

NRC/NCTE. The said policy is not under challenge. It therefore binds.

Besides the recognition granted by the Council appears to ultra vires

Regulation 7(5) and 7(6) of the Regulations of 2014. This because

subsequent to NRC seeking the State Government''s comments on the

petitioner College''s application under letter dated 1-3-2016, the two

requisite statutory reminders were admittedly not sent. It is not so

even the NRC''s case. Deemed no objection of the State Government

could not resultantly be presumed as it wrongly was. The two letters

dated 21-12-2015 and 12-3-2016 reflecting the State

Government''s policy of non grant of permission for recognition to

M.Ed. Course were evidently overlooked by the Council when NRC

recognised the petitioner College''s 2 year M.Ed. Course for academic

session 2016-17. The grant of recognition to the petitioner College''s

2 year M.Ed. Course for 2016-17 was thus vitiated by fraud on the

statute--as the Regulations of 2014 indeed are, and also legally

unsustainable for non application of mind by the NRC overlooking

communication of policy of the State Government under its letters

dated 21-12-2015 and 12-3-2016.

I find no force in Mr. R.P.Singh''s contention that the policy in

the State Government''s letters dated 21-12-2015 and 12-3-2016 is

of no avail and no material relevant to the obligation of the State

Government under Regulation 7(5) of the Regulations of 2014 i.e. to

give reasons with statistics to justify opposition to grant of

recognition of a teacher training course by the Council is reflected

therein. Such an argument ought to have emanated from the

Advocate of the Council. It has not. Besides, it is the State''s case that

sheer numbers of M.Ed. in the State of Rajasthan and their

unemployment in substantial measures was a cause for the State

Government''s policy not to permit running of 2 year standalone

M.Ed. Courses in Rajasthan. It has also been stated by Mr. S.K. Gupta,

AAG that not a single NOC for a 2 year M.Ed. Course was issued by

the State Government for academic session 2016-17 or has even

been thereafter.

The upshot of the above discussion is that the petition is

without force and deserving of dismissal. So dismissed.