AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This petition is directed against the order of respondent nos. 1 & 2, by which the respondents have declined recognition to the petitioner/institution to start D.EI.Ed. course in the township of Vidisha. The aforesaid permission has been declined only on the ground that the State Government had not granted permission to the petitioner to start the course. The respondent nos. 1 & 2 have filed a decision of Rajya Shiksha Kendra Annexure R-1, by which the aforesaid case was not considered only on the ground that no application for grant of recognition adjoining to Rajbhogi Shahar was to be considered and Vidisha, which is adjoining to Bhopal has not been considered solely on the aforesaid ground.
The State Government has filed return in the case, in which following plea has been taken in para 2:-
Answering respondent most respectfully submit that he has no concern with the case. The Higher Education Department has no say in the matter. The petitioner who relied the order passed in Writ Petition No. 9988/2012 in which also the respondent department is not a party, therefore, this Hon''ble Court may kindly direct to the petitioner to delete his department from the array of respondent.
The State Government has not justified its decision for non-consideration of the application merely on the ground that it was adjoining to Rajbhogi Shahar. Until and unless there is some justification for non consideration of the application on such ground, the action of respondent no. 4 cannot be sustained. The respondent no. 4 has not filed any explanation in this regard and respondent nos. 1 & 2 have declined recognition merely on the basis of Annexure R-1, which is totally a non-speaking order.
A Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 9988/2012 Captain Ramesh Chandra Nema Shiksha Prachar, Prasar Evam Samaj Kalyan Samiti Vs. National Council for Teacher Education & others has considered the similar issue and after considering the same has passed an order dated 17.7.2012, which reads thus:-
17.7.2012
Shri Sidharth Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri K.K. Singh, learned counsel along with Shri Amit Mishra, for the respondents 1 and 2.
Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, learned Government Advocate for the respondents 3 and 4.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties the matter is heard finally.
The petitioner society runs an institution in which education in various teaching training courses like B.Ed., D.Ed. and other such courses are being imparted since 2005. The petitioner society submitted an application for grant of recognition for running Diploma in Elementary Education course on 14.9.2011. After processing the application preferred by the petitioner, by communication dated 24.12.2011 certain deficiencies were pointed out to it. The petitioner submitted detailed reply on 16.2.2012 in which inter alia it was pointed out that the petitioner has complied with the deficiencies. However, by order dated 4.6.2012, the application preferred by the petitioner for grant of recognition/approval for running the course of Diploma in Elementary Education was rejected by the NCTE on the ground that the Rajya Shiksha Kendra and School Education Department have recommended not to grant recognition for running Diploma in Elementary Education course. In the aforesaid factual background the petitioner inter alia has challenged the validity of Regulation 7(2), (3) and (4) of the NCTE (Recognition, Norms and Standard) Regulations, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as ''the 2009 Regulations'') as well as the order dated 4.6.2012 and the order dated 27.1.2012 passed by the Rajya Shiksha Kendra.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Regulations 7(3) and 7(4) of the 2009 Regulations are extremely vague and open ended and are repugnant to the provision of Section 14(3)(a) of the NCTE Act, 1993. It was further submitted that the application submitted by the petitioner was rejected by the NCTE in a mechanical manner in the light of recommendation made by the State Government which was made without conducting any kind of prior field exercise. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the order has been passed by the NCTE by taking into account the recommendation made by the State Government which does not call for any interference.
We have considered the respective submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. Regulation 7(3) inter alia provides that if the State Government or Union Territory Administration is not in favour of granting recognition to a particular course, it shall provide detailed reasons or grounds thereof with necessary statistics, which shall be taken into consideration by the Regional Committee while disposing of the application. The expression "necessary statistics" used in the aforesaid provision means the statistics on the basis of which the State Government has come to the conclusion that it is not in favour of granting recognition to start a particular course. Therefore, regulation 7(3) in our considered opinion neither suffers from any vagueness nor is in violation of Section 14(3)(a) of the NCTE Act which deals with action to be taken by the Regional Committee on receipt of the application from the institution with regard to grant recognition to run courses. The Regional Committee is only required to take into consideration the recommendation made by the State Government. Besides that the Supreme Court in Adarsh Shiksha Mahavidyalaya and Others Vs. Subhash Rahangdale and Others, has held that under Regulations 7(2) and (3) the State Government is entitled to make recommendation on the application made for grant of recognition and the same are required to be considered by the concerned Regional Committee before taking final decision on the application. It is well settled in law that once the validity of a statutory provision is upheld by the Court, all grounds must be presumed to have been considered by the Court and a fresh litigation challenging the validity of the same provision on some additional grounds would be barred by principle of res judicata. [See: Kesho Ram and Co. and Others etc. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, ]
For the aforementioned reasons, the challenge to the validity of the provisions of Regulations 7(2) and (3) of the 2009 Regulations is hereby repelled. However, under Regulation 7(3) the Regional Committee is required to take into consideration the recommendation made by the State Government or the Union Territory administration while disposing of the application for grant of recognition. In the instant case, from perusal of the order dated 4.6.2012 passed by the NCTE we find that the application submitted by the petitioner for grant of recognition to run the Diploma in Elementary Education course is rejected merely on the ground that there is negative recommendation for opening new course of Diploma in elementary education. Under the NCTE Act and the Regulations framed therein, the Regional Committee is the competent authority to decide the application. The committee is required to take into consideration the recommendation of the State Government but the same cannot be the sole ground for rejection of the application by the committee. The Committee is required to apply its mind and to decide the question with regard to grant of approval to run a course by taking into account the recommendation made by the State Government.
In view of the preceding analysis, the order dated 4.6.2012 passed by the Western Regional Committee of the NCTE is hereby quashed. The committee is directed to send for comments of the State Government as well as Rajya Shiksha Kendra and to decide the application submitted by the petitioner to run the Diploma in Elementary Education course afresh by taking into account the recommendation sent by the State Government and Rajya Shiksha Kendra. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of one month from today. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
With the aforesaid directions the writ petition is disposed of.
C.C. as per rules.
As the controversy involved in this case is identical to W.P. No. 9988/2012, we find it appropriate to quash the order of respondent nos. 1 & 2 Annexure P-8 and also appellate order Annexure P-10, and remand the matter to respondent no. 1 & 2 to comply with the directions issued in Captain Ramesh Chandra Nema Shiksha Prachar, Prasar Evam Samaj Kalyan Samiti (supra). The aforesaid exercise be completed by the respondents within a period of two months from today.
At this stage, Shri K.K. Singh, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 & 2 submitted that as the case of petitioner was not considered on merits, so the entire application with documents along with requisite fees was returned to the petitioner.
On raising such contention Shri Anubhav Jain, learned counsel for petitioner submits that all the documents alongwith requisite fees, if had returned back, shall be deposited with respondent no. 2, within a period of one week from today.
On this, Shri K.K. Singh learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 & 2 submits that there is no provision for reconsideration of the matter by NCTE, but in the matter we find that the respondent no. 2 had rejected the application of petitioner merely on the ground of non recommending the matter by respondent no. 4, which action we find unjustified and accordingly has quashed the order Annexure P-8 and consequently the order passed by respondent no. 2 Annexure P-10 has also been quashed. In the circumstances, the matter is remanded back to respondent no. 2 to reconsider the matter, as directed in Captain Ramesh Chandra Nema Shiksha Prachar, Prasar Evam Samaj Kalyan Samiti (Supra). In view of aforesaid, this petition stands allowed, with no order as to costs.
C.C., as per rules.