DEVENDRA PATHAK SARVODAYA COLLEGE OF EDUCATION versus NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION AND ORS. on 11 August 2021

1. The facts in all these bunch of petitions are almost similar andas such, are decided by this common judgment.

B2. We will refer to the facts in the lead matter i.e. Writ Petition(Civil) No.518 of 2021 in some detail and would refer to the barenecessary facts in all other matters.

Writ Petition (Civil) No.518 of 2021

3. The petitioner college was established as unaided training collegeCto impart Bachelor in Teacher Education (B.Ed.) and Diploma inElementary Education (D.El.Ed.) courses in the year 2011.

4. The petitioner college submitted an application to respondentNo.1 – National Council for Teacher Education (hereinafter referred toas ‘NCTE’) for grant of recognition under Section 14(1) of the NationalDCouncil for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as‘the said Act’) for conducting B.Ed. course with an annual intake of 100students.

5. Vide order dated 25.2.2014, NCTE granted recognition forB.Ed. course under one year programme for Academic Year 2014-2015Ewith an annual intake of 100 students.

6. Respondent No. 2 – Magadh University, Bodh Gaya, Bihar,vide letter dated 2.8.2014 granted affiliation to the petitioner college toconduct admission with 100 seats of one year B.Ed. course fromAcademic Year 2014-2015 till continuation of accreditation of NCTE.

F

7. By the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition,Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as‘2014 Regulations’), notified on 28.11.2014, a two-year B.Ed. coursewas introduced instead of one-year B.Ed. course from Academic Session2015-2016 onwards.

G

8. Petitioner-college by an affidavit agreed to come under 2014Regulations and sought for two basic units (100 seats) in B.Ed. course,which requires additional facilities. Vide order dated 23.5.2015, petitioner-college was granted recognition for two-year B.Ed. course for AcademicSession 2015-2016 with an annual intake capacity of 100 seats.HPetitioner-college was also granted recognition for D.El.Ed. course vide order dated 2.5.2016 with an annual intake of 50 seats for two yearsduration from Academic Session 2016-2017 to 2017-2018.

9. On 3.6.2016, after receiving NOC, the petitioner-collegesubmitted its online application to NCTE seeking recognition for additionaltwo units (100 seats) for D.El.Ed. and B.Ed. courses along with relevantdocuments.

10. Vide order dated 26.9.2017, respondent No.3 – Bihar SchoolExamination Board granted affiliation to the petitioner-college forconducting D.El.Ed. course with one unit (50 seats) from AcademicSession 2017-2019.

11. In the 280[th] meeting of NCTE, held on 29.2.2020 and 1.3.2020,a visiting team was constituted under the provisions of Section 15 of thesaid Act so as to inspect the infrastructure and instructional facilities foradditional intake in B.Ed. and D.El.Ed. courses. However, on accountof Covid-19 pandemic, inspection could not take place as scheduled.Subsequently, inspection in the petitioner-college came to be conductedon 8.3.2021 and a letter of intent was issued in favour of the petitioner-college by NCTE for additional intake in B.Ed. and D.El.Ed. courses asto the proposal submitted by the petitioner-college on 10.6.20216. In the290[th] meeting held on 3.3.2021, NCTE found that the petitioner-collegehas adequate facility required for conducting teachers’ courses.Petitioner-college was therefore asked to intimate its willingness on anaffidavit about the number of units sought for the purpose of granting ofthe formal recognition. Petitioner-college replied thereto stating that thepetitioner-college has the necessary infrastructure for additional intakeof two units for B.Ed. course and two units for D.El.Ed. course.Recognition was granted to the petitioner-college for additional intake oftwo units in B.Ed. course and two units in D.El.Ed. course in the 291[st]meeting of NCTE, held on 12.4.2021. However, by the said resolution,the recognition has been granted for Academic Year 2022-2023 and notfor Academic Year 2021-2022.

12. In this background, the petitioner-college has approached thisCourt seeking a direction to the respondents to grant recognition forAcademic Year 2021-2022.

13. In the present case, the petitioner-college had applied inpursuance to the public notice issued by NCTE in the year 2015 thereby A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

Ainviting applications for running D.El.Ed. course from Academic Session2016-2017. Though the petitioner’s application was pending since 2015,the Eastern Regional Committee of NCTE (hereinafter referred to as‘ERC’) in its 292[nd] meeting, held on 20.4.2021, decided to grantrecognition to the petitioner-college from Academic Session 2022-2023.The petitioner has, therefore, approached this Court seeking similar reliefBfor a direction to grant recognition from the Academic Year 2021-2022.

14. In the present case also, the petitioner, in pursuance to thepublic notice issued by the NCTE in the year 2015, made an applicationCfor running B.Ed. and D.El.Ed. courses. The Department of SchoolEducation and Literacy Department (Primary Education Secretariat),State of Jharkhand has also granted ‘No Objection Certificate’ (NOC)for running D.El.Ed. course on 26.2.2016. The application of the petitionerwas rejected by ERC vide order dated 14.4.2016 insofar as D.El.Ed.course is concerned. The reason given was that the NOC had not beenDreceived from the Directorate of Primary Education, Government ofJharkhand. ERC also rejected the application of the petitioner for B.Ed.vide order dated 14.4.2016 on the ground that the institution has notsubmitted the NOC for the D.El.Ed. programme and as such, recognitionfor B.Ed. course cannot be granted.

E

15. There was a series of litigation between the petitioner and theNCTE. The Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court vide orderdated 2.4.2019 allowed LPA no.148 of 2018 and directed ERC and NCTEto revive the application of the petitioner and to process the same forAcademic Session 2020-2022.

F

16. Thereafter, there were certain correspondences between ERCof NCTE and the petitioner with regard to certain compliances. Finally,ERC in its 293[rd] meeting, held on 9.6.2021, decided to grant recognitionto the petitioner for conducting D.El.Ed. and B.Ed. courses fromAcademic Session 2022-2023 with an annual intake of 100 seats (twoGunits) in each course.

17. In this background, the petitioner has approached this Courtseeking a similar relief.

18. The petitioner applied for grant of permission/recognition torun D.El.Ed. course on 5.7.2016 for two units of 50 students each. NCTEgranted permission to the petitioner on 14.2.2018 to run one unit i.e. 50students in respect of D.El.Ed. course. There were certain litigationswith regard to non-grant of second unit to the petitioner. Finally, in its291[st] meeting, held on 12.4.2021, ERC decided to issue one additionalunit of intake to the petitioner for running D.El.Ed. course from AcademicSession 2022-2023. Petitioner also seeks similar relief as sought by theother petitioners.

19. The petitioner had applied on 20.10.2008 for conducting B.Ed.course with intake of 100 students (two units). There were series oflitigations between the petitioner and the North Regional Committee ofthe NCTE (hereinafter referred to as ‘NRC’). On 13.1.2021, the WesternRegional Committee of the NCTE (hereinafter referred to as ‘WRC’),which now has the jurisdiction to process the applications pertaining toinstitutions in Rajasthan, issued letter of intent after finding no deficiencyin the petitioner-institution. WRC in its 337[th] meeting (virtual) held on7[th]-9[th] July, 2021, decided to grant recognition to the petitioner-institutionfor conducting B.Ed. with intake of two units (100 seats) from theAcademic Session 2022-2023. In this background, the petitionersapproached this Court seeking similar relief.

20. In the present case also, the petitioner-college in response tothe public notice issued in the year 2015 by the NCTE applied on 30.6.2015for grant of recognition for B.Ed. course from Academic Session 2016-2017. Vide order dated 10.11.2016, the application of the petitioner-collegecame to be rejected by the WRC in its 262[nd] meeting. The petitionerpreferred statutory appeal, which was allowed and WRC was directedto reconsider the issue. After series of correspondences and somelitigation, WRC in its 337[th] meeting decided to grant recognition to thepetitioner for conducting B.Ed. course from the Academic Session 2022-2023. The petitioner has therefore approached this Court seeking similarrelief.

21. The petitioner in pursuance to the public notice issued by NCTEin the year 2015 applied for grant of recognition for conducting B.Ed.

AB

CDE

F

G

H

Acourse from the Academic Session 2016-2017 with an annual intake of100 students. The said application was made on 2.6.2015. After a longperiod of six years, ERC in its 292[nd] meeting, held on 20.4.2021, decidedto grant recognition to the petitioner-institution for conducting B.Ed. courseof two years duration with an annual intake of 100 students (two basicunits) from the Academic Session 2022-2023. As such, petitioner hasBapproached this Court seeking similar relief.

22. In the present case also, the petitioner, in response to thepublic notice issued by the NCTE, submitted its application in the yearC2016 for grant of recognition for conducting B.Ed. and D.El.Ed. courses.The application of the petitioner-college came to be rejected in the year2018. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner had approached the DelhiHigh Court by filing Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5888 of 2018. The DelhiHigh Court by order dated 28.5.2018 directed ERC to consider theapplication of the petitioner de hors the requirement of NOC.DAccordingly, ERC in its 291[st] meeting, held on 12.4.2021, grantedrecognition to the petitioner for conducting B.Ed. and D.El.Ed. coursesfor two units (100 students) from the Academic Session 2022-2023.The petitioner therefore approached this Court seeking similar relief.

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 601 OF 2021E

23. In the present case also, the petitioner, in response to thepublic notice issued in the year 2015 by the NCTE, sought recognitionfor conducting B.Ed. course from the Academic Session 2016-2017 withan annual intake of 100 students vide application dated 15.6.2015. Thesaid application was pending for a period of six years and finally ERC inFits 292[nd] meeting held on 20.4.2021 granted recognition to the petitionerfor conducting B.Ed. course of two-year duration with an annual intakeof 100 students (two basic units) from Academic Session 2022-2023.The petitioner thus approached this Court seeking similar relief.

G

24. In the present case also, the petitioner, in response to thepublic notice issued in the year 2015 by the NCTE, sought recognitionfor conducting D.El.Ed. course from the Academic Session 2016-2017with an annual intake of 100 students vide application dated 15.6.2015.The said application was pending for a period of six years and finallyHERC in its 292[nd] meeting held on 20.4.2021 granted recognition to the DEVENDRA PATHAK SARVODAYA COLLEGE OF EDUCATION v.NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION [B. R. GAVAI, J.]

petitioner for conducting D.El.Ed. course of two-year duration with anannual intake of 100 students (two basic units) from Academic Session2022-2023. The petitioner thus approached this Court seeking similarrelief.

25. In the present case, the petitioner had applied for grant ofrecognition for conducting B.Ed. course with intake of 100 students (twounits) on 24.12.2012. The said application was returned on ban imposedby the Government of Haryana. The petitioner therefore approachedthe Delhi High Court by filing Writ Petition (Civil) No.2383 of 2018.The said petition was allowed on 14.3.2018 thereby directing therespondents to reconsider the petitioner’s application. NRC in its 295[th]meeting issued show cause notice to the petitioner to which reply wassubmitted by the petitioner on 29.3.2019. The petitioner again approachedthe Delhi High Court by way of filing Writ Petition (Civil) No.2835 of2019 and the Delhi High Court remanded the matter to NRC forreconsideration by order dated 6.11.2019. NRC, in its 335[th] (virtual)meeting, decided to grant recognition to the petitioner-institution forconducting B.Ed. course of two-year duration with an intake of 100seats (two basic units) from the Academic Session 2022-2023. Thus,the petitioner approached this Court seeking similar relief.

26. The petitioner had submitted its application in the year 2015for conducting B.Ed. course. A letter of intent also came to be issued tothe petitioner. There were exchange of communications between NRCand the petitioner leading to no result. As such, the petitioner filed a writpetition being Writ Petition (Civil) No.1522 of 2021 before the DelhiHigh Court. The said petition came to be disposed of by order dated5.2.2021 directing the respondents to consider the petitioner’s applicationwithin 10 weeks. In term of the decision taken by NRC in its 336[th]meeting, by order dated 28.6.2021, it granted recognition to the petitionerfor conducting B.Ed. course from the Academic Session 2022-2023 withannual intake of 50 students. Hence, the petitioner approached this Courtseeking similar relief as sought by the other petitioners.

27. We have heard Shri Amitesh Kumar, Shri Shreeyash UdayLalit and Shri Mayank Manish, learned counsel for the petitioners,Ms. Manisha T. Karia, learned counsel for NCTE, Dr. Manish Singhvi, A

BC

D

E

F

G

H

Alearned Senior Counsel appearing for the State of Rajasthan and ShriKunal Chatterji, learned counsel for West Bengal Board of PrimaryEducation.

28. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that though NCTEor its Regional Committees after having satisfied granted recognition toBthe petitioners-colleges/institutions for the Academic Year 2022-2023,for no reason, the recognition is not granted for the Academic Year2021-2022. It is submitted that the petitioners have fully complied withall the infrastructural requirements of the NCTE and there is no reasonas to why recognition should not be granted for the Academic Year2021-2022.C

29. Ms. Manisha T. Karia, learned Advocate-on-Record for theNCTE submitted that taking into consideration the time frame as isprescribed by this Court in the case of Maa Vaishno Devi MahilaMahavidyalaya v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others[1], the recognitionhas been granted only from the Academic Year 2022-2023 and not fromDthe Academic Year 2021-2022. Learned counsel for the respondent –States also submit that the petitions deserve to be dismissed.

30. As could be seen from the facts narrated herein above, proposalof the petitioners for grant of recognition for conducting either B.Ed.course or D.El.Ed. course or for both have been pending for considerableEperiods. In some cases, they have been pending as long as for a periodof six years. In some cases, there has been series of litigations.

31. However, the factor that is common in all the matters is thatNCTE or its Regional Committees, after considering all the necessaryrequirements, have granted recognition for conducting B.Ed./D.El.Ed.Fcourse for Academic Session 2022-2023.

32. It will be relevant to refer to paragraph 2 of the order dated19[th] April, 2021 passed by the NCTE in the lead matter i.e. Writ Petition(Civil) No.518 of 2021, which read thus:

“2. AND WHEREAS, on scrutiny of the application submittedGby the institution, the documents attached therewith the affidavitsubmitted and the report received from VT and videography, andthe certificates received from the affiliating body, the Committeeis satisfied that the applicant fulfils the requirements under the 1 (2013) 2 SCC 617H

provisions of NCTE Act, Rules and relevant Regulations includingthe Norms and Standards for the said teacher education programmesuch as instructional facilities, infrastructural facilities, financialresources, etc., for running the programme.”

33. Perusal of the other petitions would reveal that either identicalor similar reasons have been given while granting recognition. It couldthus be seen that recognition has been granted by NCTE or its RegionalCommittees on scrutiny of the applications submitted by the institutions,the documents attached therewith, the affidavits submitted and the reportsreceived from Visiting Teams and videography. It also mentions that theCommittee was satisfied that the applicant(s) fulfills the requirementunder the provisions of NCTE Act, rules and relevant Regulations, afterconsidering the certificates issued from the affiliating bodies. The orderalso records its satisfaction with regard to Norms and Standards for theteacher education programme such as instructional facilities,infrastructural facilities, financial resources, etc. for running theprogramme.

34. After arriving at such a satisfaction, we are of the view thatthere can be no rational for NCTE or its Regional Committee to denythe recognition from the Academic Year 2021-2022 and insist onrecognition for Academic Session 2022-2023. It is not in dispute that thecounselling for admission is yet to commence. Insofar as the time-lineprescribed in the judgment of this Court in the case of Maa VaishnoDevi Mahila Mahavidyalaya (supra) is concerned, this Court itself incatena of orders placed on record has modified the time-line fixed therein.We find that same course needs to be followed in the present matter,particularly, when the delay is not attributable to the petitioners, but, onthe contrary to NCTE or its Regional Committees.

35. We therefore allow the petitions in the following terms:

(i) The cut-off date fixed by this Court in Maa Vaishno DeviMahila Mahavidyalaya (supra) is extended in the facts ofthese cases;

(ii) It is held and declared that the petitioners would be entitledto the recognition granted by respective orders passed byNCTE or its Regional Committees from the AcademicSession 2021-2022 instead of Academic Session 2022-2023.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A(iii)The Respondent – NCTE and its Regional Committees aredirected to issue formal orders/notifications in that regardwithin a period of three days from today.

(iv) The State and other Authorities would consider grant ofaffiliation and/or other requisite permissions within a periodBof 15 days from today;

(v) The petitioners would be entitled to admit the students forAcademic Session 2021-2022 as per the sanction grantedby NCTE for the Academic Session 2022-2023.

(vi) The name of the petitioner-colleges/institutions shall beCincluded in the counselling programme for admissions.

36. The writ petitions are allowed and disposed of in the aboveterms. Consequently, all pending applications shall stand disposed of.

DNidhi Jain

Writ petitions allowed and disposed of.

E

F

G

H