CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR v. Member Secretary

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATE: 06-07-2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDRENWrit Petition No.181 of 2009 andM.P.No.1 of 2009Shri Vinayaka Vidhyalaya Charitable Trust'sSri Vinayaka Vidhyalaya College of Education,Represented by its Correspondent,Erattaikaradu, Paruvachi Post, Bhavani Taluk,Erode District-638312... Petitioner.Versus1.Member Secretary,National Council for Teacher Education,Hans Bhawan, Wing II,1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg,New Delhi-110 002.2.National Council for Teacher Education,Rep. by the Regional Director,Southern Regional Committee,1st Floor, CSD Building,HMT Post, Jalahali, Bangalore-560 031... Respondents.Prayer: Petition filed seeking for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus,calling for the records relating to the order, dated 19.12.2008,passed by the first respondent in F.No.89-318/2008-Appeal/88739confirming the order, dated 22.9.2008 in F.SRI/NCTE/M.Ed/2007-2008/5055, on the file of the second respondent and quash the sameand consequently, direct the respondents to grant recognition to thepetitioner Institution for M.Ed., Course for the year 2008-2009. For Petitioner : Mr.Y.PrakashFor Respondents : Mr.K.Ramakrishna Reddy (R1 & R2) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E RHeard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and thelearned counsel appearing for the respondents.2. This writ petition had been filed to call for and quash therecords relating to the order of the first respondent, dated19.12.2008, confirming the order of the second respondent, dated22.9.2008, rejecting the request of the petitioner Institution forthe grant of recognition.3. It has been submitted that the petitioner Institution hasbeen granted recognition by the National Council for TeacherEducation, the second respondent herein, to offer B.Ed., course.Pursuant to the said recognition the petitioner Institution has beensuccessfully running the B.E.d, course. It has a built up space of36,268.08 Sq.Ft., which is more than the minimum requirement of16,000 Sq.Ft., prescribed by the respondents for the granting ofrecognition. While so, the petitioner Institution had applied to thesecond respondent for the grant of recognition for starting M.Ed.course for the year 2008-2009, through their application, dated22.2.2008, made under Section 14 of the National Council for TeacherEducation Act, 1993. As per the norms prescribed by the respondents asum of Rs.8 lakhs had also been deposited, on 15.7.2008. On31.7.2008, the second respondent had sent an inspection team toverify if the petitioner Institution had complied with therequirements, as prescribed by the respondents. The visiting team,after inspecting the petitioner Institution, had submitted a reportto the second respondent stating that the petitioner Institution hadsatisfied the norms prescribed by the respondents, as per law. 4. It has been further stated that the inspection report wasconsidered by the Southern Regional Committee, in its 162nd meetingheld, on the 20th and the 21st of August, 2008. Thereafter, the secondrespondent had issued a notice, dated 28.8.2008, stating that thepetitioner Institution does not fulfill certain requirements, aspointed out in the said notice. On 30.8.2008, the petitionerInstitution had submitted a written representation to the SouthernRegional Committee, along with the necessary documents, as proof ofcompliance. However, the said Committee, without considering therepresentation of the petitioner, had refused to grant recognition tothe petitioner Institution, by an order, dated 22.9.2008, underSection 14(3)(b) of the National Council for Teacher Education Act,1993, for the following reasons:"(i) The available built up space of 20,640 sq.ft asper reply is not adequate for both existing B.Ed andproposed M.Ed., course as per norms of NCTE. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (ii)The details of built up space for existing andproposed course is not available in the reply.(iii) The Management has not submitted Certificatefrom concerned affiliating University stating that there isno other coures being run in the same building.(iv) The additional education books and equipment inall labs are not adequate for both existing B.Ed. Andproposed M.Ed., course."5. It has been further submitted that the second respondent, inits notice, dated 28.8.2008, had wrongly mentioned that the built upspace available for the existing B.Ed. course was only 11,440 Sq.Ft.Even though the petitioner Institution had clarified in its reply,dated 30.8.2008, that it had a total built up area of 20,640 Sq.Ftfor the existing B.Ed. course, the second respondent had mistaken thebuilt up area of 20,640 Sq.Ft. to be the space both for the existingB.Ed. course, as well as for the proposed M.Ed. course. Accordingly,the request of the petitioner for starting the M.Ed. course had beenwrongly rejected. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitionerInstitution had preferred an appeal before the first respondent,under Section 18 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act,1993. However, the first respondent had rejected the appeal on theground that the petitioner Institution had only a built up area of20,640 Sq.Ft. which is inadequate, as per the norms prescribed by theNational Council for Teacher Education. Further, the first respondenthad erred in noting that the petitioner Institution had only a carpetarea of 9,920 Sq.Ft., contrary to the facts. 6. It has been further submitted that in spite of showing cogentdocumentary proof to support the claims of the petitionerInstitution, including the Building Completion Certificate issued bythe civic authority, the respondents had rejected the request of thepetitioner Institution for the starting of the M.Ed. course,arbitrarily, and without giving an opportunity to put forth its case.The impugned orders have been issued based on misconceived facts. Insuch circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present beforethis Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution India. 7. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner is that the impugned orders passed by the respondents arearbitrary and illegal, as they are based on misconceived facts. Therespondents had erred in coming to the conclusion that the petitionerInstitution does not have adequate built up space for starting theM.Ed. course. The impugned orders have been passed on the wrongassumption that the petitioner Institution had a built up area of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 20,640 Sq.Ft. only and therefore, it would be inadequate for theexisting B.Ed. and the proposed M.Ed. courses, as per the normsprescribed by the National Council for Teacher Education. The firstrespondent had erred in stating that the petitioner Institution had acarpet area of 9,920 Sq.Ft. only and it had failed to note that thetotal built up space was 36,268.08 Sq.Ft., which is more than therequired built up area for running the said course, as per theAppendix-V of the National Council for Teacher Education(Recognition, Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2007. Further, thevisiting team had stated in its report, written after its inspection,on 31.7.2008, that it was satisfied with the infrastructural andinstructional facilities provided for conducting the proposed M.Ed.program. Thus, it is clear that the impugned orders have been issued,without application of mind and the said orders are not in accordancewith Section 14(3) of the National Council for Teacher Education Act,1993, and therefore, the said orders are liable to be set aside. 8. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents,the allegations and averments made by the petitioner have beendenied. Even though the petitioner Institution has claimed that ithas built up space of 36,268 Sq.Ft for the B.Ed. and M.Ed. courses,in its reply to the notice, dated 30.8.2008, it has been stated thatonly an area of 20,640 Sq.Ft were available. It has been furtherstated that after verification of the documents, as per theregulations, an inspection team had been deputed to the petitioner'sinstitution, on 31.7.2008, to verify the infrastructural andinstructional facilities, created by the petitioner Institution forconducting the M.Ed. course. The second respondent, in its meetingheld on the 20th and the 21st of August 2008, had also considered theinspection report and the video recording made during the inspection.The committee had observed that the built up area for the B.Ed.course was 11,440 Sq.Ft, and the laboratories and the library wasalso shared with the M.Ed. course. The M.Ed. block has a total areaof 9,724 Sq.Ft only. Thus, the total area available for both theB.Ed. as well as the M.Ed. Courses, was 21,074 Sq.Ft., out of which4,140 Sq.Ft was the common area. Accordingly, the actual total builtup area was 16,934 Sq.Ft only. Whereas the visiting team had wronglymentioned the total built up area for the additional course to be22,600 Sq.Ft. Therefore, a notice had been issued to the petitionerInstitution asking for further details of the built up space for theexisting B.Ed. course, as well as for the proposed M.Ed. course. Thepetitioner Institution had submitted a representation, dated30.8.2008, which was considered in the 163rd meeting held on the 29thand the 30th of August 2008. On considering the writtenrepresentation, it was found that the petitioner Institution ishaving a total built up area of 20,640 Sq.Ft. only, including theclass rooms, multi purpose hall, the laboratories and the library.The said report does not provide sufficient information about theexclusive built up area for the existing B.Ed. course and for the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ proposed M.Ed. course. Further, the letter required from theconcerned affiliating University has not been submitted, along withthe representation. The norms and standards prescribed by theNational Council for Teacher Education had not been complied with bythe petitioner institution, with regard to the establishment of itslibrary. The number of books and the titles necessary was not madeavailable. In such circumstances, the respondents had rightlyrejected the request of the petitioner for the approval of theproposed M.Ed. course. 9. In view of the averments and the submissions made on behalfof the petitioner, as well as the respondents, it is clear that thepetitioner Institution has not shown sufficient cause or reason forthis Court to grant the reliefs, as prayed for in the present writpetition. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitionerinstitution has not been in a position to substantiate the claimsmade on behalf of the petitioner institution, with regard to theinfrastructural and instructional facilities made available forconducting the M.Ed. programme. The Southern Regional Committee ofthe National Council for Teacher Education had found seriousdiscrepancies in the facilities provided by the petitionerInstitution for running the M.Ed. course. In such circumstances, theimpugned orders have been passed by the respondents rejecting therequest of the petitioner institution for granting of approval forconducting the M.Ed. course. As such, it is clear that thecontentions raised on behalf of the petitioner Institution cannot becountenanced. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.Hence, it is dismissed. However, it is open to the petitionerInstitution to submit a fresh application to the respondentsrequesting the respondents to grant the necessary approval forconducting M.Ed. Course, for the forthcoming academic year, inaccordance with the regulations, norms and standards of the NationalCouncil for Teacher Education and the relevant provisions of lawapplicable to the case. Accordingly, the writ petition standsdismissed with the above observations. No costs. Consequently,connected M.P is closed. Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrarcsh https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1.The Member Secretary,National Council for Teacher Education,Hans Bhawan, Wing II,1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg,New Delhi-110 002.2.The Regional Director,National Council for Teacher Education,Southern Regional Committee,1st Floor, CSD Building,HMT Post, Jalahali, Bangalore-560 031.1 cc To Mr.Y.Prakash, Advocate, SR.29346/091 cc To Mr.K.Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate, SR.28603/09Writ Petition No.181 of 2009KGK(CO)PMK.5.8.2009