HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR Writ Petition No :
10551. OF 201.The Director, Maharishi Centre for Educational Excellence - V/s - The National Council for Teacher Education Present : Hon’ble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon. Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Vimla Jain ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Vishal Bhatnagar, Shri Yogesh Bhatnagar and Shri Vivek Badariya, learned advocates for the petitioner/ institute. Shri K.C.Ghildiyal with Shri K.K.Singh, learned advocates for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2. Shri K.S.Wadhwa, learned Additional Advocate General for Respondent No.4. ORDER
(11/09/2013) As per Rajendra Menon, J :- Challenging the orders passed by the competent authority and the appellate authority exercising powers under the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993, whereby the recognition to the institute in question is cancelled, this writ petition is filed. The orders impugned are Annexure-P1 dated 20th of March, 2012 passed by the appellate authority and Annexure-P5 dated 13/22/1/2010 passed by the competent authority withdrawing the recognition”
2. The facts in brief goes to show that M/s Maharishi Shiksha Samiti is a society registered under the appropriate Society Registration Act having it's registered office at E5, Hansalaya Building, 15, Barakhamba Road, Cannaught Place, New Delhi. The Maharishi Centre for Educational Excellence Lambakheda, Berasia Road, Bhopal is one of the institutes managed by the said society and the institute in question is imparting education in various courses including B.Ed. Course. For the purpose of conducting B.Ed Course recognition, the institute was granted recognition by the Western Regional Office of the National Council for Teachers Education for the academic Session 2005-06 vide Annexure-P2 on 9.8.2005. The institute was granted the recognition for one academic session on an annual intake of 100 students. Subsequently, it seems that when the question of extending the recognition came up for consideration, a show cause notice under Section 17 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1993) was issued and the institute was directed to show cause as to why the recognition earlier granted be not withdrawn and the reason for withdrawal of the recognition in the show cause notice was indicated as under : “Building does not exist on the land for which the documents were submitted by the institution with the application.”
3. Petitioner submitted their explanation to the show cause notice vide Annexure-P4 on 27th of September, 2010 and vide order 3 Annexure-P5, the recognition was withdrawn and the reasons given was that the institute does not have adequate infrastructural facility, infact the reason given for withdrawal of the recognition in the impugned order reads as under : “. Building does not exist on the land for which the documents were submitted by the institutution with the application. (i) The institution has not been able to produce any documents as an evidence for the existence of infrastructure. The institution contravened the clause 7 (d) of appendix 7 of NCTE Regulation 2002.”
4. A appeal was filed by the petitioner/institute before the competent appellate authority and the same has also been dismissed by the order Annexure-P1 dated 20.3.2012 and, therefore, this writ petition.
5. Shri Vishal Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the petitioner/institute took us through the recognition originally granted to the petitioner/institute vide Annexure-P2 on 9th of August, 2005, read out the first para of this letter and submitted that after being satisfied with the existence of appropriate infrastructural facility and all other requirements as is contemplated in the Act of 1993, the recognition was granted to the institute in question. It was emphasized by him that particularly with reference to the infrastructural facility that in this order granting recognition for the year 2005, the only condition that was stipulated was to the effect that the college will submit a list of staff/ faculty duly approved by the registrar of the 4 affiliating body or the competent authority before commencement of the academic session. It was submitted by him that in this order of recognition, there was no stipulation or indication to show that any further requirement of infrastructural facility is to be fulfilled. Referring to Section 14(1) of the Act of 1993 and particularly sub- section (a) thereof, it was emphasized by him that before according the recognition in the year 2005, the council was satisfied that the institute had adequate financial resources, accommodation, library, staff etc. and as the recognition was granted after being satisfied with the existence of all the requirements contemplated in sub-section, which included the infrastructural facility, it was argued by him that not after a period of five years on the ground that infrastructural facility is not adequate, recognition could not be withdrawn.
6. It was emphasized by him that when the recognition was granted in the year 2005, all the statutory requirements as was contemplated under Section 14 was verified and on being satisfied about their existence, when recognition was granted, there is no question of withdrawing the recognition now. It was argued by him that all the documents necessary for claiming recognition was produced by the institute in the year 2005. These documents were verified. They included the documents with regard to title, ownership etc. of the land, existence of building and other infrastructural facility inspite thereof, it is said that on the ground of non-availability of the infrastructural facility, the impugned action is taken. He invited our 5 attention to the inspection report available on record i.e. the report dated 11.7.2005 filed by the respondents along with I.A.No.8799/2013 and tried to demonstrate that when the inspection was done before granting recognition in the year 2005, all the requirements with regard to the land, ownership of the land, infrastructural facility were verified and only after satisfaction the recognition was granted. He referred to the certificates issued by the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat with regard to the land, permission granted for construction of building and emphasized that once after being satisfied with regard to availability of the infrastructural facility and due compliance with all the statutory requirements, when recognition is granted then in an arbitrary and illegal manner, withdrawal of the recognition is not permissible. He referred to second inspection conducted on 29.7.2010, the report filed with regard to this inspection by Respondent No.2 available with I.A.No.8799/2013 and tried to demonstrate before this Court that once the requirement of infrastructural facility was found to be existing in the year 2005, a somersault to take a contrary view based on the subsequent inspection is nothing but an arbitrary and illegal decision and, therefore, he prays for interference into the matter.
7. In sum and substance, Shri Bhatnagar emphasized that once in the year 2005 after due inspection and after being satisfied that all the requirements as contemplated under Section 14 of the Act, 1993 are fulfilled, when recognition is granted then not a different view on the 6 same set of facts and circumstances cannot be taken and in support thereof, he invites our attention to the judgment rendered by the Delhi High Court in the case of Shyama Prasad Mukherji College (For Women) Vs. National Council of Teacher Education & Anr., decided on 19.7.2010 and reported in 171 (2010) Delhi Law Times 459 to canvass a contention that the action of the respondents in conducting the inspection time and again and harassing the petitioner/institute or refusal for granting recognition is nothing but an arbitrary decision, therefore, he prays for interference into the matter.
8. Shri K.C.Ghildiyal and Shri K.K.Singh, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the recognition granted to the petitioner initially vide Annexure-P2 on 9.8.2005 was only a provisional and tentative recognition for one academic session i.e. 2005-06. They referred to the said letter and pointed out that it is clearly mentioned in this letter that the recognition is for one academic session and qa formal order of recognition will be issued subsequently and in Para-2 of this order, it is clearly indicated that the institute should ad-hear to the norms prescribed by the NCTE relating to matters mentioned therein including infrastructural facility. It is argued by Shri K.C.Ghildiyal that in the year 2005, when this recognition was granted, action for inspection verification was done by the Western Regional Office of the National Council for Teacher Education. In the matter of granting recognition by this Regional Council, various complaints were received and finally a Public Interest Litigation was 7 filed before the High Court by one Subhash Rahangdale, which was registered as Writ Petition No.6146/2008. A division bench of this Court took up this public interest litigation for hearing along with various other writ petition, more than five in number, wherein the action of the statutory authorities in the matter of granting recognition for conducting B.Ed and M.Ed Courses under the Act of 1993 was challenged. Challenge was also made to the action of the respondents in the matter of withdrawal of recognition for certain institutes. Be it as it may be, all the question were considered and various directions were issued by the division bench. Some of the institutes, which were aggrieved by the directions issued in the public interest litigation, approached the Supreme Court and more than 20 Special Leave Petitions were filed before the Supreme Court in the matter of granting recognition by the Western Regional Committee. Finally, the Supreme Court dealt with the matter in the case of Adarsh Shiksha Mahavidyalaya & Ors. Vs. Subhash Rahangdale & Ors. reported in 2012 (2) SCC 42.and while dealing with the matter, Shri Ghildiyal points out that in Para-18 & 19 of the said judgment, large scale irregularity committed by the Western Regional Committee in the State of M.P. was noted and it was also found that the entire power for grant of recognition of the said committee was withdrawn and the Central Government exercising powers under Section 29(1) of the Act of 1993 took over the function of granting recognition and by reading the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard, 8 Shri Ghildiyal emphasized that as the Western Regional Committee was not discharging it's statutory functions properly between the period from 2004 to 2008, in the subsequent years, strict compliance with the requirement of the statutory provisions were insisted upon and in most of the cases, action was taken either for withdrawal or for cancellation after conducting the inspection, Shri K.C.Ghildiyal argued that in the backdrop of all these cases, the impugned action is taken.
9. It is submitted by him that the petitioner/institute has come out before this Court with a contention that once after inspection in the year 2005, recognition was granted, there is no necessity for further inspection and the inspection conducted after a period of five years is said to be doubtful and, therefore, no credence can be given to this inspection. Shri Ghildiyal submitted that it was found by the council with regard to the present institute that the institute did not have the adequate infrastructural facility, various irregularities were there in the functioning of the institute and, therefore, a show cause notice is issued. He invites our attention to the inspection conducted on 29.7.2010 and the report submitted subsequently and stated that in this report, the visiting team which conducted the inspection in accordance with the requirement of Section 14 of the Act of 1993 found various irregularities and as the action is taken based on these irregularities, no interference into the matter is called for. Shri Ghildiyal took us through Regulation 7 of the National Council for Teachers Education 9 (Regulation, Norms and Procedure) Regulation 2009, irregularities found by the inspecting team and emphasized that once the statutory provision is shown to be violated, no interference should be made by this Court. He also invited our attention to certain judgments of the Supreme Court to say that once the statutory body finds certain irregularity in the functioning of an institute, the Writ Court should be slow in interfering, particularly when no case of malafide is made out. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. Shri K.C.Ghildiyal took us through the inspection report dated 29.7.2010, the findings recorded by the appellate authority and the reasons which were considered by the appellate authority to say that a reasonable decision taken, based on due consideration and the totality of the circumstances does not call for any interference.
10. Shri Vishal Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the petitioner/ institute in reply tried to emphasize that the order passed in the Public Interest Litigation in the case of Subhash Rahangdale (Supra) and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Adarsh Shiksha Mahavidyalaya (Supra) will not apply in the facts and circumstances of the present case. He also stated that the action taken by the respondents is an arbitrary manner and he prays for interference into the matter.
11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. On consideration of the rival contentions, it is clear that the main thrust of the arguments advanced on behalf of the 10 petitioner/ institute was to the effect that once in the year 2005, an inspection was conducted on 11.7.2005 and recognition was granted vide Annexure-P2 on 9.8.2005 and when this recognition is granted after being satisfied that all the statutory requirement as per Section 14 of the Act of 1993 and the regulation framed thereunder are fulfilled, a somersault or review of the said decision is not called for. Learned counsel tried to emphasize that the findings not recorded with regard to non-availability of the infrastructural facility etc. are nothing but a perverse findings.
12. As far as recognition granted vide Annexure-P2 is concerned, it is clear that it is a recognition granted for one particular academic session i.e. for 2005-06 and even though, this recognition was granted based on the inspection report dated 11.7.2005, the fact remains that after this inspection was done and when the validity of the original recognition granted in the year 2005-06 was only for one year, nothing is brought to our notice, which prohibits the respondent/ Council from conducting a fresh inspection or prohibiting them from withdrawing the earlier recognition granted, if they find some deficiency and irregularity. On the contrary, the provisions of Section 17 of the Act itself permits withdrawal or cancellation of a recognition granted after following the process and procedure laid down thereof. That apart, in the facts of the present case, it is clear that in the year 2005-06, various irregularities in the matter of granting recognition by the Western Regional Committee, Bhopal were found. The matter No.11 only came before this Court but also to the Supreme Court and finally the Supreme Court decided the matter in the case of Adarsh Shiksha Mahavidyalaya (Supra). In the said case, learned Supreme Court took note of various aspects of the matter and if the observations made and the findings recorded by the Supreme Court in Para-18 & 19 are taken note of, it would be clear that Western Regional Committee, which was required to function under Section 14, 15 and 17 of the Act in relation to the cases of States of Gujarat, Goa, Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra, was found to be conducting it's procedure without ensuring compliance with the mandatory provision, various irregularities were committed by this committee. It was found that in the year 2007, the entire power of Western Regional Committee was taken over by the Central Government Exercising it's power under Section 29 (1) of the Act of 1993. The powers were taken over only because the Western Regional Committee was found to have granted recognition to various institutes without conducting it's procedure in accordance with law without their being existence of Infrastructural facility, staff etc. It is, therefore, clear that merely because the Western Regional Committee conducted the inspection on 11.7.2005 and granted recognition, we cannot accept the same to be the end of the matter and assume that all subsequent action is an arbitrary action or that infrastructural facility in the year 2005 was available. On the contrary, Section 17 of the Act gives power to the Council to ensure strict compliance with the provisions of the Act and to take action for 12 contravention of the provisions which includes cancellation or withdrawal of a recognition already granted.
13. That apart, it is a common ground that in the matter of B.Ed Education, conditional recognition are granted and, thereafter, the action is taken on the subsequent or subsisting academic session for various reasons which came to the notice of this Court. That being so, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are unable to accede to and accept the contention of Shri Vishal Bhatnagar that once the statutory instructions and compliance of the requirement of law has been undertaken, recognition granted in the year 2005 be restored. This contention of learned counsel cannot be accepted. Having so held, we not proceed to see whether the impugned action taken by the respondents can be termed as arbitrary, perverse, biased or illegal.
14. To consider this question, we may take note of the orders passed by the authorities particularly the appellate authority and the deficiencies that were found in the inspection conducted on 29.7.2010. Shri Vishal Bhatnagar had tried to emphasize by taking us to various documents to say that primarily, the action taken by the society is unsustainable as they were not found owner of the land so also the ground that the institute was not functioning alone in the building but was sharing the building with other institutions, Shri Bhatnagar tried to emphasize that this was not correct and even if it is correct, the same is permissible. However, if the provisions of Regulation 7 (2) & (3) are taken note of, it would be seen that the said regulation clearly 13 prohibits sharing of the building with another institutes. Order Annexure-P1 dated 20th of March, 2012 is passed after taking note of the detail submission made by the parties and after considering the affidavits and the documents on behalf of the institute submitted by Shri Vipin Singhal, Joint Director and Shri Indrajeet Dutt Senior Administrator. Various discrepancies were found by the appellate authority, which pertains to non-existence of the land in the name of the institute, furnishing false particulars with regard to the land and sharing of building with the other institutions. The finding recorded by the appellant authority as is reflected in the order Annexure-P1 goes to show that various khasra numbers were indicated by the society. It was found that the land indicated thereof measuring 0.707 acre, 1.707 acre and 2.293 acre is in the name of Maharshi Shiksha Samiti. It was found that the petitioner/ institute did not submit proper documents with regard to ownership of their land and the visiting team which conducted the inspection on 29.7.2010 has made various indication in this regard. These factors were taken note of by the appellate authority and the appeal was rejected.
15. Similarly, in the inspection report submitted by the inspecting committee which conducted it's inspection on 29.7.2010, various discrepancies have been noted. The detail inspection report consisting of more than 15 pages is available at Page-15 onwards of I.A.No.8799/2013. In the said inspection report, it is found that the institute and the classes of B.Ed are functioning in the 2nd floor of the 14 building and other floors of the building i.e. the ground floor and the first floor are used by the other institutes like the management institute etc. The inspection is conducted in the presence of the representatives of the institute and in the inspection report, various discrepancies have been pointed out. With regard to details of the class rooms and other facilities in Page-33, it is found that the Science Lab for the institute is situated in the School, which is functioning in a different floor, the Computer Lab is shared with the management institute and the Language Lab is not available. The Principal does not have a separate office, he is sitting in the Psychology Lab. It is indicated in this report that in the building, there are adequate space but no demarcation for conducting B.Ed Programme is available. Sharing of the building premises with a school and a management institute, both run by the parent society is found by the inspecting team and finally the overall assessment and report of the committee reads as under : “The inspection team may record their overall observation on the preparedness of the management with regard to availability of human resources, infrastructural facilities and instructional facilities as prescribed in the NCTE norms for the proper conduct of the teacher training programme in the space given below.(If the space is insufficient additional sheet may be attached). Specific comments on the issues raised in complaint. The visiting team reached Lambakhera Panchayat and met MR. Narain Singh Gaur, Member, Gram Panchayat (Cell No.9893477495) and went to the Site as mentioned in the land document provided by the WRC. We met the owner of the neibouring land (North Side). Mr. Jai Singh Thakur. There exists no concrete structure on the said land and land is under cultivation. We took photographs of the land along with Mr.Gaur and Mr. Thakur which are enclosed. 15 However as a massive complex was visited at a distance and we were told that the complex belonged to Maharishi Centre for Educational Excellence. So we considered going to the institute to find further details. There we were told that a Department of Education was established on the 2nd floor of one of the buildings. There we met Mr. Brijesh Sharma who introduced himself as a HOD of Education. We collected all the possible information as per the NCTE Proforma-which are inadequate. The institution lags behind in all critical areas crucial for skills development of teachers. Hence we conclude that we do not find the college prepared for conducting the B.Ed Programme at present.”
16. From the aforesaid narration of fact, it would be clear that in this case, a decision has been taken by the respondent/ council after evaluating the totality of the circumstances and the decision is based on certain inspection conducted, which goes to show that the institute is not having adequate infrastructural facility. Even though, Shri Vishal Bhatnagar during the course of hearing tried to emphasize that the infrastructural facility is available but he was unable to demonstrate before us as to what is wrong with the findings recorded by the inspection committee, which conducted it's inspection on 29.7.2010. Except for contending that once in the year 2005, the inspection was done and when at that point of time, no defect in the infrastructural facility was available, not the respondents cannot say that the infrastructural facility is not available. Nothing is brought to our notice to say that subsequent inspection done and the findings recorded by the inspecting team is not correct and as to why the same cannot be accepted. Grant of recognition to an institute for conducting 16 a B.Ed Course is based on the statutory provision namely, the Act of 1993 and the regulations framed thereunder and when the statutory authority conducts it's proceedings in accordance with law and requirement of the rules and takes a decision to grant or refuse recognition, until and unless, the decision making process is found to be vitiated or the decision itself is found to be vitiated due to breach of statutory provision or perverse facts, a Writ Court exercising limited jurisdiction in a petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution cannot sit over the decision of the statutory authority as if it is exercising further appellate jurisdiction. Once the statutory authorities are found to have conducted their procedure in accordance with the requirement of law and a reasonable finding is recorded by them, which is in accordance with the material available and when a prudent man approach is found to be undertaken in taking the decision, we see no reason to interfere into the matter.
17. It is not the case of the petitioner/ institute before us that in the inspection conducted or in the procedure followed, any breach or violation is committed or the findings recorded with regard to non- availability of infrastructural facility are the perverse findings, on the contrary they only say that once the recognition is granted and infrastructural facility assessed at that point of time is found to be sufficient, then the inspection not conducted i.e. on 29.7.2010 is unsustainable. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we cannot accept this argument. The respondents are found to be discharging 17 their statutory functions in accordance with the requirement of law and the finding recorded by the competent authority and the appellate authority to say that the facility available particularly infrastructural facility is inadequate is a reasonable finding, which is justifiable and we see no reason to interfere into the same. The appellate authority also on a detailed consideration of each and every aspect of the matter, and the material available, has taken a decision, which shows application of mind indicating the reasons for the decision taken, accordingly, we see no reason to interfere into the matter.
18. Accordingly, finding no ground to interfere into the impugned action, the petition is dismissed. ( RAJENDRA MENo.) ( MRS.VIMLA JAIN ) JUDGE JUDGE nd