1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 5342 of 2014 Binod Bihari Mahato Memorial Teachers' Training College, Sahu Bahiyar, Topchanchi, Dhanbad through its Directorcum Chairman, Mathura Prasad Mahto, son of Late Rishikesh Mahto, residing at Tata Sijua, Basti No. 6, P.O. Bhelatand, P.S. Jogta, District Dhanbad ... … Petitioner Versus 1. Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh through its Vice Chancellor, Hazaribagh, at and P.O. Hazaribagh, District Hazaribagh 2. Registrar, Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh, at and P.O. Hazaribagh, District Hazaribagh 3. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Human Resources Development Department (Higher Education), Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi 4. Director, Secondary Education, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi 5. National Council for Teacher Education through its Regional Director, 15, Neelakantha Nagar, Nayapalli, Bhubaneshwar 751012 ... … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR For the Petitioner : Mr. M.S. Anwar, Sr. Advocate Mr. Altaf Hussain, Advocate Mr. Afaque Ahmed, Advocate For the State : Mr. Prashant Kr. Singh, G.P. VI For RespondentUniv. : Mr. Rajeev Singh, Advocate Mrs. I. Sen Choudhary, Advocate Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Singh, Advocate For RespondentNCTE : Mr. P.D. Agarwal, Advocate 06/15.05.2015 Seeking modification of affiliation dated 27.07.2013 granted to the petitionercollege for Academic Session 201314 and seeking a direction upon the respondents to grant affiliation to the petitionercollege for Academic Session 201314 and onwards, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. The petitionercollege is run by a registered Trust 2 namely, Rishikesh Mahato Memorial Public Educational Trust. It made an application on 25.11.2011 for grant of no objection certificate and in response thereof, the respondentGovernment of Jharkhand issued letter dated 29.03.2012. The National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) granted recognition to the petitionercollege for one year B.Ed. Course from Academic Session 201314 and thereafter, the respondentVinoba Bhave University issued letter dated 27.07.2013, granting affiliation to the petitionercollege for the Academic Session 201314. 3. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner refers to Section 4(19) of the University Act and Section 14 of the NCTE Act, 1993 and submits that once the NCTE takes a decision to grant recognition to an Institute, the same shall be binding upon the State Government as well as the University. There is no provision for grant of temporary affiliation or affiliation for one year which can be extended by the University only upon an application made by the B.Ed. College. Relying on decision in “State of Maharashtra Vs. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya & Ors.”, (2006) 9 SCC 1, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the primacy of NCTE Act, 1993 is no longer in dispute. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya” case that once the NCTE takes a decision to grant recognition, it is not open to other authorities including, the University to take a contrary decision. It is thus, submitted that the affiliation dated 27.07.2013 issued by the respondentVinoba Bhave University is liable to be modified to the extent that it must relate for Academic Session 201314 and onwards that is, it should be an order of permanent affiliation. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents referred to the letter issued by the NCTE and submitted that the affiliating body can impose suitable conditions. 3 4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 5. In the writ petition, the petitioner has averred as under: 11. “That from the aforesaid facts it is evident that the petitioner made a request and called upon the respondents to grant the extension of affiliation including for the session 201415 as early as on 22.11.2013 and reminders (Annexure4 and 5 series).
12. That even after receipt of the aforesaid representations, the respondents University sat tight over the matter and took no steps/positive steps for grant of extension of affiliation for the session 201415 and onwards. As a matter of fact, the respondents did not take any action for grant of extension of affiliation to the petitioner college for the session 201415 and onwards. 13. That the University has failed to discharge its statutory duty for grant of affiliation/extension of affiliation to the petitioner college for the academic session 201415 and for the onward session.” 6. From the materials disclosed in the present proceeding, it appears that the respondentUniversity granted affiliation to the petitionercollege on 27.07.2013 and the petitioner took admission for Academic Session 201314. It made an application on 22.11.2013 seeking extension of affiliation for the Academic Session 201415 and onwards. Another application was submitted by the petitioner on 01.09.2014 and 04.09.2014. The applications dated 22.11.2013 and 01.11.2014 were for seeking extension of affiliation whereas, letter dated 04.09.2014 was submitted for permission to take admission for the Academic Session 201415. The respondentState of Jharkhand has taken a stand that the University did not submit proposal on or before 4 20.03.2014 and therefore, it could not be processed. From the aforesaid, it appears that though in view of decision in “Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalay Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.”, (2013) 2 SCC 617, the University is required to follow the time schedule, after letter dated 22.11.2013 seeking extension of affiliation for the Academic Session 201415 and onwards was submitted, the petitioner approached the respondentUniversity on 01.09.2014 that is, about 9 months after the first application was submitted to the respondentUniversity. It has not been disclosed by the petitioner that for grant of extension of affiliation, it had deposited requisite fee etc. or not. It is not in dispute that the petitioner did not approach this Court after the respondentUniversity allegedly failed to respond to letter dated 22.11.2013. This writ petition was filed on 08.10.2014 and by that time, the time schedule fixed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalay” had expired long back. In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
81. “….............. Adherence to the schedule is the essence of granting admission in a fair and transparent manner as well as to maintain the standards of education. The purpose of providing a time schedule is to ensure that all authorities concerned act within the stipulated time............... 82. …................... None in the hierarchy of the State Government, university, NCTE or any other authority or body involved in this process can breach the schedule for any direct or indirect reason. Anybody who is found to be defaulting in this behalf is bound to render himself or herself liable for initiation of proceedings under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 as well as for a disciplinary action in accordance with the orders of the Court. …..............”
7. Further, the petitioner after having accepted the affiliation order dated 22.07.2013 and after having admitted 5 students for the Academic Session 201314, cannot be permitted to turn around and seek modification of order dated 27.07.2013. Moreover, the petitioner applied for grant of affiliation for the Academic Session 201517 which has already been granted to the petitionercollege. In so far as, the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner in view of Section 4(19) of the University Act and Section 14 of the NCTE Act, 1993 is concerned, I am of the view that even though there is no specific provision for grant of affiliation for one year, the said power is implicit in Section 4(19) of the University Act. Power to grant affiliation would include power to grant affiliation with appropriate conditions. Grant of affiliation for one year is an order with the condition that it would be extended after reassessment. The letter dated 17.12.2012 contains a specific condition that the grant of registration is subject to fulfillment of conditions imposed by the affiliating body. In so far as, the contention based on the decision in “Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya” case is concerned, I find that the facts in the said case are entirely different. In the said case, a policy decision was taken by the State Government not to grant no objection for starting new B.Ed. Colleges. The Hon'ble Supreme Court taking note of the object of NCTE Act, 1993 held that once NCTE takes a decision to grant recognition to B.Ed. College, it is not open to the State Government not to grant no objection for grant of affiliation. In the present case, the grievance of the petitioner is in respect of grant of affiliation by the “University” for one year. 8. In view of the specific stand taken by the petitioner in the writ petition as noticed above, more particularly in paragraph nos. 11, 12 and 13, I find no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) Manish