ORDER
IN pursuance of Notification No.F.8-9/95 Ncte dated 13 December, 1995 and Notification No. F.28-14/95-NCTE dated 22 January, 1996, the National Council for Teacher Education hereby constitutes in terms of section 20(3) of the National Council for Teacher Education Act 1993, the Northern Regional Committee as under:
1.Composition & Membership Constituency
A)Member to be nominated by the council Name of the member Smt. Sharada Jain Sandhan Research Centre, C-196, Van Marg, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur-302004
B)One representative each of the States & Union Territories of the Region as determined by the Regulation viz., Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh Chandigarh and Delhi.
c) Six persons to be nominated as determined by the Regulations.
1.Prof. S.N.Singh 66, Brahmananad Colony, Varanasi : 221 005
2.Prof. R.N.Mehrotra 3/189, Prem Nagar, Agra: 282 003.
3.Prof. M.A.Khader Regional Institute Education, (NCERT), Ajmer.
4.Shri Chatar Singh Mehta, Quarter No.1 Inside Darbar School, Near Gopi Nath Marg, Jaipur.
5.Dr. J.N.Joshi Department of Education, Punjab University, Chandigharh, Punjab
6.Prof. C.L.Kundu Vice Chancellor, Himachal Pradesh University, Summer Hills, Shimla
THE meeting of the Committee was held in Jaipur on May 11, 1996. The minutes of the meeting as translated in English may be reproduced as under:
'MINUTESOF IInd Meeting Of NRC/NCTE, Jaipur Dt 11.5.96
S.No.4
TO consider Recognition of Geeta Rattan Jindal Elementary Teachers Training Institute (Rohini Educational Society) Delhi and Lovely Teachers Training Institute, Delhi.
A)The application form for E.T.T. of Geeta Rattan Jindal Elementary Teachers Training Institute, Delhi, report of the inspection team, copies of the orders of the Hon'ble High Court and other orders along with Circulars were laid down by the convener before the Committee for observation. The members took the matter seriously and noted:
1.As per norms, for 100 students there should be 1 Principal & 8 teachers. The institute does not have regular Principal & has only three teachers. The institute has shown in the application form the names of teachers, who are appointed for other training institute and cannot be considered as employees of the institute. the names of seven teachers shown as employed teachers in the application form submitted by the institute in Feb. 96 for recognition, were not listed during the inspection. Instead of them 4 teachers appointed in a different institute of the same society were listed and also one teacher on the list was appointed in the same institute on 19th March, 1996. In this way, the teacher pupil ratio becomes 1:33 which is higher than 1:12 mentioned in the norms. (Though the number of teachers mentioned earlier was 3).
2.There is a provision in the norms that the rate of fee charged by the institute should be recommended by the Education Department of the corresponding state. The institute advertised the fee @ Rs. 300.00 P.M. i.e. Rs. 3,600.00 per annum at the time of admission in the admission form, while mentioned the tuition fee of Rs. 12,000.00 per student per annum in the application form, submitted for Recognition.
THE instituted did not produce any letter consisting the approved rate of fee by Director of the State govt. no details of income and expenditure of the institute was presented before the inspection team.
THEinstitute has not presented any record of income & expenditure for the year 1995-96, thereforee, it cannot be decided whether the expenditure of the Primary Teacher Education Institute is in accordance with the norms or not. It is obvious that the institute is being run only for commercial benefits.
3.Before the existence of Ncte, the Government of N.C.T., Delhi issued the essentiality certificate to the institution. According to the decisions of Delhi Govt., 50 students were to be admitted for 1st year but the institute gave admission to 100 students instead of 50. It is to be noted that there is a provision for admitting only 50 students for 1st year course even in DIETs run by the State Govt.
4.There is a provision in the norms of the State Govt. to admit only those students who have secured 50% or more marks in the Senior Secondary Examination and the admission will be given strictly on the basis of merit but the institute violated the norms and gave admissions to the students who were not eligible for admission while neglected the students with merit. Some such examples are given:
A.Ms.Harsh Mehandi Ratta (203)- 42.8%
B.Ms.Seema (233)- 40.5%
C.Ms.Geeta Beniwal (238)- 48%
D.Ms.Rajni (378)- 48%
E.Ms.Pashi (155)- 48%
F.Ms.Kumud Kohli (032)- 44%
G.Ms.Sunita(371)- 47%
H.Ms.Peeta Malik(374)- 43%
5.As far as the question of rooms and building according to the norms is concerned the elementary teachers training institute has no separate building. The rooms for classes have been provided in the Sr. Secondary School building. Remaining playground, library, reading room, laboratory, workshop, assembly hall, staff room, art room etc. are common with the Sr. Secondary School. There is no hostel for teacher education unit. There is no provision for residence of the Principal or the teachers. There is sufficient furniture in the class rooms.
6.As far as the equipments are concerned, the inspection team has written that they are available but does not show any sign of being used as they seem to be new.
THUS it has been decided that-
A.The institute does not fulfill the norms laid down by the Act and regulations for recognition. thereforee, it should be given 15 days time to clarify its position in writing regarding the following deficiencies:
I)It has utterly inadequate number of regular staff, resulting in a very high teacher pupil ratio.
II)Fee- Structure is not approved by the Govt. of Nct, Delhi Tuition fee has been charged exorbitantly, which is even in contravention to the institution's own arrangement of its prospectus.
III)Students have been admitted without following proper procedure as prescribed by the Govt. of Nct Delhi. Eligibility criteria has also not been followed.
IV)Admissions have been made twice the number of the approved seats in the first year.
V)Students have undergone training so far without the help of equipments and other teaching learning materials.
B.The matter shall be placed before the next meeting to be held on 8th June 1996 for further decision in both cases i.e. whether we get a clarification reply or not.'
THE ultimate decision was taken on June 8, 1996 when the impugned order was passed.
(9) THE reading of the above will clearly indicate that the petitioner society did not fulfill the relevant criteria for according of recognition and, thereforee, its application was rejected. The matter has been examined by an Expert Committee and it will not be open for this Court to reappraise the evidence and material on record to arrive at a contrary view particularly when an adequate opportunity has been granted and no fault can be found in the decision making process. The petitioner society has failed to satisfy the norms as considered necessary for recognition. These matters are to be examined by an Expert Body and this Court is only expected to examine the decision making process and not with reviewing the merits of the decision. The law is well settled in this regard. (Tata Cellular v. Union of India : AIR1996SC11 ).
(10) IN Maharastra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and another v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth and others : [1985]1SCR29 the Supreme Court reiterated the proposition that the Court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the policy evolved by the legislature and the subordinate regulation making body. Paragraph 29 from this judgment may be reproduced as follows:
'FAR from advancing public interest and fair play to the other candidates in general, any such interpretation of the legal position would be wholly defensive of the same. As has been repeatedly pointed out by this Court, the Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day to day working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them. It will be wholly wrong for the Court to make a pedantic and purely idealistic approach to the problems of this nature, isolated from the actual realities and grass root problems involved in the working of the system and unmindful of the consequences which would emanate if a purely idealistic view as opposed to a pragmatic one were to be propounded. It is equally important that the Court should also, as far as possible, avoid any decision or interpretation of a statutory provision, rule or bye-law which would bring about the result of rendering the system unworkable in practice. It is unfortunate that this principle has not been adequately kept in mind by the High Court while deciding the instant case.'
(11) THE Supreme Court also dealt with the consideration of applications for grant of permission and recognition to Private Teachers Training Institutes in N.M.Nageshwaramma v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another : AIR1986SC1188 wherein it was held that the Court cannot direct the Government to allow the student who had undergone training for one year course in unauthorised and unrecognised private institutions to appear at the Examination. This case dealt with the powers in this regard. The operative operation of paragraph 3 of the judgment reads as under:
'IT was argued that the students of the institute in which she had undergone training were permitted in previous years to appear at the government examination and as in previous years she may be allowed to appear at the examination this year. A similar request was made by Shri Garg that the students who have undergone training for the one year course in these private institutions may be allowed to appear at the examination notwithstanding the fact that permission might not be accorded to them. We are unable to accede to these requests. These institutions were established and the students were admitted into these Institutes despite a series of press notes issued by the government. If by a fiat of the Court we direct the government to permit them to appear at the examination we will practically be encouraging and condoning the establishment of unauthorised institutions. It is not appropriate that the jurisdiction of the Court either under Article 32 of the Constitution or Article 226 should be frittered away for such a purpose. The Teachers Training Institutes are meant to teach children of impressionable age and we cannot let loose on the innocent and unwary children, teachers who have not received proper and adequate training. True they will be required to pass the examination but that may not be enough. Training for a certain minimum period in a properly organized and equipped Training Institute is probably essential before a teacher may be duly launched. We have no hesitation in dismissing the writ petitions with costs.'
(12) THE above view was approved in St.John's Teachers Training Institute (For women) Madurai and others v. State of Tamil Nadu and others : [1993]3SCR985 . The Court in this case also declined even to grant any relief to the students who had already taken examination and were denied issuance of certificates as the Institute which sponsored them was not recognised. The Court categorically decried the practice of Courts to issue interim directions permitting the students to appear in the examination before the Institutes are recognised Paragraphs 18, 19 and 21 of this judgment read as follows:
'18.It has come to the notice of this Court that many institutions claiming themselves to be minority institutions within the meaning of Article 30(1) of the Constitution, invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 or of this Court under Article 32 for a writ of mandamus to recognise the institutions in question as minority institutions and pending the final disposal of such applications, an interim direction is sought to allow the students of such institutions to appear at the examinations concerned. In connection with such interim prayer, this Court in the case of A.P. Christians Medical Educational Society v. Government of A.P. Said :(SCC p.678, para 10)
'SHRIK.K.Venugopal, learned counsel for the students who have been admitted into the Mbbs course of this institution, pleaded that the interests of the students should not be sacrificed because of the conduct for folly of the management and that they should be permitted to appear at the University examination notwithstanding the circumstance that permission and affiliation had not been granted to the institution. He invited our attention to the circumstance that students of the medical college established by the Dat-US-Salam Educational Trust were permitted to appear at the examination notwithstanding the fact that affiliation had not be then been granted by the University, Shri Venugopal suggested that we might issue appropriate directions to the University to protect the interests of the students. We do not think that we can possibly accede to the request made by Shri Venugopal on behalf of the students. Any direction of the nature sought by Shri Venugopal would be in clear transgression of the provisions of the University Act and the regulations of the University. We cannot by our fiat direct the University to disobey the statute to which it owes its existence and the regulations made by the University itself. We cannot imagine anything more destructive of the rule of law than a direction by the Court to disobey the laws.' IN view of the aforesaid pronouncement of this Court, the High Court should not have passed, interim order directing the respondents to allow the teachers of unrecognised institutions to appear at the examinations in question. Such teachers cannot derive any benefit on basis of such interim orders, when ultimately the main writ applications have been dismissed by the High Court, which order is being affirmed by this Court. The same view has been expressed by this Court, in connection with the minority unrecognised Teachers Training Institutions in the State of Tamil Nadu itself, in the case of State of T.N. v. St.Josheph Teachers Training Institute. As such no equity or legal right can be pleaded on behalf of the teachers admitted for training by such minority institutions, for publication of their results, because they were allowed to appear at the examination concerned, during the pendency of the writ applications before the High Court, on the basis of interim orders passed by the High Court; which were in conflict with the view expressed by this Court in the aforesaid cases.
19.We see no ground to differ with the view taken by the High Court. This Court in N.M.Nageshwaramma case had held that training in a properly organized and equipped training institute is essential before a candidate becomes qualified to receive teachers training certificate. Simply passing the examination is not enough. The future teachers of the country must pass through, the institutions which have maintained standards of excellence at all levels.
BEFORE we part, with this judgment, we consider it necessary to strike a note of caution in respect of passing of interim orders by Courts directing the students of unrecognised institutions, to appear at the examinations concerned. In view of the series of judgments of this Court, the Courts should not issue fiat to allow the students of unrecognised institutions to appear at the different examinations pending the disposal of the writ applications. Such interim orders affect the careers of several students and cause unnecessary embarrassment and harassment to the authorities who have to comply with such directions of the Court. It is a matter of common knowledge that as a part of strategy, such writ applications for directions to recognise the institutions in question and in the meantime to allow the students to appear at the examinations are filed only when the dates for examinations are notified. Many of such institutions are not only 'masked phantoms' but are established as business ventures for admitting substandard students without any competitive tests, on basis of considerations which cannot even the interest of the minority. There is no occasion for the Courts to be liberal or generous, while passing interim orders, when the main writ applications have been filed only when the dates for the examination have been announced. In this process, students without knowing the design of the organisers of such institutions, become victim of their manipulations.'
(13) THE facts of the present case may now be examined. The petitioner Society admittedly is not a recognised Institute and its application has since been rejected by respondent No. 1 for the reasons which have been indicated in the earlier part of the judgment. The statutory appeal has also been dismissed. The plea that both the Authorities have not applied their mind and the decision is based on malafide and extraneous consideration cannot be justified from the facts which emerge on the basis of the reading of the impugned orders.
(14) THE question now arises as to whether the Authorities have exceeded their powers, committed an error of law or violated the rules of natural justice or in any manner, abused their powers. The impugned orders of respondent No. 1 as well as of the Appellate Authority do not indicate that the decision is illegal or is arrived at on mala fide and extraneous considerations. The overall assessment of facts will establish that the decision in this case cannot be termed as a decision which no reasonable authority would have reached. There has been proper application of mind and broad facts have been brought to the notice of the petitioners by the Authorities and it is also stated at the Bar by the learned counsel that the petitioners shall be at liberty to satisfy the requirements for recognition and reapply and their application will be considered again in accordance with law and with an open mind. The plea that since the petitioner Society was issued essentiality certificate on June 23, 1995 and the courses at the Institute cannot be discontinued for a period of 3 years as stated in the Communication dated June 23, 1995, is equally without any basis. The provisions of the Act have to be read in a harmonious manner and sub-section (5) of Section 14 does not support the contention as raised by learned counsel for the petitioners. The issuance of essentiality certificate under rule 44 of the Delhi School Education Rules 1973 for opening an Institute will clearly be a separate issue and it cannot be urged that the course must be permitted to continue till the end of the academic session next following the date of order refusing recognition. The reading of the letter dated June 23, 1995 will clearly show that it merely permitted the society to establish a new Ete Institute and this certificate was limited for a period of 3 years which will imply that during this period the Institute could be established and necessary recognition could be obtained. It conferred no rights on the petitioners as the Institute had not even been considered for recognition on that date. The Supreme Court has even warned the passing of the interim orders to allow the students of unrecognised Institutions to appear in the examination.
(15) FOR the aforesaid reasons, the writ petitions are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.