ORDER
K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.
1. Both the writ petitions have been filed by a Registered Society in the context of starting a Teacher Training College. In W.P.No.12196 of 2000 the petitioner prays for quashing the order of the Regional Director of National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) dated 22.11.1999 and that of the NCTE dated 20.6.2000 and to accord recognition to the petitioner Society for the academic year 1999-2000 from the date of inspection on 24.8.1999.
2. In W.P.No.9996 of 2001, the prayer is to quash the order of the Union Government dated 23.04.2001 and to direct the respondents to issue 'No Objection Certificate' to the petitioner for the academic year 2001-2002 for B.Ed. Course for two units (120 seats).
W.P.No.12196 OF 2000
3. In this writ petition, the petitioner contends that on 15.2.1999, the petitioner - Society submitted an application for recognition to the second respondent. By communication dated 7.5.1999, nine defects were pointed out and directed the Society to approach the respondents for recognition for the period 1999-2000. On 15.6.1999 the classes were commenced. The petitioner - society rectified the defects and filed W.P.No.11524 of 1999 for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to make the second inspection. The said writ petition was however, dismissed directing the Society to approach the second respondent after rectifying all the defects. But in the said writ petition itself, the Society had clearly mentioned about the admission of the students and the commencement of the Colleges from 15.6.1999. In the inspection held on 24.8.1999 the only defect which was pointed out was that out of five journals subscribed three journals were not relevant for the College. The fact that the Society had admitted the students, was known to the respondents, when the inspection was conducted. Therefore, the Society took things were granted. The petitioner Society has also given an instance of another institution having allegedly commenced the College immediately after first inspection. But recognition had been granted to that institution on 27.8.1999. By letter dated 1.11.1999, the only deficiency which was pointed out was about the journals as stated above. For the first time, the second respondent had stated that the accommodation was inadequate. In the second inspection the only defect which was pointed out was under Section 14 of the NCTE Act, 1993 which was only a minor deficiency. There is no provision in the Act that before granting recognition 'No objection Certificate' has to be obtained from the State Government. In the present case, respondents had erroneously refused to grant sanction solely on the ground that 'No Objection certificate' was withdrawn by the State Government. The explanation given by the Pondicherry University as regards the alleged discriminatory attitude towards the petitioner Society, the Pondicherry University did not offer any proper explanation. It is further submitted that even the defect pointed out in the context of three journals was also rectified. The action of the respondents is vitiated by discrimination. All the requirements prescribed under Sections 14 and 15 of the Act had been complied with and as such refusal to grant recognition was against the object of the enactments. While insisting on the requirements, the department had failed to consider the importance or relevance of their objections in the context of the obligations on the part of the petitioner for imparting education in a practical way. Hence, there being no other effective remedy, the petitioner has approached this Court.
4. In the counter filed by the respondents, it is stated that on 29.1.1999, the Government of Pondicherry issued 'No objection Certificate' to the petitioner to start B.Ed. Course. On 15.2.1999, the petitioner submitted an application for the grant of recognition. An inspection team was sent on 7.5.1999. A report was submitted in which some of the deficiencies were pointed out and the same were intimated to the petitioner to rectify the same. But even before rectifying defects, the petitioner institute started admission from 16.6.1999 for the academic year 1999-2000. Even before the grant of recognition the petitioner had started admission without permission from the second respondent which is an illegal action. The second inspection team also found that there were some defects which were not rectified by the petitioner Institute. Therefore, the second respondent sent a letter dated 29.9.1999 followed by another letter dated 1.11.1999 in which it was specifically mentioned by the second respondent that the said defects have not been rectified and without doing so the petitioner had started functioning. The petitioner institute did not also obtain formal permission from the second respondent in spite of having been informed.
5. It is further stated that after considering the various materials before the Committee, the petitioner was duly informed by letter dated 22.11.1999 that the permission was refused. An appeal was filed before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority also confirmed the original order of the second respondent. The conduct of the petitioner in having admitted the students for the year 1999-2000 without obtaining prior permission from NCTE was contrary to law and therefore, the action of the respondents was justified and legal.
6. In W.P.No.9996 of 2001 the petitioner Society claims to have applied for 'No objection Certificate' which was issued for the period of 1999-2000. The petitioner applied to the second respondent for recognition and pending recognition students were admitted and classes were started on 15.6.1999 after the first inspection by NCTE. In the second inspection conducted on 24.8.1999, the only defect which was pointed out was that out of five journals subscribed three journals were not relevant. In terms of Section 14(3)(a) of the NCTE Act, recognition can be granted if it is satisfied that the institution has adequate financial resources, accommodation, library, qualified staff, laboratory and other such conditions. The second respondent after inspection found that three out of five journals subscribed by the petitioner and the said objection was not relevant. Considering that students were admitted before recognition, the first respondent withdrew the 'No objection Certificate' and challenging the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.18060 of 1999 and the same was dismissed on 7.10.1999. The petitioner was directed to approach for fresh NOC. The College was inspected by the first respondent on 9.10.2000. The Director of Education who inspected did not make any remarks. Again the Secretary to the Education, inspected the College and noted down the details relating to the infrastructural facilities. A third inspection was conducted on 2.4.2001 by the first respondent. No defect was pointed out in the first and second inspections and without any reason third inspection was conducted. Since the application for NOC was not disposed of within six months as directed by this Court, Contempt Application No.249 of 2001 was filed and notice was issued to the first respondent. On being aware of the Contempt proceedings by order dated 23.4.2001 NOC was rejected on certain alleged defects. It was stated that the institution lacks basic facilities. According to the petitioner NOC was not rejected on the ground that it did not conform to G.O.Ms.No.44 dated 27.4.1995. The norms set out by NCTE can be decided only by the second respondent who during inspection on 24.8.1999 pointed out only one defect namely as regards the relevancy of the journals. But now the first respondent had pointed out 13 defects and according to the petitioner, the first respondent has no jurisdiction to do so. While granting No Objection Certificate on 29.1.1999, it was made clear that G.O.Ms.No.44 dated 27.9.1995 has to be complied with. The first respondent is duty bound only to see whether the terms of the G.O. was complied with or not. According to the petitioner, the first respondent had no intention of granting NOC and the only motive of the first respondent was to reject the NOC for one reason or other. Even though the NOC was applied for 2000-2001, inspection was deliberately delayed. The power vested with the second respondent cannot be invoked by the first respondent. The petitioner had already filed W.P.No.12196 of 2000 and the same was pending. While granting NOC on 29.1.1999, the first respondent exercised its power under G.O.Ms.No.44, whereas the first respondent has now invoked NCTE Act, 1993 under which the first respondent has no power. Hence, the writ petition.
7. In the counter filed by the first respondent, it is contended that the relief claimed by the petitioner was not maintainable. The grounds raised by the petitioner are based on misconception regarding the norms and guidelines set out by NCTE. The grant of 'No objection Certificate' by the State Government can never be claimed as a matter of course without regard to the guidelines framed by the Government of Pondicherry. The guidelines framed by NCTE are independent of the regulations framed by the Government of Pondicherry. The contention of the petitioner for assailing the rejection of the Government Order is unsustainable. The Parliament had brought forth a special Legislation for streamlining the standard of education by enacting NCTE. The institution which aspires for starting B.Ed. Course should fulfil all the mandatory requirements relating to the infrastructural facility and should have sound financial resources to meet the necessary requirements besides having qualified teacher/educators. The State Government has to consider whether the college adheres and complied all the guidelines prescribed by NCTE, while granting 'No objection Certificate'.
8. The contention of the petitioner that the Government should focus its attention only to G.O.Ms.No.44 is not correct. The proper authority for granting sanction is NCTE and hence norms and guidelines set out by NCTE must be complied with. The reasons given by the State Government for rejecting the 'No Objection Certificate' are valid. In G.O.Ms.No.44, the Government has categorically insisted that infrastructural facilities should be in accordance with the norms. The contention of the petitioner that the State Government should not take into account the mandatory provision under Section 17 of NCTE Act, while granting 'No Objection Certificate' cannot be sustained. The petitioner cannot expect that the Government should accord 'No Objection Certificate' as a matter of course for the mere asking. The petitioner has not fulfilled the infrastructural facilities and such being the factual position, it was not possible to grant 'No Objection Certificate'. It is further stated that the Pondicherry Government initially considered the application for starting the Course for the academic year 1999-2000 by proceedings dated 29.1.1999 laying down four conditions. But the petitioner started to admit students in total breach of conditions imposed in the 'No objection Certificate' without obtaining affiliation or recognition from the Pondicherry University and NCTE. The petitioner thus had harmed the future of the students who had joined the academic year 1999-2000 and was interested only in making money at the cost of the students. The petitioner did not fulfil the infrastructural facilities and the conduct of the petitioner in admitting the students without obtaining permission, was viewed seriously by NCTE who had informed about the same to the Pondicherry administration. Therefore, the Pondicherry administration took steps against the petitioner for violating the terms of 'No objection Certificate'. A show-cause notice was issued on 22.7.1999 and after considering the reply an order rejecting 'No objection Certificate' was passed on 5.11.1999. In W.P.No.18060 of 1999 the said order was challenged and the same was dismissed by P. Shanmugam, J. with a direction to approach afresh for grant of 'No objection Certificate.' Writ Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed. In W.P.No.17428 of 2000 the Government was directed to consider the petitioner's claim for 'No objection Certificate' within a period of six months. On 25.10.2000 an order was passed on merits. It is further stated that this Court had censured the conduct of the petitioner institution in the writ petition filed by the students in W.P.No.3351 of 2000. In spite of the strictures passed against the petitioner, the Institution had not changed its attitude. Without complying the terms and guidelines and norms by the NCTE, the petitioner has come forward with the above writ petition. The Government had considered the claim of the petitioner on merits and found that the institution does not fulfil the infrastructural facilities. The Committee on inspection which was conducted on 2.4.2001 expressed its view that the institution lacked many of the basic facilities. The deficiencies were incorporated in the order passed by the Government. Therefore, there were no grounds in the above writ petition.
9. Mr. S.V. Jayaraman, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that from the beginning the authorities have been exercising a glaring discriminatory attitude towards the petitioner and the recognition was being deprived on non-existent objections. The only objection which was pointed out on the earlier inspection was that out of five journals subscribed three journals were not relevant for the institution. All the other defects have been rectified. But notwithstanding the same, the respondents were bent upon refusing recognition on some ground or other. New grounds are sought to be projected which have not been pointed out earlier which was unfair. Learned counsel would also state that in respect of another institution namely Mary Immaculate College, the institution had admitted students and classes had commenced even before the grant of formal recognition. In spite of the said circumstance, the authorities had granted recognition. It is further stated that rejection of recognition can be only under the grounds stated under Section 14 of Act 17 of 1993 and the reason that the College had admitted the students even before recognition is not one of the circumstances mentioned thereunder.
10. In the context of the rejection of 'No Objection Certificate' which is the subject matter of the writ petition in W.P.No.9996 of 2001, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jaya Gokul Educational Trust v. Commr. & Secy. to Govt. H.E. Deptt. A.I.R.2000 S.C.,1614 and reliance is placed on the observations that the approval of the State Government was not necessary in terms of the provisions of A.I.C.T.E. Act, 1987 which occupies the field. The requirement was only to ascertain the views of the State Government. In the said judgment, the State Government's letters refusing to grant of approval was quashed.
11. I have considered the submissions of both sides in the context of both the above writ petitions.
W.P.No.12196 of 2000
12. In this writ petition, the petitioner is questioning the order of respondents 1 and 2 refusing recognition for the academic year 1999-2000. Though the order which is now challenged is the order of the Appellate Authority, (first respondent) dated 20.6.2000 and the order of the Original Authority (second respondent) dated 22.11.1991, the issues arising out of the said orders and the grounds on which the said orders had been passed, had in fact, been considered by this Court on previous occasions as it could be seen from the following facts.
13. P. Shanmugam, J. by his order dated 10.11.1999 held that the order of the Government in the present case withdrawing 'No Objection Certificate' dated 5.11.1999, was valid in view of the infrastructural defects. The learned Judge also held that admission of students and commencing of the classes were also in contravention of NCTE Regulations. In Writ Appeal No.2545 of 1999 also, filed by the College, a Division Bench of this Court held that after the enactment of Act 73 of 1993, the Institution cannot admit the students without getting affiliation or recognition. With the result, the reasons given by the Government for cancellation of 'No Objection Certificate' was held to be valid.
14. The students of the College filed writ petition in W.P.No.3351 of 2000, praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the students of the College to write the ensuing examination and to recognise the qualification of the students. K. Sampath, J. by his order dated 2.5.2000 came down heavily on the College and held that the attitude on the part of the College in admitting students even without recognition and also justifying its action deserved to be condemned.
15. In the impugned order one of the reasons given for not recognising the institution is the admission of students even before recognition and affiliation. Therefore, on that ground alone, the impugned order deserves to be upheld. The said conduct on the part of the College had been deprecated by the two learned single Judges and a Division Bench of this Court on the appeal filed by the College, in the context of the year 1999-2000. It is true that W.P.No.3351 of 2000 was filed by the students and strangely without impleading the College. But the notable feature is that the very same counsel who had appeared earlier for the College in W.P.No.21630 of 1999, had appeared for the students in W.P.No.3351 of 2000. It is true that principles of res judicata may not strictly apply as regards observations in W.P.No.3351 of 2000. But even so, the findings rendered by P. Shanmugam, J. in W.P.No.18060 of 1999 and by the Division Bench in W.A.No.2545 of 1999 which were filed by the Institution, are sufficient and bound to weigh against the Institution. Having regard to the views expressed by the other learned Judges in the context of the Institution having unauthorisedly admitted students, it is not possible for this Court to entertain any submissions to the contrary. Such attitude on the part of the Institution admitting students has to be discouraged and viewed strictly.
16. The issue of discrimination in the context of affiliation granted in favour of another institution namely, Mary Immaculate College of Education, had also been dealt with by K. Sampath, J. In W.P.No.3351 of 2000 and had been found against the petitioner/institution.
17. I am also unable to accept the contention that Section 14 of Act 73 of 1993 which deals with the grant of recognition does not refer to the right or otherwise of the institution in admitting the students pending recognition and therefore, the said ground cannot be cited as a reason for denying recognition. I am unable to accept the the said contention.
18. Section 14(1)(a) of the Act also refers to the conditions laid down in the Regulation to be taken into account as relevant criteria. Regulations had been framed under Section 32(2) of the Act. Regulation 5 deals with the manner of making the application. The application requires the production of 'No Objection Certificate' from the local Government. Therefore, the rejection of the 'No Objection Certificate' by the Government which has been upheld by this Court in the earlier proceedings as pointed out above, is definitely one of the valid grounds for refusal to grant recognition.
19. Therefore, viewed from any angle I am unable to find any illegality in the impugned orders rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for recognition for the year 1999-2000. Hence, W.P.No.12196 of 2000 is liable to be dismissed.
W.P.No.9996 OF 2001
20. In this writ petition, the issue which arises for consideration is different from that of W.P.No.12196 of 2000. In this writ petition, the orders of the Government dated 23.4.2001 refusing to grant 'No objection Certificate' for the academic year 2000-2001 is called in question. Therefore, the reason for improper admission of students by the institution during the previous year does not arise for consideration. In fact, rightly the impugned order also does not refer to the said ground.
21. A perusal of the impugned order discloses that as many as 13 reasons are given for rejecting the request for 'No Objection Certificate'. But none of the said 13 reasons is relevant for the Union Government of Pondicherry to have refused 'No Objection Certificate'. The alleged defects are mentioned below.
'1. The building space/area is not up-to the requirements of NCTE norms.
2. There are no computers in the working conditions Psychology and work experience labs are ill equipped.
3. Reading materials are insufficient for the library.
4. No attached toilet for Principal room, available.
5. The urinals and lavatories meant for students are in damaged condition and no power and water supply facilities are available.
6. There is no play ground in the vicinity of the college.
7. No electric and water supply, work table and seating available for physical science laboratory.
8. The Educational Technology lab does not have facilities as per the NCTE norms.
9. Most of the books in the Library are not related to the B.Ed. course and are only general in nature.
10. Out of 12 teaching staff proposed to be appointed only 3 persons are having minimum qualification for being a teacher as per UGC norms.
11. No librarian is posted and no ministerial staff are appointed.
12. The original F.D. receipts have not been produced and only photo copies have been produced.
13. The furniture and other facilities are insufficient and not in good condition.'
22. All the aforesaid objections relate only to infrastructural facilities and they are not within the ambit of consideration of the Union Government. They are all issues to be considered by the NCTE and it is their satisfaction which is relevant. As regards Item 12 which states that original Fixed Deposit Receipts had not been produced and only photo copies have been produced, the respondents could have called upon the institution to produce the Fixed Deposit Receipts or to state the reasons for not producing the original Fixed Deposit Receipts instead of citing the same as a ground for rejecting the 'No Objection Certificate'.
23. In JAYA GOKUL EDUCATIONAL TRUST v. COMMR. & SECY. TO GOVT. H.E.DEPTT. A.I.R.2000 S.C., 1614 the Supreme Court has held that after the advent of A..I.C.T.E. Act, 1987, the field was occupied by the Council constituted under the Act and that the approval of the State Government was not at all necessary. There was no statutory requirement for obtaining the approval of the State Government. In fact, the Supreme Court went to the extent of observing that even if there was any such requirement it would be repugnant to the Central Act. What was required was only to ascertain the views of the State Government before granting affiliation. With the result, the State Government's letter refusing to grant approval was quashed. The said judgment would apply also to cases arising under Act 73 of 1993.
24. The issue in the present case, therefore, is directly covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court cited above and hence the petitioner is entitled to succeed. The power of the Government to grant or not to grant 'No Objection Certificate' has to be based on reasonable grounds relevant only to the Government and cannot be exercised in an arbitrary manner and by citing grounds which are not available to the Government.
25. The respondents in both the Writ Petitions should exercise their powers in a more considerate and practical manner instead of merely raising objections without proper application of mind. The authorities cannot deal with the rights of the Institution which invests heavy amounts and the future of the students, very lightly. It is very frequently noticed in some cases arising under A.I.C.T.E.ACT AND NCTE Act, the authorities are in the habit of exercising their powers in an arbitrary manner. Whenever an inspection is conducted, all the defects should be pointed out in first report itself. But the unpleasant fact is that new defects or deficiencies would be pointed out in subsequent inspections which have not been mentioned earlier. There is absolutely no justification for such an attitude by the authorities. Such flippant exercise of power would only lead to the conclusion that they are tainted with ulterior motives. It is pertinent to note that the above 13 defects, assuming that the Government had jurisdiction to raise the issue, were not pointed out at earlier stages.
26. Therefore, the above writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed and the respondents are directed to reconsider the application for 'No Objection Certificate' only in the context of their powers and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
27. In the result, W.P.No.12196 of 2000 is dismissed. W.P.No.9996 of 2001 is allowed subject to the above terms. No costs.