Sahjanand Education Trust Vs. and 1 - Court Judgment

IN

THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

SPECIAL

CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10359 of 2011

With

SPECIAL

CIVIL APPLICATION No. 12311 of 2011

For

Approval and Signature:

HONOURABLE

THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. A.L.DAVE

HONOURABLE

MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA

=========================================================

=========================================================

SAHJANAND

EDUCATION TRUST - Petitioner(s)

Versus

HEMCHANDRACHARYA

NORTH GUJARAT UNIVERSITY

&

1 - Respondent(s)

=========================================================

Appearance

:
MR

HJ NANAVATI for

Petitioner(s) in SCA No. 10359 of 2011
MR AMIT M PANCHAL for

Respondent University(s) in - do -
MR AJ SHASTRI for Respondent(s)

: NCTE in - do -

MR. YATIN

N. OZA, SR. COUNSEL with MR. B.P. GUPTA for petitioners in SCA No.

12311 of 2011

=========================================================

Date

:7/10/2011

CAV

(Per

: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA)

As

common questions of law and facts are involved in these two writ

petitions, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by

this common judgment and order.

2. These

two writ petitions depict extremely sorry state of affairs of a

college named Shree Swaminarayan B.Ed College run and managed by

Shree Sahjanand Education Trust, At and Post Tal. Vijapur, Dist.

Mehsana, which is an un-recognized educational institution imparting

teacher education i.e. B.Ed Course. Over a period of time, we have

come across so many petitions preferred by such colleges whose

recognition has been cancelled by National Council for Teachers

Education (for short "NCTE") on grounds like

non-appointment of Principal, inadequate teaching and non-teaching

staff, lack of adequate infrastructure etc. We are sad to note that

ultimately the students are the sufferers. We are reminded of an

observation made by the Supreme Court almost two decades ago in the

case of State of Maharashtra v. Vikas Saherbrao Roundale and ors. -

(1992) 4 SCC 435, in which the apex Court observed as under:-

"2.

This court judicially noticed mushroom growth of ill equipped

and under-staffed unrecognised educational institutions in

Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Tamilnadu and Maharashtra States and other

states too are no exceptions. Obviously the field of education is

found to be fertile, perennial and profitable business venture with

least capital outlay. This case is one such from the State of

Maharashtra.

3.

It would appear that individuals or societies without

complying with the statutory requirements, establish

educational or training institutions ill equipped to impart

education and have the students admitted, in some instances despite

warnings by the State Govt. and in some instances without knowledge

of the concerned State Govt, but with connivance at lower levels."

We

can take judicial notice of the mushroom growth of ill-equipped,

under-staffed and unrecognized educational institutions coming up

even in the State of Gujarat.

3. The

facts relevant for the purpose of deciding these two writ petitions

can be summarized as under:-

3.1

SCA No. 10359 of 2011 has been filed by Shree Sahjanand Education

Trust, challenging order dated 25.7.2011 passed by respondent NCTE,

Western Regional Committee, Bhopal withdrawing the recognition

granted to the petitioner's college for B.Ed Course, in exercise of

powers under Section 17 of the National Council for Teacher Education

Act, 1993. Following reliefs have been prayed for in this petition:-

"6. Be

pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of

mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order and/or directions to:

(A) Allow

this petition

(B) Quash

and set aside the impugned action/decision of the Respondent North

Gujarat University not to allot further students to the petitioner

College for B.Ed. Course for the academic year 2011-2012, from

the last round of allotment scheduled on 8.8.2011.

(C) Declare

that the impugned order dated 25.7.2011passed by the Respondent

National Council for Teacher Education, Western Regional Committee,

Bhopal withdrawing the recognition granted to the petitioner College

for B.Ed. Course is illegal, arbitrary, against the weight of

evidence and an order passed without of application of mind, as the

petitioner college has appointed qualified person as Principal and

hence there is no reason for the Respondent NCTE to withdraw the

recognition granted to the petitioner college for B.Ed. Course, u/s.

17 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993;

(D) Quash

and set aside the impugned order dated 25.7.2011 passed by the

Respondent National Council for Teacher Education, Western Regional

Committee, Bhopal withdrawing the recognition granted to the

petitioner college for B.Ed. Course as being illegal, arbitrary,

unjust, unreasonable, against the weight of evidence and an order

passed without of application of mind and violative of Articles 14

and 19(1)(g) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.;

(E)

Direct the respondent North Gujarat University not to discontinue

allotment of students to the petitioner college for B.Ed. Course for

the Academic Year 2011-2012 holding that recognition granted to the

petitioner college cannot be withdrawn in view of provisions of

Section 17 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993;

(F)

Direct the Respondent National Council for Teacher Education,

Western Regional Committee, Bhopal to continue the recognition

granted to the petitioner college for B.Ed. Course for the Academic

year 2011-2012, as if the impugned has not been passed at all.”

3.2 During

the pendency of Special Civil Application No. 10359 of 2011, the

petitioner filed a Civil Application No. 8789 of 2011, seeking the

following reliefs –

"(A) To

Allow this Civil Application;

(B) To

Restrain the opponent University from transferring and/or

accommodating the 56 students already allotted to the applicant B.Ed.

College for the Academic Year 2011-2012 to any other College or

Institution in any manner whatsoever and be further pleased to direct

the opponent University withhold the process for appointment of

Principal for the applicant B.Ed. College, in the interest of

justice;

(C) To

pass such other and/or further orders or grant such other and/or

further reliefs, as may be deemed, just and proper in the interest of

justice.”

3.3 After

hearing the learned advocate for the petitioner college, this Court

while issuing Notice upon the respondents passed the following order

on 16.8.2011:–

“Notice

on the respondents. Post the matter on 9th December 2011. In the

meantime, any action is taken by the respondents, they should ensure

that the students do not suffer. Civil Application stands disposed

of. Direct service is permitted.”

3.4 Thereafter,

on 23.08.2011, students of Shree Swaminarayan B.Ed College run by

Sahjanand Education Trust- (petitioner of Special Civil Application

No. 10359 of 2011), filed Special Civil Application No. 12311 of

2011, challenging the action of the respondent university of

transferring them to other recognised colleges which are affiliated

to the respondent university and have prayed as under:-

[A)Be

pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of

mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing

and setting aside the impugned action on the part of the respondent

No.1 transferring the petitioners to other colleges as well as direct

the respondent No.1 to permit the petitioners to continue pursuing

their B.Ed. Course with the respondent No.2 College for the academic

year 2011-2012;

(AA) Be

pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of

mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing

and setting aside the Withdrawal Order dated 25.07.2011, passed by

NCTE and further be pleased to quash and set aside the consequential

action of withdrawal of affiliation by the respondent No.1;

(B) Pending

hearing and final disposal of the petition, Your Lordship may be

pleased to stay the operation, execution and/or implementation of the

impugned action on the part of the respondent No.1, as well as to

permit the petitioners to continue pursuing their B.Ed. Course with

the respondent No.2 College for the academic year 2011-2012;

(BB) Pending

hearing and final disposal of the petition, be pleased to stay the

operation, execution and/or implementation of the Withdrawal Order

dated 25.07.2011 passed by NCTE and further be pleased to stay the

operation, execution and/or implementation of the consequential

action of withdrawal of affiliation by the respondent No.1;

(C) Be

pleased to grant any other and further relief(s) as may be

deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

3.5 After

hearing the advocates for the respective parties, on 25.08.2011, this

Court passed following order:–

“…......Pendency

of the case shall not stand in the way of the petitioner or any other

students to get them admitted in the recognized institute to which

they have been allocated.”

3.6 It

is an undisputed fact and an admitted position that NCTE has

withdrawn the recognition granted to Shree Swaminarayan B.Ed.

College, run by Shree Sahajanand Education Trust, under section 17(1)

of the NCTE Act, 1993, by an order dated 25.07.2011, after its 151

meeting held 27-29.06.2011, on the ground that the college had not

appointed a Principal in the college. The order further stated that

the said recognition would stand withdrawn “from the

academic session next following the date of withdrawal order”,

NCTE also advised the affiliating body/State Government not to

admit/allot any student to the college. The order also clarified that

according to Section 17(4) of the NCTE Act, 1993, the qualification

in teacher education obtained pursuant to such course or training of

after undertaking a course or training in such institution, shall not

be treated as a valid qualification for the purpose of employment

under the Central Government, any State Government or University, or

in any school, college or other educational body aided by the Central

Government or any State Government.

4. We

have heard learned Counsel Mr. H.J. Nanavati, appearing for the

petitioner in SCA No. 10359 of 2011 and Mr. Yatin Oza, Sr. Counsel

appearing with Mr. B.P. Gupta for the petitioners in SCA No. 12311 of

2011, as also Mr. Amit M. Panchal, learned Counsel appearing for

respondent University and Mr. A.J. Shastri, learned Counsel appearing

for respondent NCTE.

5. Learned

Senior Counsel Mr. Yatin Oza, appearing for the students studying in

the college stated that as the students had been allotted to the

respondent college earlier, the students had started their classes in

the said college from the beginning of the academic session and he

has further urged that the students may not be shifted from the

respondent college to any other college. Mr. Oza further contended

that as the college now appointed a Principal, the respondent college

may be re-affiliated with the University in order to secure the

future of the students who had been allotted to the respondent

college.

6. Mr.

Amit Panchal, appearing for the respondent University has referred to

an affidavit-in-reply filed on 14.09.2011, and has stated that the

action taken by the respondent University was a consequential action

and had been taken after the withdrawal order was passed by NCTE.

He also contended that under the provisions of Section 17(3) of the

NCTE Act, 1993, once the recognition of an institution is withdrawn

under sub-section (1), such institution is required to discontinue

the course or training in teacher education, and the concerned

University or examining body is required to cancel affiliation of the

institution in accordance with the order passed under sub-section

(1), with effect from the end of the academic session next following

the date of communication of the said order and therefore, it would

not be permissible for the University to permit the college to admit

students or allot students to the said college, in view of the

recognition having been withdrawn.

7. Learned

Counsel has invited attention of this Court to the Judgment dated

14.05.2010, wherein while disposing of a group of petitions being

Special Civil Application Nos. 3205 of 2009 and cognate matters the

Division Bench of this Court issued the following directions:–

“27. Under

the circumstances, these petitions as well as Civil Applications are

disposed of with following

directions

:

i)

All the petitioners shall remove all the defects and confirm to all

the norms of NCTE as applicable to the concerned institution as

interpreted and explained here-in-above for which the petitioners

shall have time upto 31.12.2010.

ii)

Institutions after curing all the defects not later than by 7.1.2011,

shall intimate to the NCTE that defects have been cured and invite

the inspection team to carry out inspection.

For

the above purpose, the concerned institution shall along with its

communication to NCTE attach a draft of Rs. 10,000/- in favor of NCTE

for one time cost of such inspection. If any institution fails to

send such a communication within the time permitted, its recognition

shall automatically stand withdrawn without requirement of passing

any order. Though students already admitted shall not be affected by

such withdrawal, the institution will not be permitted to admit any

students in the next academic year.

iii)

Upon receipt of such a communication, NCTE shall depute a team of

qualified persons to visit the institutions, verify the

infrastructure and other facilities available as also inspect the

documents with respect to such facilities.

iv)

Upon inspection, if NCTE finds that all defects are cured,

certificate to that effect shall be given to the concerned

institution and its recognition shall be continued.

v)

If upon inspection however, NCTE finds any of the defects still

remaining, it will be open for NCTE to pass appropriate orders in

accordance with law after issuing show cause notice to the concerned

institution/trust.

vi)

In view of above directions, all the orders cancelling recognition of

the institutions are set aside. It is clarified that quashing of

orders passed by the NCTE is not on merits, but only to enable the

institutions to fulfill all the requirements within the extended

time.”

8. Mr.

Panchal has further contended that the aforementioned judgment of

this Court has not been modified or stayed or set aside by the

Honourable Supreme Court, the directions issued therein would be

binding on all concerned including the respondent college and

therefore, it would not lie in the mouth of the college to not comply

with the directions contained in the aforesaid judgment of this Court

and yet challenge the action of the University and NCTE and claim

reliefs from this Court. He has further submitted that the order

passed by NCTE came to be served in the office of the University on

17.08.2011, and in view of the withdrawal order dated 25.07.2011

being required to be complied by the university an order dated

18.08.2011 was passed and it was indicated to the college that no

students shall be allotted to the college and the college shall not

any admit student in view of the withdrawal order dated 25.07.2011.

The learned advocate stated that the students who were initially

allotted to the college in pursuance of the Ist round admission

process having been conducted between 13.07.2011 to 16.07.2011, were

transferred and allotted to other recognised B.Ed. Colleges which are

affiliated to the university between 20.08.2011 to 25.08.2011, with a

view to ensure that the students who were allotted to the college

earlier do not suffer.

9. Learned

advocate has further contended that this Court while issuing notice

on the respondents on 16.8.2011 in the petition filed by the

respondent college, directed the respondents to ensure that the

students do not suffer, and thought fit not to grant the relief

prayed for by the college. Since, the college had failed to get any

reliefs in Special Civil Application No. 10359 of 2011 and in Civil

Application No. 8789 of 2011, the petitioners as students of

respondent college have subsequently filed Special Civil Application

No. 12311 of 2011 in this Court.

10. It

was contended by the learned advocate appearing for the respondent

college that the person who was serving as a Principal in the college

earlier had left the college in the midst of the academic year and

hence, the college did not have a Principal during the time when the

NCTE visited the college. The learned advocate further contended that

the college had appointed one Dr. Anilsinh Surendrasinh Chauhan as a

Principal on 27.06.2011 and on the same day an application was made

to the University for approving the appointment of the Principal for

the B.Ed. College and the College had thus, rectified the

irregularity pointed out in the order passed by the NCTE.

11. Learned

counsel for the University submitted that the B.Ed. Course is of 1

year and consists of 2 Semesters. Further, the 1^st

Semester B.Ed. Examination are scheduled to commence from 14.11.2011,

and the last date for submission of Examination forms for the said

examination is 10.10.2011. Attention of this Court has been drawn to

the Academic Calendar for the Academic Year 2011-2012 of the

respondent University annexed at Annexure A in Special Civil

Application No. 12311 of 2011 and it has been categorically pointed

out that the Academic Year for the B.Ed. Course of 1 year consists of

two Semesters – Semester-I and Semester-II, which have two

Academic Sessions in a year. The Deans of all Faculties of

Hemchandracharya North Gujarat University prepare the Academic

Calendar before the beginning of the Academic Year in the month of

February/March and before the commencement of the Academic Session

and the said Calendar is made known to all concerned.

12. Learned

advocate also contended that the college had already been intimated

of the decision of the University by letter dated 09.09.2011, the

college had been informed that the appointment of Shri Chauhan had

not been approved in view of Shri Chauhan having not obtained his

Ph.D. Degree from a University established under the Central Act or

State Act or the University Grants Commission Act and therefore, the

college is not entitled to claim that the college had made

appointment of principal in accordance with the provisions of the

N.C.T.E Act and in accordance with law.

13.

Reliance was placed on the Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court

in the case of Chairman, Bhartia Education Society and another

versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others reported in (2011)

4 SCC 527 and more particularly the principles enunciated in

paragraphs 9, 11, 13, 15, 18, 19, 22 and 24 of the said Judgment. He

has invited our attention to the judgment rendered by the Honourable

Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Vikas Sahebrao

Roundale, reported in (1992) 4 SCC 435 and stated that while taking

judicial notice of mushroom growth of ill-equipped and under-staffed

unrecognized educational institutions in Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Tamil

Nadu and Maharashtra States and other States too, has observed that

the field of education is found to be fertile, perennial and

profitable business venture with least capital out-lay and without

complying with the statutory requirements, establish educational or

training institutions ill equipped to impart education and have the

students admitted. In the said case in paragraph 6, while referring

to the case of N.M. Nageshwaramma versus State of Andhra Pradesh

and another, reported in 1986 (Supp) SCC 166, has observed

that if the Government is directed to permit the students admitted in

those institutions to appear in the examinations, the Honourable

Court would practically be encouraging and condoning the

establishment of unauthorized institutions and has observed that it

is not appropriate that the jurisdiction of the Honourable Court

under Article 32 or Article 226 of the Constitution of India should

be frittered away for such a purpose. So the request to permit the

students who had training in unrecognized schools was deprecated by

the Honourable Supreme Court of India. In the said case the

Honourable Supreme Court of India made the following observations: –

“6.

In N.M. Nageshwaramma v. State of A.P.¹

this Court held that the private institutions unauthorisedly

established were invariably ill housed, ill staffed and ill equipped.

If the Government is directed to permit the students admitted into

those institutions, to appear in the examination, we will practically

be encouraging and condoning the establishment of unauthorized

institutions. It is not appropriate that the jurisdiction of the

court either under Article 32 or Article 226 of the Constitution

should be frittered away for such a purpose. So the request to permit

the students who had training in unrecognized schools was deprecated

by this Court.

7.

In A.P. Christians Medical Educational Society v. Govt.

of A.P. when fervent request with all persuasion by the senior

counsel, Shri K.K. Venugopal, to permit the students admitted in

unrecognized and unauthorized institution to pursue balance course

was made, this Court noted thus: (SCC p. 678, para 10)

“We

do not think that we can possibly accede to the request made... on

behalf of the students. Any direction of the nature sought for...

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.”

The

request to permit the students to appear in the examination and to

accommodate them elsewhere to enable them to prosecute further study

was negative by this Court.

8.

In All Bihar Christian Schools Association v. State

of Bihar³ this Court, when the

ill-equipped and mismanaged schools were taken over by an Act whose

validity was challenged on the anvil of Article 30 of the

Constitution, held that even the minority institutions are subject to

statutory regulations and establishment and maintenance of such an

educational institution should be in conformity with the statute and

the State is entitled to regulate the establishment of the

educational institutions and the admission of the students in those

educational institutions. It was held that the educational

institutions of the minorities have no right to maladministration.

Any rule or direction issued by the Government to prevent

maladministration would be valid.

9.

In State of T.N. v. St. Joseph Teachers Training

Institute⁴ the High Court of Madras

while dismissing the writ petitions filed by unauthorized educational

institutions, gave direction to admit the students for the

examination. This Court held that the direction of admitting students

of unauthorized educational institutions and thus seeking direction

for permitting the students to appear at the examination has been

looked with disfavour by this Court. It was held that since the

students of unrecognized institutions were legally not entitled to

appear at the examination conducted by the Education Department of

the Government, the High Court acted in violation of law in granting

permission to such students for appearing at the public examination.

Accordingly the appeal was allowed and the direction issued was set

aside.

10.

In Students of Dattatraya Adhyapak Vidyalya v. State

of Maharashtra this Court held thus:

“We

are coming across cases of this type very often where allegations are

made that innocent students are admitted into unrecognized schools

and are made to suffer. Some courts out of compassion occasionally

interfere to relieve the hardships. We find that the result of this

situation is total indiscipline in the field of regulation.”

11.

In Andhra Kesari Educational Society v. Director

of School Education relied upon by the counsel for the

respondents, no doubt this Court directed the Government to consider

whether the students in the appellant's college have undergone the

necessary B.Ed. course and has permitted them to appear in the

ensuing examination and publish their results. In that case

there was a long drawn history of the recognition of the institute

and that the direction was issued by this Court in the special

circumstances therein. Therefore, it cannot be taken as a precedent,

in particular, in the light of the law laid down by this Court as

stated supra.

12.

…. The ill-equipped and ill-housed institutions and

sub-standard staff therein are counter-productive and detrimental to

inculcating spirit of enquiry and excellence in the students. The

disregard of statutory compliance would amount to letting loose of

innocent and unwary children. The proceedings of the recent seminar

held in Delhi, as published by the Times of India dated

August 4, 1992, would demonstrate the admission by the teachers

that

they are not properly trained to cope up with the growing needs of

the society and are unsuited to the duties they have to shoulder in

imparting teaching to the children. The teacher plays pivotal role in

moulding the career, character and moral fibres and aptitude for

educational excellence in impressive young children. Formal education

needs proper equipping of the teachers to meet the challenges of the

day to impart lessons with latest techniques to the students on

secular, scientific and rational outlook. A well-equipped teacher

could bring the needed skills and intellectual capabilities to the

students in their pursuits. The teacher is adorned as Gurudevobhava,

next after parents, as he is a principal instrument to awakening the

child to the cultural ethos, intellectual excellence and discipline.

The teachers, therefore, must keep abreast of ever-changing

techniques, the needs of the society and to cope up with the

psychological approach to the aptitudes of the children to perform

that pivotal role. In short teachers need to be endowed and energised

with needed potential to serve the needs of the society. The

qualitative training in the training colleges or schools would

inspire and motivate them into action to the benefit of the students.

For equipping such trainee students in a school or a college,

all facilities and equipments are absolutely necessary and

institutions bereft thereof have no place to exist nor entitled to

recognition. In that behalf compliance of the statutory requirements

is insisted upon. Slackening the standard and judicial fiat to

control the mode of education and examining system are detrimental to

the efficient management of the education. The directions to the

appellants to disobey the law is subversive of the rule of law, a

breeding ground for corruption and feeding source for indiscipline.

The High Court, therefore, committed manifest error in law, in

exercising its prerogative power conferred under Article 226 of the

Constitution, directing the appellants to permit the students to

appear for the examination etc."

14. The

learned advocate for the University also placed reliance on the

judgments rendered by the Apex Court in the case of National Board of

Examinations v. G. Anand Ramamurthy and others, reported in (2006) 5

SCC 515 and in the case of Bihar Public Service Commission and others

Vs. Kamini (2007) 5 SCC 519, in the case of University of Mysore Vs.

Govinda Rao, reported in AIR 1965 SC 491 and in the case of All

India Council for Technical Education v. Surinder Kumar Dhawan and

others, reported in 2009 AIR SCW 3124, wherein the Honourable

Supreme Court in paragraph 13 has made observations in respect of

rule of statutory expert bodies on education and role of Courts.

15. Considering

the developments that have taken place during the pendency of the

petition and also taking into consideration the relevant factors

including the conduct of the petitioner college, which is not in the

interest of students and considering the judgments of the apex Court,

we are of the view that no relief can be granted in favour of the

petitioner college. We have also taken notice of the fact that the

students have already been transferred to other recognized colleges

imparting education in the course of B.Ed. We have also taken notice

of the fact that the admissions to B.Ed Course have already been

completed by the University on 2nd of September, 2011 and any

admissions after 10.9.2011 would not entitle a student to keep terms

for reason of inadequate attendance.

16. However,

we need to address one important question and that is with regard to

Section 17 (3) of the National Council for Teacher Education Act,

1993. It has been vociferously submitted, relying on Section 17(3)

that if the recognition of an institution is withdrawn under

sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Act, then the same will be with

effect from the end of academic session next following the date of

communication of the said order. According to the learned counsel

for the petitioner, the order passed by NCTE withdrawing the

recognition of the petitioner college will come into effect from next

academic session i.e. 2012-13 and not in the current year 2011-12.

As per the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner's

college, if that is the case then the college must be permitted to

impart education to the students and the students may not be

transferred to other recognized colleges.

We

need to understand the true import of the words "with effect

from the end of the academic session next following the date of

communication of the said order". It is brought to our notice

that the B.Ed. Course is of 1 year consisting of 2 Semesters.

Further, the 1^st Semester B.Ed. Examinations are scheduled

to commence from 14.11.2011, and the last date for submission of

Examination forms is 10.10.2011. Attention of this Court has been

drawn to the Academic Calendar for the Academic Year 2011-2012 of the

respondent University and it has been categorically pointed out that

the Academic Year for the B.Ed. Course of 1 year consists of two

Semesters – Semester-I and Semester-II, which have two Academic

Sessions in a year. The Deans of all Faculties of Hemchandracharya

North Gujarat University prepare the Academic Calendar before the

beginning of the Academic Year in the month of February/March and

before the commencement of the Academic Session and the said Calendar

is made known to all concerned.

17.

From a perusal of the said Academic Calendar we found that the

Academic Year commenced on 15.06.2011 and the Academic Session of

Semester-I commenced on 24.06.2011. The Academic Session of the

Semester-I would come to end on 23.10.2011 and the Diwali Vacation

would commence from 24.10.2011 until 13.11.2011. The second term of

Semester-II would commence on 14.11.2011 and the Academic Session

would commence on 08.12.2011. The second term of the Academic Session

would end on 26.04.2012 and the Summer Vacation would start from

27.04.2012 until 13.06.2012. The minimum requirement necessary for

attendance by a student for keeping terms in the 1^st term

is 80 days and 2^nd term is 80 days.

18. In

light of what has been observed above, the contention that the order

of withdrawal of recognition will take effect from the next academic

session 2012-13 is devoid of any merit. The petitioner college is

admittedly not having recognition and the petitioners of Special

Civil Application No. 12311 of 2011 – students cannot be

considered to be students studying in a college recognised by the

National Council for Teacher Education. In the present case in view

of the admission process having been completed and necessary steps

having been undertaken to protect the interest of the students by

transferring/allotting the students to other colleges which are

recognised and affiliated to the respondent University, it would not

be permissible at this stage to direct the University to allot and

permit the petitioner college to admit students as such students

would not be able to keep the terms as required under the University

Ordinance. Moreover, such a direction would be opposed to the

provisions of the Hemchandracharya North Gujarat University Act and

the National Council for Teacher Education Act and would run contrary

to the principles enunciated in judgments of the Apex Court in the

cases of Chairman, Bhartia Education Society (supra) and

State of Maharashtra (supra), wherein the Apex Court has frowned upon

directions issued by courts to permit the students to study in

unrecognized institutions and be allowed to appear in the

examinations.

19. In

the above view of the matter, both the writ petitions fail and are

rejected accordingly with no order as to costs.

(A.L.

Dave, Actg. C.J.)

(J.B.

Pardiwala, J.)

*/Mohandas