Cwp No.20361 of 2012(Oandm). Vs. Maharishi Dayanand University and Others - Court Judgment

CWP No.20361 of 2012 -1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH1 CWP No.20361 of 2012(O&M). Date of decision:

13. 01.2014 Om Education Trust (Regd.) ...Petitioner Vs. Maharishi Dayanand University and others ...Respondents 2. CWP No.21663 of 2012. I.P.College of Education ...Petitioner Vs. Maharishi Dayanand University and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE GURMEET SINGH SANDHAWALIA ***** Present: Mr. Vivek Khatri, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Rao, Advocate for Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate for respondent no.1. Mr. Ankit Goyal, Advocate for respondent no.2. Ms. Ramandeep Kaur, Advocate for respondent no.3. Mr. Abhinandan Pandhir, Advocate for Mr. Navin S. Bhardwaj, Advocate for N.C.T.E. **** G.S.SANDHAWALIA, J.

(Oral).

1. This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition No.20361 of 2012-Om Education Trust (Regd.) Khandarai Vs. Maharishi Dayanand University and others and Civil Writ PetitionNo.21663 of 2012-I.P.College of Education, Rohtak Vs. Maharishi Dayanand University and others since in both these petitions common question of law and facts are Kumar Pardeep 2014.01.27 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.20361 of 2012 -2- *** involved. However, for dictating order, the facts have been taken from Civil Writ Petition No.20361 of 2012.

2. In the present case, the petitioner is aggrieved against the decision of respondent no.1-University whereby intake capacity of the petitioner college has been reduced from 200 seats to 100 seats for the B.Ed. Couse for academic session 2012-13 in the admission notice available on the internet on the ground that the college had failed to submit National Assessment and Accreditation Certificate (NAAC”.) with 'B' grading which was mandatory in view of letter dated 7.2.2011.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner society is a registered society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and set up a college called the Om College of Education, Khandrai, Tehsil Gohana, District Sonepat. The college is a private self-financing College of Education and does not receive any grant in aid from the State Government.

2. That for the academic session 2007-08, the petitioner College was given approval for intake capacity of 100 seats by the National Council for Teacher Education( hereinafter called as “the NCTE”.). The intake capacity was increased from 100 to 200 seats vide letter dated 2.9.2008 (Annexure P/3) by the NCTE subject to various conditions. Respondent no.1 University also granted affiliation for the additional 100 seats vide order dated 17.9.2008 (Annexure P/4). As per the Regulation 8(4) and 8(5) of the National Council for Teacher Education(Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2009, an institution was permitted to apply for a new course of Bachelor of Education after it had been accredited by the NAAC with at least letter Kumar Pardeep 2014.01.27 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.20361 of 2012 -3- *** Grade 'B'. As per said Clause 8(5), an institution which had been granted additional intake in Bachelor of Education after promulgation of Regulation, 2005 i.e. 13.1.2006 was to get itself accredited by NAAC with a letter Grade 'B' in the new grading system on or before 1.4.2010 failing which additional intake granted was to stand withdrawn with effect from academic session 2010-11. It is further averred that vide letter dated 13.7.2012, the cut off date of 1.4.2010 was changed to 1.4.2012 by subsequent amendment. The college had submitted application for grant of accreditation on 29.6.2010. In pursuance of self appraisal report along with amount of ` 50,000/- filed on 3.2.2012, inspection was conducted on 20.3.2012 and 21.3.2012 and no final accreditation was granted. Thereafter in a meeting held on 9.7.2012, it was decided in respect of all applications pending with the NAAC, action need not be taken for withdrawal of additional intake/recognition which was apparent from letter dated 13.7.2012 (Annexure P-6). Subsequently, petitioner received letter dated 21.4.2012 that it had been accredited with grade 'C' for a period of five years with effect from 21.4.2012. The NCTE vide letter dated 17.7.2012 again issued instructions that institutions which had applied for accreditation of NAAC prior to 1.4.2012 in their case, action need not be taken for withdrawal of additional intake. Accordingly, it was pleaded that case of the petitioner was covered by the said letter. However, respondent no.1-University reduced the intake of the college from 200 seats to 100 seats on the ground that it did not have the mandatory 'B' grading in view of letter dated 7.2.2011 and had also failed to submit proof of having applied with the NAAC for accreditation before 1.4.2012. The petitioner had filed statutory appeal dated 3.8.2012 to Kumar Pardeep 2014.01.27 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.20361 of 2012 -4- *** respondent NAAC. Accordingly, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. Notice of motion was issued by this Court on 12.10.2012 and reliance was placed on an order dated 6.10.2012 passed in Civil Writ Petition No.17478 of 2012-Shri Vaishno Devi Shiksha Samiti Vs. Mararishi Dayanand University & others whereby intake of the petitioner-institute was directed not to be reduced and it was entitled to participate in the counselling for the full intake.

4. In the written statement filed by the respondent No.1- University, the plea taken was that the accreditation from NAAC was to be before 1.4.2012 with at least 'B' grading and the additional intake was to be withdrawn for the academic session 2012-13 as per letter dated 7.2.2011 issued from NCTE. The Academic Council took a decision on 29.6.2012 that colleges which had not obtained accreditation till 1.4.2012, the additional intake from such colleges shall be withdrawn for the session 2012-13. Some of the Colleges of Education had submitted request along with letter dated 17.7.2012 of the NCTE wherein it has been stated that in the light of the decision in the NCTE meeting held on 9.7.2012 in respect of all the institutions which had applied for accreditation of NAAC prior to 1.4.2012 including the institutions listed in the enclosure to the above said letter, action need not to be taken for withdrawal of additional intake/recognition. Some of the colleges thus submitted proof of having submitted applications with NAAC before 1.4.2012 for making admission against the earlier sanctioned intake of B.Ed. Course including additional seats and in P.G. Course i.e. Master of Education. After looking at the proofs further proceedings have been dropped as per the above said decision of the Academic Council and the Kumar Pardeep 2014.01.27 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.20361 of 2012 -5- *** matter was again considered against the colleges which have not submitted the proof of having submitted the application prior to 1.4.2012 as also against the college which had been accredited in C grade. The University had reduced the seats of B.Ed. of those colleges of Education, who have failed to submit the NAAC accreditation certificate/proof and of not having submitted application prior to cut off date with NAAC. It is submitted that being a central body NCTE was to take first action by way of withdrawal of recognition of additional seats of B.Ed. but till today nothing has been heard from NCTE which is central body. The University was taking follow up action as per the decision of NCTE as explained above. Since the petitioner college had been accredited by NAAC and awarded grade 'C' and accordingly respondent no.1-University reduced the additional intake of seats in view of the above direction. However, in terms of the interim order passed by this Court, the admissions against additional 100 seats had already been allowed subject to final outcome of the writ petition. The main contesting body was respondents no.2 and 4 being the Accreditation Body and Central Body respectively. The University was only taking action as per their direction. The respondent no.1-University had granted provisional affiliation for intake of 100 seats vide letter dated 13.7.2006 and thereafter also granted provisional affiliation for additional 100 seats in B.Ed course for the session 2008-09 as per Annexure R-1/5. Perusal of Annexure P-10 nowhere shows that the application of the petitioner college was registered on 29.6.2010 i.e. before 1.4.2012 as alleged by the petitioner college and, therefore, withdrawal of additional intake by the respondent-University was justified. Kumar Pardeep 2014.01.27 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.20361 of 2012 -6- *** 5. Similarly respondent no.3-Kurukshetra University submitted that the institution run by the petitioner society was accredited with grade 'C'. Reference made by the petitioner to the colleges mentioned in paragraph 8 was distinguished on the ground that they were allowed to participate in the centralized counselling for admission to B.Ed course for the session 2012-13 as appeal made by them had been accepted by NAAC. It is pointed that intake was reduced to 100 seats by respondent no.1-University.

6. No written statement was filed on behalf of respondent no.4, the NCTE.

7. In the short reply filed on behalf of respondent no.2, the plea taken was that the appeal filed by the petitioner has been finalised and in pursuance thereto Letter of Intent had been issued on 23.4.2013 for fresh assessment and accreditation. The petitioner was informed on 10.6.2013 to upload the Self Appraisal Report and intimate NAAC and after one month to send 5 hard copies and 1 CD to NAAC for taking the accreditation process forward and the writ petition had been rendered infructuous in view of the decision of the appeal.

8. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute in the present case is squarely covered by the decision in Civil Writ Petition No.17478 of 2012-Shri Vaishno Devi Shiksha Samiti Vs. Mararishi Dayanand University & others decided on 6.10.2012 wherein the issue of 17th meeting of the NCTE held on 9.7.2012 was subject matter of consideration and the accreditation of 'B' and 'C' grade institutions. It is submitted that vide letter dated 17.7.2012, respondent no.2 had included the institutions against whom action was not to be taken for withdrawal Kumar Pardeep 2014.01.27 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.20361 of 2012 -7- *** of intake/recognition and that the petitioner's name figured at Sr. No.22 of the said list with category 'B' grading. It is further submitted that the petitioner college had been granted additional intake of 100 seats way back on 2.9.2008 vide Annexure P-3 and affiliation had also been granted on 17.9.2008 vide Annexure P-4. The college had submitted the application for granting accreditation on 29.6.2010 and from letter of NAAC dated 19.4.2010 (Annexure P-7), it would be clear that the on line request had been received and inspection had been conducted on 20/21.3.2012 and the subsequent grading with 'C' grade on 25.4.2012 valid from 21.4.2012 would not entitle the respondent no.1-University to reduce the intake. It is further submitted that for the subsequent academic year 2013-14, provisional affiliation had also been granted for running B.Ed. Course with the strength of 200 seats vide notification dated 15.11.2013. Accordingly, it is prayed that the result of the students who were admitted in pursuance of the interim order dated 12.10.2012 of this court may be declared, and their admission be regularised.

9. Counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits that once 'C' grading had been granted on 25.4.2012, then petitioner college was not entitled to make admission of the students against additional intake.

10. A perusal of judgment in Shri Vaishno Devi Shiksha Samiti's case (supra) would go on to show that the same issue was matter of consideration and in the said case also, the petitioner's establishment have been visited on 21.6.2012 and 22.6.2012 and Self Appraisal Report had been filed on 23.2.2012. In the present case as noticed above, the petitioner institution has also submitted an Kumar Pardeep 2014.01.27 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.20361 of 2012 -8- *** application for accreditation which was apparent from letter dated 19.4.2010 (Annexure P-7) and the said institution had also filed a self appraisal report along an amount of ` 50,000/- on 3.2.2012. The premises were inspected on 20/21.3.2012 and in the letter dated 25.4.2012 issued by NAAC, the petitioner's name figured at Sr. No.85. Therefore, it was to be given the benefit which is covered by concession extended by NCTE vide communication dated 13.7.2012 (Annexure P-6) and 17.7.2012 (Annexure P-10) and no action was needed to be taken for withdrawal of the additional intake/recognition. The decision of the University to withdraw additional intake was, thus, not justified and would not be covered in view of exemption granted by the NCTE. The relevant portion of the observations of the Coordinate Bench in Shri Vaishno Devi Shiksha Samiti's case (supra) read as under:- “It is not in dispute in any manner before me that petitioner- institution has already submitted the application for grant of accreditation on 03.02.2012. The resultant effect of Annexure P-6 read with Annexure P-10 therefore, would be that the intake capacity of the petitioner-institution could not be reduced from 200 seats to 100 seats. This would be more so as the name of the petitioner institution is duly reflected in the Annexure attached with Annexure P-6 and it is when read with NOTE2given under the list of institutions in the impugned order Annexure P-11 would clearly indicate that the additional intake of all these colleges, including the petitioner-institution, could not be withdrawn if they had applied for accreditation or those which have atleast letter Kumar Pardeep 2014.01.27 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.20361 of 2012 -9- *** Grade B, which was mandatory in view of letter of NCTE dated 07.02.2012. The decision taken by the University to withdraw this intake is on the ground that the NCTE has now graded the petitioner institution with letter Grade C and as such the petitioner-institution is not graded letter Grade B and hence it will not be covered by the concession extended by NCTE vide Annexure P-6 and P-10. In addition, it is also revealed during the course of argument that University has itself also carried out the assessment of these institutions for the purpose of grading and on that basis, it is being made out before me that institution has been Graded C by the University as well. In this regard, the counsel for the petitioner has also invited my attention to an order passed by first Division Bench in Public Interest Litigation titled as Prashikshit Adhyapak Sangh vs. State of Haryana and others (CWP No.20056 of 2009) decided on 18.09.2012 where this Hon'ble Court has issued direction to the University to carry out fresh inspections of the colleges affiliated with them and in the meantime, has modified the order declining permission to admit students and has now permitted the admission subject to a fresh inspection by the University as per the grading norms. As per counsel for the petitioner this would take care of the objection raised by the University where the petitioner-institution has been graded with letter Kumar Pardeep 2014.01.27 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.20361 of 2012 -10- *** Grade C by the University. Counsel appearing for NCTE, however, states that there seems to be some confusion in regard to Annexure P- 10. The counsel wants me to read Annexure P-10 in continuation of Annexure P-6. To my mind even if we adopt that course it may not lead to any different situation. What is stated in Annexure P-6 is that the NCTE has taken a decision in its meeting held on 09.07.2012 that action need not be taken for withdrawing the additional intake/recognition of all those institutions, whose applications are pending with NAAC. The name of the petitioner-institution is reflected in the list of the institutions attached with Annexure P-6. Obviously, the action, if any, taken to withdraw the intake of this institution, has to pend as per Annexure P- 6. The necessary consequence has to be that action to withdraw the intake of this institution cannot be taken specially so when the institution is listed in the Annexure. The counsel appearing for NCTE obviously is making reference to the assessment made by NAAC, which has graded the petitioner-institute with letter Grade C. His submission obviously would be that once the petitioner institution has been graded, it may not be termed as an institution whose application for consideration is pending. If the matter is considered only in the light of Annexure P-6, the counsel would appear justified in so submitting. This was Kumar Pardeep 2014.01.27 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.20361 of 2012 -11- *** followed immediately thereafter by Annexure P-10. The decision now is taken across the Board and all the institutions, who had applied for accreditation of NAAC prior 1st April, 2012, and this include the institutions, which were listed with the enclosure attached with Annexure P-6, thus including the petitioner-institution. Obviously, the petitioner- institution cannot be excluded from the purview of Annexure P-10. xxx xxx xxxx Resultantly, the action of the University in reducing the intake capacity of the petitioner-institution from 200 seats to 100 seats cannot be sustained. The same is set aside. It is held that the petitioner-institution would be entitled to make admission for full intake capacity of 200 seats for the course. It shall be subject to the conditions as are imposed in the advertisement. The students should be put to sufficient notice in this regard so that nobody is taken unaware of these conditions that admission would be at their risk and responsibility.”. 11. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that the matter is squarely covered by the above said observations. The facts are identical and the submission of the counsel for the respondents that because 'C' grade has been given and a decision has been taken, respondent no.1-University was entitled to withdraw additional intake is without any justification. It is also to be noticed that respondent no.4 NCTE has failed to contest the present case and there is no denial to the Kumar Pardeep 2014.01.27 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CWP No.20361 of 2012 -12- *** fact that for the subsequent year provisional affiliation had also been granted with additional intake of total 200 seats by the respondent no1- University vide notification dated 15.11.2013. Even perusal of reply of respondent no.2 would go on to show that letter of intent issued to the petitioner has been accepted and he has been informed to upload its self appraisal report.

12. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed and the petitioner college's decision to make admission for the B.Ed. course for the year 2012-13 is affirmed. The result of the students who were admitted in pursuance of the interim order of this Court dated 12.10.2012 shall be declared by respondent no.1-University within four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

13. Both the writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.

14. A photocopy of this judgment be placed on the record of connected case file. 13.01.2014 (G.S.SANDHAWALIA) Pka JUDGE Kumar Pardeep 2014.01.27 10:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh