Binod Bihari Mahato Memorial Teachers Training College Through Its Director Cum Chairman Vs. Vinoba Bhave University Through Its Vice Chancellor and Ors - Court Judgment

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 5342 of 2014    Binod Bihari Mahato Memorial Teachers' Training College, Sahu  Bahiyar,   Topchanchi,   Dhanbad   through   its   Director­cum­ Chairman, Mathura Prasad Mahto, son of Late Rishikesh Mahto,  residing   at   Tata   Sijua,   Basti   No.   6,   P.O.   Bhelatand,   P.S.   Jogta,  District Dhanbad ... … Petitioner Versus 1.   Vinoba   Bhave   University,   Hazaribagh   through   its   Vice­ Chancellor,   Hazaribagh,   at   and   P.O.   Hazaribagh,   District  Hazaribagh 2.   Registrar,   Vinoba   Bhave   University,   Hazaribagh,   at   and   P.O.  Hazaribagh, District Hazaribagh 3.   The   State   of   Jharkhand   through   the   Secretary,   Human  Resources   Development   Department   (Higher   Education),  Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa,  P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi 4. Director, Secondary Education, Human Resources Development  Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa,  P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi 5.   National   Council   for   Teacher   Education   through   its   Regional  Director,   15,   Neelakantha   Nagar,   Nayapalli,   Bhubaneshwar­ 751012 ... … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR ­­­­­ For the Petitioner : Mr. M.S. Anwar, Sr. Advocate   Mr. Altaf Hussain, Advocate   Mr. Afaque Ahmed, Advocate   For the State : Mr. Prashant Kr. Singh, G.P. VI For Respondent­Univ. : Mr. Rajeev Singh, Advocate   Mrs. I. Sen Choudhary, Advocate   Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Singh, Advocate For Respondent­NCTE : Mr. P.D. Agarwal, Advocate ­­­­­  06/15.05.2015 Seeking   modification   of   affiliation   dated   27.07.2013  granted   to   the   petitioner­college   for   Academic  Session   2013­14  and seeking a direction upon the respondents to grant affiliation  to   the   petitioner­college   for   Academic   Session   2013­14   and  onwards, the present writ petition has been filed.  2. The   petitioner­college   is   run   by   a   registered   Trust  2 namely, Rishikesh Mahato Memorial Public Educational Trust. It  made   an   application   on   25.11.2011   for   grant   of  no   objection   certificate and in response thereof, the respondent­Government of  Jharkhand issued letter dated 29.03.2012. The National Council  for   Teacher   Education   (NCTE)   granted   recognition   to   the  petitioner­college   for   one   year   B.Ed.   Course   from   Academic  Session   2013­14   and   thereafter,   the   respondent­Vinoba   Bhave  University issued letter dated 27.07.2013, granting affiliation to  the petitioner­college for the Academic Session 2013­14.  3. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner refers to  Section 4(19) of the University Act and Section 14 of the NCTE  Act,   1993   and  submits that once  the  NCTE  takes a decision to  grant recognition to an Institute, the same shall be binding upon  the   State   Government   as   well   as   the   University.   There   is   no  provision for grant of temporary affiliation or affiliation for one  year   which   can   be   extended   by   the   University   only   upon   an  application   made   by   the   B.Ed.   College.   Relying   on   decision   in  “State   of   Maharashtra   Vs.   Sant   Dnyaneshwar   Shikshan   Shastra   Mahavidyalaya   &   Ors.”,   (2006)   9   SCC   1,  the   learned   Senior  Counsel for the petitioner submits that the primacy of NCTE Act,  1993   is   no   longer   in   dispute.   It   has   been   held   by   the   Hon'ble  Supreme   Court   in   “Sant   Dnyaneshwar   Shikshan   Shastra   Mahavidyalaya” case that once the NCTE takes a decision to grant  recognition,   it   is   not   open   to   other   authorities   including,   the  University to take a contrary decision. It is thus, submitted that  the affiliation dated 27.07.2013 issued by the respondent­Vinoba  Bhave University is liable to be modified to the extent that it must  relate   for   Academic   Session   2013­14   and   onwards   that   is,   it  should   be   an   order   of   permanent   affiliation.   Per   contra,   the  learned   counsel   appearing   for   the   respondents   referred   to   the  letter issued by the NCTE and submitted that the affiliating body  can impose suitable conditions.  3 4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by  the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on  record.  5. In   the   writ   petition,   the   petitioner   has   averred   as  under:  11. “That from the aforesaid facts it is evident  that the petitioner made a request and called  upon the respondents to grant the extension of  affiliation including for the session 2014­15 as  early   as   on   22.11.2013   and   reminders  (Annexure­4 and 5 series).

12.  That   even   after   receipt   of   the   aforesaid  representations, the respondents University sat  tight   over   the   matter   and   took   no  steps/positive   steps   for   grant   of   extension   of  affiliation   for   the   session   2014­15   and  onwards. As a matter of fact, the respondents  did not take any action for grant of extension  of   affiliation   to   the   petitioner   college   for   the  session 2014­15 and onwards.  13. That the University has failed to discharge  its   statutory   duty   for   grant   of  affiliation/extension   of   affiliation   to   the  petitioner   college   for   the   academic   session  2014­15 and for the onward session.”     6. From   the   materials   disclosed   in   the   present  proceeding,   it   appears   that   the   respondent­University   granted  affiliation   to   the   petitioner­college   on   27.07.2013   and   the  petitioner took admission for Academic Session 2013­14. It made  an application on 22.11.2013 seeking extension of affiliation for  the Academic Session 2014­15 and onwards. Another application  was submitted by the petitioner on 01.09.2014 and 04.09.2014.  The   applications   dated   22.11.2013   and   01.11.2014   were   for  seeking extension of affiliation whereas, letter dated 04.09.2014  was submitted for permission to take admission for the Academic  Session 2014­15. The respondent­State of Jharkhand has taken a  stand  that  the  University did not submit  proposal on  or before  4 20.03.2014   and   therefore,  it   could   not   be   processed.   From   the  aforesaid,   it   appears   that   though   in   view   of   decision   in  “Maa   Vaishno   Devi   Mahila  Mahavidyalay  Vs.  State   of  Uttar  Pradesh   &   Ors.”, (2013) 2 SCC 617, the University is required to follow the  time schedule, after letter dated 22.11.2013 seeking extension of  affiliation   for   the   Academic   Session   2014­15   and   onwards   was  submitted,   the   petitioner   approached   the   respondent­University  on 01.09.2014 that is, about 9 months after the first application  was   submitted   to   the   respondent­University.   It   has   not   been  disclosed   by   the   petitioner   that   for   grant   of   extension   of  affiliation, it had deposited requisite fee etc. or not. It is not in  dispute that the petitioner did not approach this Court after the  respondent­University allegedly failed to respond to letter dated  22.11.2013.   This  writ  petition   was  filed  on   08.10.2014  and  by  that time, the time schedule fixed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court  in  “Maa   Vaishno   Devi   Mahila   Mahavidyalay”  had   expired   long  back.   In   the   said  case, the  Hon'ble  Supreme  Court  has held as  under:

81.  “….............. Adherence to the schedule is the   essence   of   granting   admission   in   a   fair   and   transparent manner as well as to maintain the   standards of education. The purpose of providing   a time schedule is to ensure that all authorities   concerned   act   within   the   stipulated   time............... 82. …................... None in the hierarchy of the   State   Government,   university,   NCTE   or   any   other authority or body involved in this process   can breach the schedule for any direct or indirect   reason. Anybody who is found to be defaulting in   this behalf is bound to render himself or herself   liable   for   initiation   of   proceedings   under   the   provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971   as well as for a disciplinary action in accordance   with the orders of the Court. …..............”

7. Further,   the   petitioner   after   having   accepted   the  affiliation   order   dated   22.07.2013   and   after   having   admitted  5 students for the Academic Session 2013­14, cannot be permitted  to turn around and seek modification of order dated 27.07.2013.  Moreover,   the   petitioner   applied   for   grant   of   affiliation   for   the  Academic Session 2015­17 which has already been granted to the  petitioner­college. In so far as, the contention raised on behalf of  the petitioner in view of Section 4(19) of the University Act and  Section 14 of the NCTE Act, 1993 is concerned, I am of the view  that   even   though   there   is   no   specific   provision   for   grant   of  affiliation for one year, the said power is implicit in Section 4(19)  of   the   University   Act.   Power   to   grant   affiliation   would   include  power to  grant affiliation with appropriate conditions. Grant of  affiliation for one year is an order with the condition that it would  be   extended   after   re­assessment.   The   letter   dated   17.12.2012  contains   a   specific   condition   that   the   grant   of   registration   is  subject to fulfillment of conditions imposed by the affiliating body.  In   so   far   as,   the   contention   based   on   the   decision   in   “Sant   Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya” case is concerned,  I find that the facts in the said case are entirely different. In the  said case, a policy decision was taken by the State Government  not   to   grant  no   objection  for   starting   new   B.Ed.   Colleges.   The  Hon'ble   Supreme   Court  taking note  of  the  object  of  NCTE  Act,  1993 held that once NCTE takes a decision to grant recognition to  B.Ed. College, it is not open to the State Government not to grant  no   objection   for   grant   of   affiliation.   In   the   present   case,   the  grievance of the petitioner is in respect of grant of affiliation by  the “University” for one year.  8. In view of the specific stand taken by the petitioner in  the writ petition as noticed above, more particularly in paragraph  nos.   11,   12   and   13,   I   find   no   merit   in   the   writ   petition   and  accordingly, it is dismissed.   (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) Manish