In The High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad Special Civil Application No. 8353 of 2012

C/SCA/8353/2012 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8353 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed

to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of

the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of

law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of
India or any order made thereunder ?
================================================================
JAY GURUDUTTA GIRNARI MAHARAJ COLLEGE OF
EDUCATION....Petitioner(s)
Versus
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHERS EDUCATION - WESTERN REGION
& 2....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MS SRUSHTI A THULA, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR PS CHAMPANERI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 2
MR AR THACKER, ADVOCATE with MR SHIVANG THACKER, ADVOCATE
for the Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
Date : 05/08/2015
Page 1 of 21
Downloaded on : Mon Aug 01 11:11:26 IST 2022

ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, the petitioner has
prayed for the following reliefs:
“[A] Your Lordships may be pleased to
admit and allow the present petition.
[B] Your Lordships may be pleased to
issue a writ of certiorari or a writ
in nature of certiorari or any other
appropriate writ/s, order/s, and/or
direction/s be pleased to quash and
set aside the orders dated 28.9.2011
and 15.2.2012 and let the petitioner
institute function as if the
recognition order at AnnexureA is
still in force.
[C] Pending admission, hearing and

final disposal of this petition, Your
Lordships may be pleased to grant ad
interim/interim relief staying the
execution, operation and
implementation of the order dated
28.9.2011 passed by the respondent
No.1 withdrawing the recognition of
the petitioner and order dated
15.2.2012 passed by respondent No.2
dismissing the appeal of the
petitioner and also directing the
respondent No.3 University show the
name of the petitioner trust/college
in the list of the affiliated
colleges with the respondent
University for the year 20122013
Page 2 of 21

(and amend the list to the said

effect if already published) and be
pleased to direct the respondent No.3
University to allot students to the
petitioner trust/college for the
B.Ed. course of the current academic
year 20122013 along with other
colleges.”
2. It appears from the record that the petitioner
applied for grant of recognition for B.Ed.
College as provided under Sections 14 and 15 of
the NCTE Act (hereinafter referred to as “the
Act” for the sake of brevity). It appears that
the respondent – Council, vide order dated
22.10/4.11.2008 granted recognition with an
annual intake of 100 students for the academic
session 200910 on certain conditions. It is
the case of the petitioner that in fact the
petitioner started the College for B.Ed. Course
for one year duration. It is the case of the
petitioner that thereafter, the petitioner got
affiliation from the respondent – University.
The record indicates that thereafter, the
petitioner was served with a show cause notice
from the respondent – Council, which was
replied by the petitioner, which culminated
Page 3 of 21

into an order dated 28.1.2010/4.2.2010, whereby
the respondent – Council cancelled the
recognition. It is a matter of record that the
said order was also challenged by way of an
appeal before the appellate authority by the
petitioner which came to be dismissed on
5.5.2010. As it was found that the petitioner
has not fulfilled the norms and conditions of
the respondent – Council as applicable, the
petitioner filed a writ petition being Special
Civil Application No.6545 of 2010. The Division
Bench of this Court (Coram: Hon’ble the Chief
Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya, as he then was and
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Akil Kureshi) vide order
dated 16.6.2010 issued certain directions based
upon the judgment rendered in identical matter
being Special Civil Application No.3205 of
2009. It appears that the respondent – Council,
on the basis of the said order, also appointed
Committee to inspect the College run by the
petitioner. It appears that the visiting team
conducted the inspection of the institution run
Page 4 of 21

by the petitioner on 12.5.2011. The record
further indicates that considering the said
report, the respondent – Council issued a show
cause notice to the petitioner dated 21.6.2011.
The said notice came to be replied by the
petitioner on 17.7.2011 and after considering
the same, the respondent passed the order of
withdrawal of recognition dated 28.9.2011. The
petitioner preferred the appeal before the
Appellate Committee and the said appeal was
dismissed confirming the order of withdrawal of
recognition passed by the Committee of the
respondent–Council vide order dated 15.2.2012.
Both the orders are impugned in this petition.
3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed affidavitin
reply and contended that the petitioner
institute was not as per the norms applicable
and as per the report of the visiting team, six
deficiencies were found. It is contended that
even at the stage of appeal, the representative
of the petitioner had admitted the said
defects. The respondent – Council has also
Page 5 of 21

filed an affidavit dated 4.8.2012 denying the
contentions in support of the impugned orders.
It is contended that the petitioner does not
fulfill the requirement of Rules and
Regulations and therefore, the impugned orders
are legal and valid. Respondent No.3–University
has also filed affidavit dated 9.7.2012 and has
contended that as the recognition was withdrawn
by the respondent–Council, the affiliation is
also cancelled by the respondent – University.
Relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in
the case of Shri Morvi Sarvajanik Kelavni
Mandal Sanchalit MSKM B.Ed. College Vs.
National Council for Teachers’ Education &
Ors., reported in (2012) 2 SCC 16, respondent
No.3 – University has contended that the
College run by the petitioner trust being
unrecognized, no student can be allotted.
Respondent No.3 – University has also filed a
further affidavit and has contended that the
University, as an examining body, shall be free
to demand rigorous compliance with conditions
Page 6 of 21

contained in the statute. The University has
contended that the petition deserves to be
dismissed.
4. It may be noted that the petitioner has filed a
rejoinder and has contended that there are 7
Lecturers and that the institute run by the
petitioner is situated on the land comprising
area of 2488.92 sq. mtrs. which is more than
what is required and has in fact denied the
contentions raised by the respondents in their
affidavits.
5. Heard Ms. Srushti A. Thula, learned advocate
for the petitioner, Mr. P.S. Champaneri,
learned advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and
Mr. A.R. Thacker, learned advocate with Mr.
Shivang Thacker, learned advocate for
respondent No.3 – University.
6. Ms. Srushti A. Thula, learned advocate for the
petitioner has raised the following
contentions:
Page 7 of 21

6.1 It is contended that after the order was passed
by this Court, every time, the respondent –
Council has given different show cause notice
and has come out with different reasons.
6.2 It is contended that the inspection was not
carried out as per the regulations applicable
and more particularly, Regulations of 2004.
6.3 It is further contended that the reasons given
by the Council for withdrawal to the effect
that the land documents are not available is
contrary to the record. It is further contended
that building of the petitioner institution is
on lease and as such the College run by the
petitioner trust is closed since the academic
year 2012.
6.4 It is also contended that the discrepancies
shown by the respondent – Council are capable
of being rectified. It is also contended that
the regulations which were applicable on the
date of passing of the impugned orders would
apply and not the present Regulations of 2014.
Page 8 of 21

It is contended that even such opportunity was
not given and the withdrawal order was passed
on nongermane grounds.
7. Mr. P.S. Champaneri, learned advocate for
respondent Nos.1 and 2 has submitted that the
impugned orders are legal and proper and no
interference is called for by this Court in its
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India. Mr. Champaneri
relying upon the affidavits of respondent Nos.1
and 2, contended that the Council as well as
the appellate authority have examined the issue
before it and because of noncompliance of the
norms as prescribed by NCTE Regulations, the
recognition has been withdrawn. It is pointed
out that in fact the petitioner has admitted
that it does not have adequate land as per the
norms, standards and regulations of NCTE as
amended from time to time for establishing and
running a B.Ed. College and therefore, the
petitioner is not entitled to any of the
reliefs claimed for and the petition being
Page 9 of 21

misconceived, deserves to be dismissed. Mr.
Champaneri relying upon the affidavit dated
4.8.2012 filed by the respondent – Council,
contended that the petitioner has not complied
with the directions issued by the Division
Bench of this Court in its order dated
14.5.2010. It is contended that the Division
Bench of this Court had given time limit which
is not adhered to by the petitioner and
therefore, the petition is misconceived and the
same deserves to be dismissed.
8. Mr. Thacker, learned advocate for respondent
No.3 University has also relied upon two
affidavits. Mr. Thacker, relying upon the ratio
laid down in the case of Shri Morvi Sarvajanik
Kelavni Mandal Sanchalit MSKM B.Ed. College
(supra), contended that the petitioner College
being an unrecognized institute, no affiliation
can be granted by respondent No.3University
and the petition deserves to be dismissed.
9. No other or further contentions and/or
Page 10 of 21

submissions are made by the learned advocates
appearing for the respective parties.
10. Considering the record of this petition, as
well as on perusal of the impugned orders and
the submissions made by the learned advocates
appearing for the respective parties, it
appears that the recognition order granted to
the petitioner was subject to compliance of the
conditions which are provided in the order as
well as the Rules, Regulations and norms
applicable. The Division Bench, while disposing
of the earlier petition filed by the petitioner
vide judgment and order dated 16.6.2010, has
observed thus:
“4. Issues similar to those arising

in the present petition were
considered by this Court in the
judgment dated 14.5.2010 passed in
Special Civil Application No. 3205 of
2009 and connected matters. The Court
has given several directions. The
operative portion of the order reads
as under:
"Under the circumstances, these

petitions as well as Civil
Applications are disposed of with
following directions :
Page 11 of 21

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 herein
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,
Page 12 of 21

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."
5. Since the facts are similar, the

present petitioner shall also be
governed by the directions quoted
hereinabove, which shall form part of
this order.”
11. It clearly appears from the order that the
Division Bench had granted time to the
petitioner till 31.12.2010 to remove all the
defects and confirm to all the norms of NCTE.
It further appears that as per the directions
issued by this Court, the visiting team
appointed by the respondent – Council visited
the institution of the petitioner, wherein six
Page 13 of 21

defects were found as under:
[i] College/Trust not having land and building
in its name as required by NCTE Norms.
[ii] Lease of license agreement is given which
is not as per NCTE Norms.
[iii]Qualified Principal and staff not
appointed.
[iv] Inadequate built up area.
[v] Inadequate laboratory and library facility.
[vi] The land documents duly certified by the
competent authority was not submitted along
with the application that was required as
per the Section 7(d) of NCTE Norms and
Standards 2002 or as per Section 8(5) of
NCTE Norms and Standards 2005.
12. On going through the impugned orders, more
particularly, the order dated 15.2.2012 passed
by the appellate authority of the respondent –
Page 14 of 21

Council, it is found that the petitioner had
not removed the defects. It deserves to be
noted that upon hearing the petitioner, the
Council has formed an opinion while passing the
order dated 28.9.2011 that the petitioner trust
has not removed the following 3 defects:
[i] As per Section 8(5) of NCTE Norms, 2005,
land was not available with
institution/Trust, hence, land lease deed
is not valid.
[ii] Inadequate built up area.
[iii]Principal and staff not appointed.
13. In order to examine this, the observations made
by the appellate authority deserve to be
referred to, which are as under:
“AND WHEREAS the Council further

noted specifically with regard to
withdrawal grounds that a) the
appellant at the time of application
submitted only a notarized Leave and
License Agreement, which had not
legal validity as it was not
registered. The appellant registered
the agreement on 27.4.2007. Even this
Page 15 of 21

document does not mention the extent

of area of the land and building that
had been leased. Hence this land
document was not acceptable. The
Hon'ble Court vide order dated
14.5.2010 gave time to the appellant
to comply with the deficiencies, as
per the Norms prevailing on the date
of grant of recognition. Recognition
to the institution was granted on
4.11.2008 and at that point of time,
Regulations 2007 were in vogue, which
stipulated that the institution
should have land area of 2500 sq.mt.
either on ownership basis or leased
from Govt. Even Regulations 2005 also
stipulated a land area of 2500 sq.mt.
Therefore, the first withdrawal
ground of WRC was valid. b) the
building plan submitted was in the
name of ‘Madhvi Ben Bhurabhai
Rathod’, which mentioned 499.71
sq.mt. of total plot area and 949
sq.mt. of built up area. The
appellant did not show any building
completion certificate in support of
his claim of having 2588.92 sq.mt. of
builtup area for the B.Ed.
programme. The builtup area
mentioned in the building plan was
only 949 sq. mt. as against the
requirement of 1500 sq.mt. Therefore,
second withdrawal ground of WRC was
valid. c) the appellant himself
admitted that the institution was
functioning with an incharge
Principal and it selected Principal
on 14.1.2011 but the approval of the
affiliating University was awaited.
Further, the incharge Principal was
not qualified for the post of
Principal. The institution claimed
that it appointed 7 lecturers, but
there was no faculty to teach Science
Page 16 of 21

Maths methods etc.”
14. There is no material on record to show that
this finding of fact arrived at by the
appellate authority is erroneous. As held by
the Apex Court in the case of Shri Morvi
Sarvajanik Kelavni Mandal Sanchalit MSKM B.Ed.
College (supra), an institute which does not
fulfill the required norms cannot be
recognized, wherein in Paragraph 11, the Apex
Court has observed thus:
“11. Mushroom growth of illequipped,
understaffed and unrecognized
educational institutions was noticed
by this Court in State of Maharashtra
v. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale and Ors.
(1992) 4 SCC 435. This Court observed
that the field of education had
become a fertile, perennial and
profitable business with the least
capital outlay in some States and
that societies and individuals were
establishing such institutions
without complying with the statutory
requirements. The unfortunate part is
that despite repeated pronouncements
of this Court over the past two
decades deprecating the setting up of
such institutions. The mushrooming of
the colleges continues all over the
country at times in complicity with
the statutory authorities, who fail
to check this process by effectively
Page 17 of 21

enforcing the provisions of the NCTE

Act and the Regulations framed
thereunder.”
15. From the record of the petition, it clearly
transpires that the petitioner has not been
able to remove the defects which were shown so
as to comply with the requirements of the norms
of the Council. Though there is no challenge to
the action of the respondent – University, Mr.
Thacker, learned advocate for respondent No.3
University was correct in asserting that the
unrecognized College cannot have affiliation of
the University. The contention raised by Ms.
Thula, learned advocate for the petitioner to
the effect that different show cause notices
were issued deserves to be negatived, inasmuch
as, that the visiting team inspected the
institution of the petitioner trust as per the
directions issued by this Court and found the
defects which were considered by the Council in
its meeting and after issuing show cause
notices and after considering the reply filed
by the petitioner trust vide impugned order
Page 18 of 21

dated 28.11.2009, three defects were found, is
the basis of the order of withdrawal. As
observed earlier, in fact, during the hearing
of the appeal, the petitioner in a way admitted
that there are defects. There is no cogent or
independent material on record to show that
there is any compliance to the norms including
the requirement of the land area. The
contention raised by Ms. Thula, learned
advocate for the petitioner to the effect that
the old regulations would apply, though at
first blush appears to be attractive, but the
fact remains that the institution run by the
petitioner is closed during pendency of this
petition also. It is reported by learned
advocates appearing for the respective parties
that from the academic year 2014, the Rules
have undergone a change and even the duration
of the B.Ed. Course is now two years in place
of one year and therefore, the petitioner is
not right in contending that only the old
Regulations shall apply, more particularly,
Page 19 of 21

considering the fact that the Council has
already changed the pattern of the course of
B.Ed. The Division Bench, while partly allowing
the earlier Writ Petition filed by the
petitioner, was also pleased to give a specific
time to remove the defects. Though the learned
advocate for the petitioner has contended that
three defects are made basis of the impugned
orders and it can be rectified, the same is an
after thought. The order relates to the
previous academic year and having not complied
with the required norms, the petitioner now
cannot be permitted to say that the old norms
would apply. The petitioner had applied in the
year 2005 and in light of the observations made
in the impugned orders, the petitioners cannot
now be permitted to contend that NCTE Norms of
2005 shall apply. As recorded in the order
impugned passed by the Appellate Committee, the
built up area mentioned in the building plan
was only 949 sq. mtrs. as against requirement
of 1500 sq. mtrs. and therefore, the petitioner
Page 20 of 21

has not complied with the norms even as they
stood then. This Court finds that there is no
error much less any error apparent on the face
of the record and the petition deserves to be
dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Considering
the fact that the pattern and the duration of
course is already changed, as observed in this
judgment, it would be open for the petitioner
to apply afresh as per the existing norms as
applicable.
16. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Rule
discharged. Interim relief granted earlier, if
any, stands vacated. There shall be no order as
to costs.
(R.M.CHHAYA, J.)
mrp
Page 21 of 21

In The High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad Special Civil Application No. 8353 of 2012

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

In The High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad Special Civil Application No. 8353 of 2012

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

C/SCA/8353/2012 JUDGMENT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8353 of 2012

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA

1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed

2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of

4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA

Downloaded on : Mon Aug 01 11:11:26 IST 2022

1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India, the petitioner has

[C] Pending admission, hearing and

Downloaded on : Mon Aug 01 11:11:26 IST 2022

(and amend the list to the said

applied for grant of recognition for B.Ed.

the NCTE Act (hereinafter referred to as “the

the respondent – Council, vide order dated

22.10/4.11.2008 granted recognition with an

session 2009­10 on certain conditions. It is

the case of the petitioner that in fact the

affiliation from the respondent – University.

The record indicates that thereafter, the

from the respondent – Council, which was

replied by the petitioner, which culminated

Downloaded on : Mon Aug 01 11:11:26 IST 2022

the respondent – Council cancelled the

said order was also challenged by way of an

appeal before the appellate authority by the

petitioner which came to be dismissed on

5.5.2010. As it was found that the petitioner

has not fulfilled the norms and conditions of

the respondent – Council as applicable, the

Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya, as he then was and

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Akil Kureshi) vide order

being Special Civil Application No.3205 of

Committee to inspect the College run by the

petitioner. It appears that the visiting team

Downloaded on : Mon Aug 01 11:11:26 IST 2022

by the petitioner on 12.5.2011. The record

further indicates that considering the said

The said notice came to be replied by the

petitioner on 17.7.2011 and after considering

the same, the respondent passed the order of

petitioner preferred the appeal before the

Appellate Committee and the said appeal was

recognition passed by the Committee of the

respondent–Council vide order dated 15.2.2012.

reply and contended that the petitioner­

institute was not as per the norms applicable

deficiencies were found. It is contended that

of the petitioner had admitted the said

defects. The respondent – Council has also

Downloaded on : Mon Aug 01 11:11:26 IST 2022

filed an affidavit dated 4.8.2012 denying the

It is contended that the petitioner does not

fulfill the requirement of Rules and

by the respondent–Council, the affiliation is

the case of Shri Morvi Sarvajanik Kelavni

Mandal Sanchalit MSKM B.Ed. College Vs.

National Council for Teachers’ Education &

Ors., reported in (2012) 2 SCC 16, respondent

session 200910 on certain conditions. It is

reply and contended that the petitioner

No.3 University has also relied upon two

can be granted by respondent No.3University