R. Banumathi, C.J.
1. The present PIL is filed for a direction upon the respondents to ensure strict compliance of the guidelines/norms issued by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) for proper running of B.Ed. Colleges (Self-Financed) in the State of Jharkhand and also for a direction upon the respondents to hold proper inquiry as to the violation of the guidelines/norms issued by the NCTE and if any college is found guilty for violating the norms/guidelines of NCTE, to take appropriate action.
2. We have heard Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned Senior Advocate, appearing alongwith Mr. P.D. Agrawal, learned counsel, on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2; Mr. Rajesh Shankar, learned Govt. Advocate, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3 & 4-State of Jharkhand and its official; Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 5-Ranchi University; Mrs. I. Sen Choudhary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 6-Binoba Bhave University; Mr. M.S. Anwar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 7-S.K.M. University; Mr. Sanjay Piprewal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 8-Kolhan University and Mr. Ananda Sen, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 9 Nilambar & Pitambar University.
3. In the petition it is alleged by the petitioner that most of the self-financed B. Ed colleges are not following the guidelines of the NCTE and are running by the help of the ad-hoc/contract appointee teachers without making any attempt for appointment of regular teachers. It is further alleged that the colleges does not fulfill the rule or endeavor being made to establish well equipped library.
4. While hearing the case, the Court on 25.07.2013, referring to the contention of the petitioner, observed that so many irregularity and illegality are being done in the B.Ed. Colleges and the Court had pointed out may instances where so many teachers are holding two or more posts in different colleges at a time and the Court observed that NCTE has failed to discharge its statutory obligations in maintaining the norms in B.Ed. Colleges. Further in paragraph (10) this court directed NCTE to make complete inspection of B.Ed. colleges in the State of Jharkhand and file a detailed report.
5. NCTE filed affidavit on 10.09.2013 stating that pursuant to the order of this court NCTE vide its order dated 22.08.2013 has constituted a three member Committee to scrutinize the original records of institutions in the State of Jharkhand in respect of whom, the recognition was granted by the Eastern Regional Committee, NCTE to conduct of B.Ed. Course. The Committee after inspection finally submitted its report on 16.01.2014 and the same was brought on record by filing of the Supplementary affidavit dated 20.01.2014. Pursuant to the direction of the Court, NCTE conducted inspection and filed a detailed report running into several pages. In its report, it is stated that a large number of institutions issued applications for the positions of Principals, Lecturers, Supporting and Technical Staff and Non-teaching Staff. In its report, NCTE stated that "it has been observed that in a large number of institutions, newly recruited Teachers and Principals joined their duties few day before inspection".
6. After perusal of the report the Court by order dated 24.01.2014 directed the respondent No. 2 to issue notices to the concerned colleges where deficiencies were noticed by the committee to rectify the deficiencies stipulating the time, marking the copy to the respective Universities. In the notices, Regional Committee is also directed to stipulate the time for rectification of the deficiencies. The Regional Committee shall file report in this regard.
7. The Respondent No. 2 filed Supplementary Counter Affidavit dated 18.07.2014 stating that the inspection of 95 institutions were carried out by the help of 56 experts divided in 22 teams and the report has been submitted to NCTE Hqrs. Upon perusal of the report, NCTE, New Delhi, has issued deficiency letter to 87 institutions and no letter was sent to rest 8 institutions as there was no deficiency pointed by the visiting team, the sample copies of the deficiency letters issued to the institutions are enclosed as Annexures - R2/A to R2/H. In the counter-affidavit of the NCTE, it is stated that out of 87 institutions, 55 institutions have submitted their replies and replies from 32 institutions are still awaited. It is further stated that the institutions, who complied/removed deficiencies, were allowed to continue recognisation and the institutions, who complied/replied to the deficiency letter, where there were some minor deficiencies, were issued clarification letters to comply/remove the deficiencies within a period of one month.
8. In paragraph 10 of the said Supplementary Counter Affidavit, the brief status of the action taken by the Regional Director is given, which is as under:-
Brief status of the 95 Institutions of Jharkhand inspected as per the order of the Hon''ble High Court of Ranchi
9. Section 12 of the NCTE Act 1993 deals with functions of the Council. As per Section 12, it shall be the duty of the Council to take all such steps as it may think fit for ensuring planned and co-ordinated development of teacher education and for the determination maintenance of standards for teacher education and for the purpose of performing the functions and duties under the Act. Chapter IV of the NCTE Act 1993 contains provisions regarding grant of recognition of teacher education institutions and to take action in case there is a contravention of any of the provisions of the Act, Rules, Regulations and orders made and issued thereunder or any condition subject to which recognition under sub-section (3) of Section 14 or permission under sub-section (3) of Section 15 was granted. It is submitted that Section 14 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act 1993 deals with recognition of institutions offering course or training in Teacher Education. As per the provisions of NCTE Act 1993, NCTE/ERC to regulate, monitor the cases and take appropriate decisions/actions deemed fit against the institutions who have not removed or complied the directions.
10. In so far as the grievance of the petitioner regarding engagement of qualified faculty in more than one teachers'' training colleges is concerned, it is stated that after issuance of Letter of Intent by the concerned Regional Committee, requisite number of qualified faculty in Teachers Training Colleges is to be appointed by the institution in accordance with the policy of the State Government/affiliating body concerned. The faculty so appointed by the institution should be duly approved by the affiliating body concerned. Thereafter the institution is required to submit the list of faculty duly approved by the affiliating body to the concerned Regional Committee. Thereafter the Regional Committee concerned proceeds to consider and grant approval to the Teachers Training Institution under clause 7(11) of the NCTE Regulations, 2009. It is stated that the Regional Committee has no role in the process of appointment and approval of faculty in the Teachers Training Institution.
11. The University grants affiliation of a particular session of B.Ed. college upon receipt of permission from the State Government. The appointment of faculty is required to be approved by the affiliating body concerned and while granting such affiliation and also while renewing the affiliation, the affiliating body is required to ensure that the norms and standards prescribed by the NCTE, as the regulatory body, are adhered to. The University-respondents too have filed counter-affidavits. Respondent No. 6, Binoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh, has stated that Three-Member Inspection Team has inspected 28 B.Ed. colleges (out of 32 colleges) on various dates from January, 2013 to August, 2013 and submitted the report to the Affiliation Committee. It is further stated that the inspection report along with the decision of the Affiliation Committee and that of the Syndicate and the Letter of Intent of the NCTE have been sent to the concerned Department of the State Government for necessary action.
12. Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submitted that some of the Constituent Colleges are not having the regular teaching faculty and they have engaged only the contract teaching faculty and these contract faculty are engaged in more than one Institution and, therefore prayed for a suitable direction in this regard.
13. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for NCTE has submitted that for functioning of the College, one regular Principal and seven qualified teaching staff, including the minimum supporting staffs are required. It is submitted that totally there are four Government Colleges, which are run by the State of Jharkhand and twenty three Constituent Colleges are run on self financed scheme and those Constituent Colleges are controlled by the respective Universities.
14. In so far as the appointment of teaching faculty in those Constituent Colleges are concerned, the Human Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand is the appropriate department to sanction the post.
15. Since, it is submitted that some of the Constituent Colleges are not having adequate teaching faculty, on need basis it is for the respective University to address the concerned department-Human Resources Department, State of Jharkhand, justifying its request for sanction of the teaching faculty. On such request being made by the respective University, we direct respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to take a decision, in accordance with law.
16. NCTE, in its counter-affidavit filed on 11.8.2013, has stated that vide notification dated 27th June, 2011, High Power Commission has been appointed as per the order of the Hon''ble Supreme Court dated 13th May, 2011 and the High Power Commission so constituted has submitted its report which is stated to be under consideration before the Hon''ble Supreme Court which touches upon the questions raised in this writ petition with regard to the working of NCTE vis-a-vis the State Government and Universities under which each of the State Governments including the State of Jharkhand is a party.
17. Having regard to the role of the NCTE and the inspection conducted by the NCTE(ERC) and the role of the affiliating body in approving the appointment of teaching faculty, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions and observations:-
(A) NCTE/ERC shall regulate and monitor the cases and take appropriate steps to see whether the Teachers'' Training Colleges are functioning in conformity with the provisions of the Act or Rules, Regulations, Orders made or issued thereunder or the conditions of recognition. Whenever Institutions in the State of Jharkhand are found contravening the provisions of the Act or Rules, Regulations, Orders made or issued thereunder or any condition of recognition, ERC/NCTE shall initiate appropriate action in accordance with the provisions of the NCTE Act, 1993.
(B) In so far as the deficiency notices issued to the Institutions are concerned, NCTE/ERC are directed to ensure that the deficiencies are removed and shortcomings pointed out complied with within a period of three months. In respect of those institutions, who have not complied/removed deficiencies, NCTE/ERC to take appropriate action in accordance with the provisions of the Act, Regulations, Norms and Standards.
(C) The State respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and respondent Nos. 5 to 9/Affiliating Bodies, before granting affiliation or renewing affiliation, are directed to ensure that sufficient qualified faculty are appointed in the Teachers'' Training Colleges before granting affiliation or renewal of affiliation making thorough enquiry regarding the qualified teaching faculty employed and also to make inspection to ensure that the teacher faculty are not employed in more than one B.Ed. colleges and in case of contravention, the affiliating bodies are to take appropriate action against the erring institutions in accordance with the law.
(D) When the respective University make request for sanction of additional teaching faculties, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 shall consider the request in accordance with law and take a decision.
18. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
