Shri Shahu Chhatrapati Shikshan Sanstha Vs State of Maharashtra and National Council for Teacher Education Western Regional Committee

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.@mdashHeard the counsel for the parties.

2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith, by consent. The learned A.G.P. for Respondent No. 1, Mr. Uday Warunjikar, learned Counsel, for Respondent No. 2 and Mr. Rajdeep Khadapkar, learned Counsel, for Respondent No. 3 waive service of the Rule.

3. The principal question involved in this petition is: Whether the Recognition Order issued in favour of the institute, by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), dated 23rd/30th October, 2008, would automatically stand superseded because of the subsequent policy decision taken by the State Government that no further B. Ed. College should be allowed in the State, except minority institutions? It is not in dispute that the Petitioner is not a minority institution. It is also not in dispute that the Petitioner had applied for recognition/permission to start a B. Ed. College from NCTE vide application dated 21st December, 2005. After due enquiry, NCTE, by its Recognition Order dated 23rd/30th October, 2008, accepted the proposal of the Petitioner, and permitted the Petitioner to start a B. Ed. (M) (Co-Ed) Course of SEC of one year duration with an annual intake of 100 (Sec) under Clause 7(11) of NCTE (Recognition Norms & Procedure) Regulation 2007 from academic session 2009-2010. In spite of this recognition order, the University has not granted affiliation to start the new B. Ed. College. In this backdrop, the Petitioner has approached this Court.

4. The legal position is well established by now. The Apex Court, in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya and Others, , has held that, once NCTE, being the Competent Authority, grants recognition in favour of the institution to start a new college, such as for B. Ed. Course, neither the State Government nor the University can refuse affiliation to that college. Keeping this enunciation in mind, we have no hesitation in allowing the writ petition and issuing direction to the University as well as the State in terms of prayer Clauses (A) and (B) of the petition, save and except that the affiliation to be granted by the University would be to start the B. Ed. College from academic year 2011-2012.

5. The learned A.G.P., however, invited our attention to the reply-affidavit filed by Mahesh Pathak, Secretary to the Government, Higher and Technical Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, dated 7th of August, 2010. In this affidavit, reference is made to the correspondence ensued between the State and NCTE, wherein NCTE, by letter dated 21st November, 2008, directed the Regional Director, Western Regional Committee, NCTE, not to grant recognition/permission to B. Ed. Colleges for academic session 2009-2010. By the same letter, the Regional Director was directed to return all such applications, including the applications received prior to the public notice, along with the processing fee and other documents, to the concerned institutions. In the subsequent paragraphs, reference is made to the other communications.

6. The question is: Whether the order of recognition issued in favour of the Petitioner dated 23rd/30th October, 2008 stands automatically recalled by NCTE? NCTE, in the reply-affidavit filed in the present petition, has nowhere mentioned that the said recognition order has been subsequently withdrawn or revoked by NCTE. So long as the said recognition order was operating, and has not been recalled, we fail to understand as to how the University can decline to grant affiliation to start B. Ed. College by the Petitioner in spite of the said recognition order, keeping in mind the exposition of the Apex Court in the above-noted decision. More so because the stated communication between the State and NCTE was in relation to proposals, which were submitted by the concerned institutions in furtherance of the public notice issued to invite applications to establish colleges for academic session 2009-2010 onwards.

7. The Petitioner had, however, submitted proposal as back as in 2005, on which, after due enquiry, NCTE issued recognition order on 23rd/30th October, 2008, permitting the Petitioner to start the proposed B. Ed. College from academic session 2009-2010. Suffice it to observe that the issue addressed by NCTE, at the instance of the State of Maharashtra, cannot be the basis to nullify the Recognition Order dated 23rd/30th October, 2008 issued in favour of the Petitioner by NCTE.

8. Accordingly, the petition ought to succeed. The Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer Clauses (A) and (B). However, the direction to the University, issued in terms of the said prayer clauses, would mean that the affiliation to the proposed B. Ed. College to be started by the Petitioner should be granted from academic session 2011-2012 onwards, subject to complying with all necessary formalities in that behalf.

9. The petition is disposed of on the above terms.