1. Heard.
2. Issue notice to the respondents, returnable within two weeks. Mr. Kanishk Gupta accepts notice on behalf of respondent no.4.
3. This writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 20.06.2018 passed by the Coordinator PTET whereby, the member colleges of
petitioner-federation were not allowed to participate in the counselling process PTET-2018. The petitioner further challenged the order dated
18.06.2018 passed by the respondent no.4 whereby, the members of the petitioner federation were declared as not affiliated colleges for the purposes
of inclusion of their names in the counselling process of PTET2018. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that all the colleges included in the list
prepared by the respondent no.4 dated 18.06.2018 are having the recognition from NCTE of run the B.Ed. colleges. Counsel further submits that the
State Government has also issued NOC in favour all such colleges to run the B.Ed. colleges. Counsel further submits that some of the colleges are
running the B.Ed. course since last 10 years. Counsel further submits that the respondent no.4 i.e. Pandit Deendayal Upadhyaya Shekhawati
University, comes into existence with effect from June, 2015 and prior to that the members of the petitioner-federation were affiliated with the
University of Rajasthan and even after 2015, the affiliation was granted by the respondent no.4 in favour of the members of the petitioner-federation
till the year 2016-17. Counsel further submits that non grant of affiliation in the year 2017-18 & 2018-19 on the part of the respondents is arbitratory in
nature and without any basis. Counsel further submits that last date for log in choice by the students is 06.07.2018 under PTET2018 and if the order
dated 18.06.2018 as well as 20.06.2018 is not stayed, then the members of the petitioner-federation would suffer irreparable loss as their colleges are
running since long. Counsel further submits that with regard to running the B.Ed. course NCTE is the final authority. Counsel relied upon the judgment
passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Rajasthan Vs. LBS. B.Ed. College and others reported in (2016) 16 Supreme
Court Cases 110, wherein para no.14 & 16 has held as under:-
“14. Yet again, another two-Judge Bench in Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. opined that (SCC p.
656, para 79) Regulations framed under the Act clearly show that upon receiving an application for recommendation, the NCTE shall send a copy of
the application with its letter inviting recommendations/comments of the State Government on all aspects within a period of 30 days. To such
application, the State is expected to respond with its complete comments within a period of 60 days. In other words, the opinion of the State on all
matters that may concern it in any of the specified fields are called for. The Court observed that this is the stage where the State and its Department
should play a vital role and they must take all precautions to offer proper comments supported by due reasoning. Once these comments are sent and
the State Government gives its opinion which is considered by the NCTE and examined in conjunction with the report of the experts, it may grant or
refuse recognition. Once it grants recognition, then such grant attains supremacy visa-vis the State Government as well as the affiliating body.
Normally, these questions cannot be reagitated at the time of grant of affiliation.
16. As we find from the aforesaid authorities as well as the Regulations framed by the NCTE, the State has a say, may be a limited one. We are
inclined to use the word 'limited' because the State's say is not binding on the NCTE. However, the NCTE is required to take the same into
consideration, for the State has a vital role to offer proper comments supported by due reasoning. It needs no special emphasis to say that final
authority rests with the NCTE. It is the clear legal position.
4. Counsel for the respondent no.4 submits that the order dated 18.06.2018 has been passed as the members of the petitioner-federation have not
allowed the University to inspect their colleges.
5. At this stage counsel for the petitioner undertakes that respondent no.4 may inspect the colleges at any time as per the schedule fixed by the
respondent no.4.
6. In that view of the matter, considering the submissions made by the both the counsels prima-facie, I deem it just and proper to stay the order dated
18.06.2018 passed by the respondent no.4. I further direct the respondent no.4 to grant provisional affiliation in favour of the members of the
petitioner-federation who are having recognition from NCTE and also having NOC from State Government to run the B.Ed. colleges and send their
names to the Coordinator PTET 2018 on or before 04.07.2018, subject to depositing the required amount of endowment fund as per the circular dated
30.06.2018 issued by the respondent no.4.
7. The respondent no.3 is further directed to include the names of members of the petitioner-federation as per the list submitted by the respondent no.4
in the counseling process of PTET-2018. The respondent-University is free to inspect the colleges as per their convenience. A copy of the circular
dated 30.06.2018 issued by respondent no.4 is taken on record.
8. List this matter on 18.07.2018.
