HARSHA DEVANI, J. -
(1.) RULE . Mr. Siddharth Dave, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent No.1 University and Mr. P.S. Champaneri, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No.2 -National Council for Teacher Education. Having regard to the facts of the case and the urgency of the matter, with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter was taken up for final hearing today.
(2.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for the following substantive reliefs:
7. In view of the aforesaid premises, the Petitioner most humbly prays that:
(A) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the impugned Resolution No.2(8) passed by the Executive Council of Hemchandracharya Uttar Gujarat University, Respondent No.1 herein and direct Respondent No.1 University to grant affiliation to the College of the Petitioner Trust i.e. Saraswati Education College;
7AA. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or writ in a nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction to quash and set aside the impugned Decision/Resolution dated 6/6/2014 at Annexure AA passed by Executive Council, Hemachandracharya North Gujarat University Respondent No.1 herein and direct University to grant affiliation to the college of Petitioner Trust i.e. Saraswati Education College for B.Ed and M.Ed Course.
The facts of the case as averred in the present petition are that the petitioner, an educational trust, established a self -financed B.Ed. and M.Ed. College which is run in the name and style of Saraswati Mahila Education College with an intake capacity of 100 and 35 students respectively. Under section 14 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), before establishment of any B.Ed./M.Ed. College, statutory permission is required to be obtained from the Regional Committee established under section 20 of the Act. The Regional Committee upon receipt of an application in terms of the prescribed regulations framed under the Act and upon being satisfied that the institution has adequate financial resources, accommodation, library, qualified staff as well as other requirements, passes an order granting recognition to the institute. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to an application made by the petitioner, the Western Regional Committee after verifying all infrastructure and conditions for establishment of B.Ed. College granted recognition to the petitioner on 7th April, 2005 for starting B.Ed. Degree course from the academic year 2004 -2005 with an annual intake capacity of 100 students. Similarly, for the M.Ed. Degree course, the Western Regional Committee granted recognition on 14th March, 2008 initially with intake capacity of 25 students which was subsequently increased to 35 students in the year 2010. At the relevant time, since the petitioner Trust was imparting education to girls, it was affiliated to S.N.D.T. Women's University, Mumbai. However, subsequently by a judgment and order dated 8th September, 2011 passed by this court in Special Civil Application No.8031/2010, it was held that colleges which are affiliated to universities situated outside the State shall seek transfer to their local university, in view of which the State of Gujarat issued a Government Resolution dated 1st September, 2012 directing all colleges which are affiliated to universities situated outside the State to seek transfer and get affiliated to its local university failing which necessary action would be initiated against them. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner made an application to the respondent No.1 University for grant of 'No Objection Certificate' to its B.Ed. College. By a certificate dated 15th May, 2013, such 'No Objection Certificate' was issued in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner also obtained an NOC for transfer of affiliation from the S.N.D.T. Women's University. Thereafter, on 21st October, 2013, the petitioner Trust applied for affiliation in the prescribed form along with necessary documents. The petitioner also paid Rs.3,52,000/ - for each Degree course of B.Ed. and M.Ed. towards affiliation fees. Pursuant to the application, the University vide letter dated 19th March, 2014 appointed Need Committee which is popularly known as Local Inspection Committee (LIC) appointing two professors for the grant of affiliation and sent a copy to the petitioner trust. It is the case of the petitioner that the LIC gave a positive report recommending that there is a need of college which can impart education in B.Ed. and M.Ed. courses. Thereafter, the University also issued letters to the petitioner appointing the names of professors for Selection Committee of the teaching staff in the college of the petitioner trust. Vide resolution No.2(8) dated 12th May, 2014 passed by the Academic Council of the respondent University, it was resolved that the petitioner and other similarly situated institutes should produce evidence to show that it owned five acres of land along with 7/12 extracts and that such land is unencumbered. It was also stated in the resolution that if such evidence is produced, procedure be undertaken for granting affiliation otherwise no action should be taken for affiliation. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached this court by way of the present petition challenging the aforesaid decision passed by the Academic Council of the respondent No.1 University. Subsequently, this court by an order dated 5th June, 2014 permitted the petitioner to make a representation to the respondent with a direction that if such representation is made, the respondents shall decide the same in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2013 2 SCC 617, by 6th June, 2014. Pursuant to the above order, the Executive Committee of the respondent University in its special meeting dated 6th June, 2014 considered the representation of the petitioner and confirmed its earlier decision. The petitioner, therefore, moved an amendment for challenging the resolution dated 6th June, 2014 which came to be granted.
(3.) IN response to the averments made in the petition, the respondent No.1 has filed an affidavit -in -reply to which the petitioner has filed an affidavit -in -rejoinder. However, since such affidavit -in -rejoinder has been filed on 11th June, 2014 during the course of hearing of the matter, the respondents did not have any opportunity to deal with the factual averments which were sought to be brought on record by way of the said rejoinder affidavit.;