- (1.) The petitioner is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 with one of the Aim and Objective to provide good education to the children.
(2.) The petitioner was granted permission to start a new institute for "Bachelor of Education Course" for the Session 2003-04 in the name of St. Soldier College of Education, Jalandhar with intake of 100 seats. The State Government vide notification dated 2.7.2003 authorized Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as University) for admission to B.Ed Course. Thereafter, University granted temporary affiliation vide notification dated 29.7.2003 for admitting 100 students. The college has been admitting 100 students during the each academic session from the year 2003-04 onwards. The petitioner applied for additional intake of 100 seats in existing Institute of B. Ed Course on one year duration. The National Council of Teachers Education (hereinafter referred to as NCTE) granted permission vide order dated 14.7.2007. As per the petitioner, such permission was granted after the team of Northern Regional Committee of NCTE had visited the College and was satisfied with the infrastructure, library, accommodation, financial resources, labs and faculty etc. On the basis of recognition granted by NCTE, the petitioner sought permission from the University and the State Government for the additional 100 seats in the Session 2007-08. On 19.1.2008, The State Government granted permission of additional intake of 100 students subject to the conditions mentioned therein. One of the condition was that the norms of staff are fulfilled before admission. The University on 28.7.2008, communicated to the petitioner that the petitioner does not fulfil the condition for additional 100 seats. It is the said communication which is challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition. It is the case of the petitioner that once NCTE has granted recognition and permission for additional intake of 100 seats, thereafter, the University or the State Government has no jurisdiction to refuse the affiliation or permission, as the case may be. In support of such argument, reliance is placed by the petitioner on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra Sant Dayaneshwar Shiksha Shashtra Mahavidalaya, (2006) 9 SCC 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon Section 14(6) of NCTE Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and Regulation 7(iii) of National Council for Teacher Education(Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "the Regulations") to contend that once, recognition has been granted by NCTE, then the University or the State Government have no jurisdiction to sit over the opinion of the NCTE regarding availability of infrastructure or faculty etc.
(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the University has pointed out that in terms of the permission granted by NCTE on 14.7.2007and in terms of the permission granted by State Government, the University is duty bound to examine the facilities available with the petitioner particularly that of the faculty. It is pointed out that in terms of Appendix IV to the Regulation, the petitioner is required to have one Principal and 7Lecturers for a basic unit of 100 student and for each additional students, it is required to have 7 lecturers. Such appointments are required to be made on full time and regular basis. It has been contended that petitioner has only seven lecturers on regular basis and has appointed 7 lecturers on ad hoc basis. Such fact is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. As per learned counsel for the University, the deficiency is in respect of regular and full time members of teaching staff.;