- (1.) SINCE the aforesaid three writ petitions have been filed seeking direction to NCTE for extension of time for removal of deficiencies in their respective colleges, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. The facts and grounds are taken from the petition S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13328/2012 treating the same as the lead case.
(2.) THESE petitions have been filed with the prayer that the petitioner society be provided sufficient time for due compliance with the directions contained in notice dated 6th August, 2012 issued by the National Council For Teachers Education (for short 'NCTE') following the inspection of the institution run by the petitioner Society pertaining to D.Ed (1 Unit) Course. The facts of the case are that the petitioner Society is a society registered under the provisions of Societies Registration Act, 1860 and engaged in establishing educational institutions for imparting teachers training course. The petitioner Society has inter alia for the purpose established B.M.P. College of Education for imparting D.Ed. Teachers Training Course. With an intent to impart D.Ed. Teachers Training Course from academic session 2008-2009 submitted an application to the respondent Northern Regional Committee (hereinafter to be referred as 'NRC') at Jaipur. The application was processed in accordance with the provisions of the National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993 ('the Act of 1993' for brevity) and the National Council for Teachers Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2005 (in short 'Regulations of 2005') and inspection team visited the infrastructure of the petitioner's institution and granted recognition to the petitioner Society to impart D.Ed. Teachers Training Course with effect from the academic Session 2008-2009 at its B.M.P. College of Education. However, at the end of academic Session 2008-2009, a show cause notice came to be issued to the petitioner Society under Section 17 of the Act of 1993 for withdrawing the recognition granted to the petitioner. The petitioner approached Delhi High Court on the grounds amongst others that the action proposed to be taken by the respondents was wholly arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of law. The matter thereafter, travelled upto to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its common judgment dated 12th April, 2012 passed in the case of NCTE and Anr. Versus Vaishnav Institute of Technology and Management reported in (2012) 5 SCC 139, as would also apply to the petitioners Society as a co-appellants, directed that NCTE in the interest of justice to cause inspection of institutions concerned including the institution run by the petitioner Society within a period of six weeks from the date of order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also directed that in the event deficiencies were found on inspection, the concerned institutions were to be conveyed the result and required to remove the deficiencies conveyed within reasonable time if desirous of continuation of recognition for the D.Ed. Course. Following the aforementioned judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed on 12th April, 2012, the respondents conducted an inspection at the college run by the petitioner Society on 21st May, 2012. The visiting team submitted its inspection report to the respondents. The said report, however, was not supplied to the petitioner, but vide letter dated 6th August, 2012, the petitioner Society was required to remove the deficiencies pointed out in the letter aforesaid within a period of 30 days and submit compliance to the NCTE. A copy of the Visiting Team's inspection report was endorsed to the NRC which was directed to examine the reply of the institutions to the letter of 6th August, 2012 after taking into consideration the VTR and record available with them and take appropriate decision thereafter in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even though the letter dated 6th August, 2012 required the petitioner Society to remove the deficiencies pointed out within a period of 30 days, the said deficiencies pointed out were vague. It has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that in these circumstances, the petitioner Society vide letters dated 16th August, 2012 and 26th August, 2012, required the NCTE, Delhi for providing a copy of the VTR dated 21st May, 2012, such that proper steps for removal of deficiencies with reference to deficiencies found by the visiting team could be taken. Counsel submits that vide letter dated 23rd August, 2012 under the hand of its Under Secretary NCTE supplied on 28th August, 2012 the VTR pertaining to the inspection of the petitioner college carried out on 21st May, 2012. Vide letter dated 30th August, 2012, the petitioner Society made a request to give reasonable time for removing the deficiencies pointed out and ensure compliance with the norms of NCTE to obtain the requisite recognition for the D.Ed. Teachers Training Course. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered on 12th April, 2012 in Civil Appeal No. 3505/2012 along with other connected appeals, the intent and purpose of the directions issued was that the institutions inspected afresh by the NCTE be given reasonable time for removal of deficiencies, if so found. Counsel submits that reasonable time as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court would entail at least a period of 30 days from the time the petitioner institution stood well informed of definitive deficiencies on receipt of VTR on 29th August, 2012 such that corrective action could be taken and compliance with the norms made to obtain recognition. Counsel submits that even though the result of the inspection dated 21st May, 2012 was conveyed by the NCTE on 6th August, 2012, the deficiencies pointed out could not be removed with any sense of definitiveness without the copy of VTR, which was the document recording the deficiencies found. Counsel submitted that the VTR were supplied only on 29th August, 2012. It is submitted that the petitioner Society should, therefore, be granted 30 days time commencing 29th August, 2012 to ensure removal of the deficiencies pointed out in the letter dated 6th August, 2012 as amplified by the VTR received on 29th August, 2012. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the writ petition including the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. No doubt the Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed that the institutions be allowed to remove the deficiencies found on re-inspection 'as early as possible'. In Para 35 of the judgment dated 12th April, 2012 reported in (2012)5 SCC 139 has indicated that the deficiencies found during the inspection be removed as early as possible. "As early as possible " is not a matter of definitive import, but surely entails removal of deficiencies communicated with requisite urgency. The urgency in the given situation would be for removal of deficiencies for recognition and starting a course approved by NCTE, and would have to relate to the calendar of the NCTE, which deals with the thousands of institutions. In this view of matter, it is not for this Court to extend the time for compliance of the removal of deficiencies found. Consequently, instead of interfering in the writ petition as prayed for, I would leave the petitioner Society to approach the respondents by way of a representation seeking extension of time for compliance and removal of deficiencies pointed out. In the event, such a representation is made within four days from today, it is expected from the respondents that the representation will be considered reasonably and sympathetically in the facts of the case and decision be taken thereon within a period of seven days of receipt of such representation filed by the petitioner.
(3.) WITH the above directions, all the three aforesaid writ petition stand disposed of.;