Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) These two writ petitions have been filed by Mahatma Gandhi Shiksha Samiti aggrieved by the orders dated 18/2/2008 by which Northern Regional Committee of National Council for Teacher Education (for short, "NCTE") rejected its applications for additional intake capacity of respectively 100 students in the B.Ed. Course and 50 students in S.T.C. Course. Petitioner was initially vide order dated 16/8/2007 granted permission/recognition for imparting education by NCTE for B.Ed. course of duration of one year with intake of 100 students and vide order dated 20/9/2007 for STC course of duration of two years with intake of 50 students, for academic session 2007-08, Application for additional intake as aforesaid was submitted by the petitioner on 31/12/2007, within four months of the original permission granted. Simultaneously, petitioner also submitted fresh application for permission to run the M.Ed. Course for the academic session 2008-09. Northern Regional Committee (for short, "NRC") of NCTE did not process the above referred to two applications for additional intake of B.Ed. and S.T.C. Courses, which were finally rejected on the ground that petitioner did not fulfill the requirement of paras 8(3) and 8(4) of National Counsel for Teacher Education (Recognition Procedure) Regulations, 2007 (for short, "Regulations of 2007") which came into force w.e.f. 10/12/2007. Challenging above referred to two orders, petitioner earlier filed first of these two writ petition, namely SBCWP No.3071/08 in which, this Court passed an interim-order on 24/4/2008 directing respondents to consider case of the petitioner. This Court based its order on the interim-order dated 10/7/2008 passed by the Delhi High Court in identical Writ Petition No. 4674 of 2008, Shri Ganesh College of Education v. NCTE and directed that NCTE shall consider case of the petitioner and accordingly pass appropriate orders. It may be noted that the Delhi High Court in the aforesaid interim-order directed the NCTE not to insist for complying with paras 8(3) & 8(4) of Regulations of 2007 for additional intake for academic session 2008-09. Pursuant to this order, NCTE again considered case of the petitioner but this time also rejected its application on the premise that since recognition has already been granted to the petitioner for M.Ed. Course, therefore, as per para 8(2) of the Regulations of 2007, its application for permission for additional intake of B.Ed. and S.T.C. courses cannot be processed and vide order dated 29/30.12.08 rejected the application. It is this order which is impugned in second of these writ petitions, namely SBCWP No.371/2009. Both the writ petitions were therefore clubbed and heard together for final disposal.
(2.) Shri Sagar Mal Mehta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri R.S. Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has argued that though the Regulations of 2007 have been newly promulgated on 10/12/2007 but in substance, provisions contained in paras 8(3) and 8(4) thereof are exactly similar to the paras 8(3) and 8(4) of its predecessor Regulations, which were notified on 27/12/2005. Despite such provision being there, respondents granted permission for additional intake to other institutions for the academic session 2005-06. Reference is made to the cases of Shashtri Mahila College, Kudan, District Sikar which was granted intake of 100 students in B.Ed. Course for academic session 2005-06 and was granted additional intake of 100 more seats in Session 2007-08 even before it could complete three academic sessions in terms of para 8(3). Similarly, Saint Soldier Women College, Tonk which was running B.Ed. course with 100 students for the academic session 2005-06, was allowed additional intake of 100 students for the academic session 2007-08. Contention of the respondents however is that those institutions were granted additional intake prior to completing three academic sessions before Regulations of 2007 came into force w.e.f.10/12/2007, is therefore wholly incorrect and misleading. Similar provision was there in the Regulations of 2005. As regards non-fulfillment of condition in para 8(4) of Regulations of 2007, learned counsel submitted that none of 378 institutions enumerated in the order dated 27/12/2004 (Ann.9) and 85 institutions enumerated in the order dated 30/8/2007 (Ann.10) issued by the Education Department of the Government of Rajasthan are accredited with the National Assessment and Accreditation Council with Grade B+ on a nine point scale developed by NAAC. Approach of the respondents is wholly arbitrary and discriminatory. Institutions situated in similar circumstances are being accorded dissimilar treatment. Respondents have thus not maintained uniformity. Learned counsel in support of his argument has placed reliance on judgment of Supreme Court in Narpat Singh and others v. Jaipur Development Authority and another, 2002(4) SCC 666 . Learned counsel also relied on the judgment of Delhi High Court in Budha College of Education & Ors. v. National Council for Teacher Education, WP (C) No. 5131 of 2008 & CM No. 9827 of 2008, 10337 of 2008 decided on 1/8/2008 , wherein the Delhi High Court taking note of para 8 (3) and 8(4) supra, directed NCTE to grant enhanced intake even before completion of three years.
(3.) As regards subsequent writ petition (SBCWP No.371/09), Shri Sagar Mal Mehta, learned counsel submitted that though the respondents in the impugned order dated 29/30.12.2008, has stated that they for the present are not insisting upon compliance of para 8(3) and 8(4), but they have misconstrued para 8(2) of Regulations of 2007. Their contention that since petitioner has already been granted permission for starting M.Ed. Course, therefore application for the courses of B.Ed. and S.T.C. Courses cannot be processed is wholly misconceived. It is contended that para 8(2) supra cannot be applied in the case of additional intake of seats and would be applicable only for the purpose of grant of recognition of basic unit. In this case, permission for basic unit of B.Ed. and S.T.C. Courses already stood granted w.e.f. the academic year 2007-08. There was thus no question of applicability of para 8(2). Learned counsel has cited example of Shekhawati College Doondlod, District Jhunjhunu, which was granted permission for new M.Ed. Course for the academic session 2008- 09 and was simultaneously also granted additional seats of B.Ed. and STC Courses in the same session. Learned counsel submitted that respondents having rejected permission for additional intake by ignoring paras 8(3) and 8(4) of the Regulations of 2007, now could not press into service argument of alleged non compliance of para 8(3) and 8(4). It is contended that no reason which was not made part of the record, to deny permission can now be supplemented by way of affidavit and the respondents cannot be permitted to supplement the reasons through their pleadings. In support of his this argument, judgments of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji, AIR (39) 1952 SC 16 and Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others, AIR 1978 SC 851 have been relied on. Learned counsel therefore submitted that both the writ petitions may be allowed and the respondents be directed to consider case of the petitioner for B.Ed. and STC Courses of 100 and 50 students for the academic session 2009- 10 as academic session 2008-09 has lapsed. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya and others, (2006)9 SCC 1 . Learned counsel also relied on the judgment of coordinate Bench of this Court in Shri Ana Sagar STC College and another v. Union of India and others, SBCWP No. 11699 of 2008 decided on 5/3/2009 .;