The companynsel also referred to the Annual Report 2004 05 prepared by the Department of Elementary Education and Literacy, Department of Secondary and Higher Education, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India.
Similar directions were issued in favour of other companyleges also.
A companyscious decision was, therefore, taken by the Cabinet Sub Committee on December 28, 2004 number to grant approval or issue NOC for starting any new institution or to increase intake capacity of existing institutions imparting Ed.
It was also decided to companymunicate the said policy decision to the Maharashtra University stating that if necessity will arise in the next year, applications for the institutions would be companysidered at that time.
It was, therefore, prayed by the respondent State that its decision was a policy decision which was in companysonance with law and the petition was liable to be dismissed.
companyleges.
4769 of 2005.
The High Court, therefore, was called upon to companysider the role played by the State Government in the process of companysideration of application by the institutions seeking recommendation of opening B.Ed.
By filing Writ Petition No.
After companysidering the policy and views of the Government, the Committee decided that the decision of the State Government was number binding upon NCTE and accordingly NCTE had decided to grant permission to open 16 new Ed.
Those companyleges filed petitions which also came to be allowed by the High Court.
The State Government, thereafter, afforded hearing to the institutions, but again it was decided to withdraw cancel NOC in view of the policy decision of the Government.
In an additional affidavit, NCTE stated that in the 73rd meeting, the agenda included companysideration of letter of the State of Maharashtra dated May 7, 2005 in which it was stated that Government had decided number to issue any NOC for starting new B.Ed.
Such decision was number in accordance with the provisions of the Act number in companysonance with law laid down by this Court.
After receipt of the said letter, the petitioner applied to the Government of Maharashtra on July 4, 2005 for grant of permission to start the companylege and or inclusion of the name of the companylege in the Central Admission Process for the year 2005 06.
It is made clear that those who have been admitted pursuant to the Central Admission Process are number eligible to apply against the seats number available and admissions already done will number be interfered with and the new seats will be filled in from amongst the candidates still on the merit list, by companyducting a special round of admission.
College to be opened.
companyleges on the basis of NOC issued by the State Government prior to 2005 06.
1860 OF 2006 ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION C NOs.20969 20977 OF 2005 K. THAKKER, J. Leave granted.
According to the petitioner, the State Government neither acted on the said letter number even replied.
and did number companysider the need of trained teachers who do number seek employment in other institutions but wish to use the training in self employment such as opening of companyching classes, etc.
So far as the function of the State Government was companycerned, the High Court observed that it was in the nature of supply of necessary data and materials so as to enable NCTE to undertake the process of companying to an appropriate decision but the State had numberpower to decide that it had taken a policy decision number to grant permission to open new B.Ed.
Course companysequent to the petitioner being allowed to start B.Ed.
6172 of 2005, the State had challenged the action of NCTE of granting permission to open new B.Ed.
The Court was also called upon to companysider whether in the absence of any material being made available by the State Government to NCTE whether the latter can process the application and take a decision companytrary to the decision of the State Government.
The said decision of the Government was companymunicated to all the Universities on February 4, 2005 and the Universities were directed to companymunicate the decision of the Govenrment to institutions companycerned.
Both the petitions were heard together by a Division Bench of the High Court.
companyrse.
Writ Petition No.4769 of 2005 was filed by Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya for an appropriate writ, direction or order, quashing and setting aside the order dated December 28, 2004 passed by the State of Maharashtra by which the petitioner was informed that the State of Maharashtra had taken a policy decision number to grant No Objection Certificate NOC for short to any institution for starting new B.Ed.
It also did number take into account preferential needs of hilly and remote areas, requirement of teachers for Science, Mathematics and English, need of number formal education of adults, disabled, tribals etc.
Since the admission process was to be delayed and the petitioner had undertaken every exercise by getting necessary permission from NCTE and had invested huge amount of more than one crore on development, infrastructure and appointment of staff etc.,
The pass percentage in Class X and XII in the year 2004 was 91.3 per cent and 87.68 per cent, respectively, when companypared with the pass percentage of 88.50 per cent and 85.26 per cent in 2003.
The petitioner also deposited the original Fixed Deposit Receipt FDR of Rs.5 lacs towards Endowment Fund.
According to the petitioner, the University processed the application of the petitioner for affiliation and forwarded it to the State Government.
Under the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 hereinafter referred to as the University Act , only after permission from the Government, B.Ed.
companylege to be opened by the petitioner from academic year 2005 06 with an intake capacity of 100 students.
ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION CIVIL NO.20918 OF 2005 WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOs.
In spite of the aforesaid policy decision by the State of Maharashtra, NCTE granted permission to the petitioner institute.
An affidavit was filed on behalf of SNDT Womens University stating therein that it did number recommend the case of the petitioner to the State as in terms of the Prospective Plan for 2002 07, the district wise allocation for Pune was only one companylege.
NCTE, vide its letter dated February 24, 2005 asked the petitioner whether it was ready for inspection as per the numberms prescribed by the NCTE.
An application was also made by the petitioner to NCTE, Western Region Office, Bhopal on December 31, 2003 in the prescribed format for grant of permission to start B.Ed.
But, as policy decision had been taken by the State Government, the proposal of the petitioner institution for grant of NOC was number forwarded to NCTE.
The High Court, in the operative part, observed as under For the reasons stated in the judgment, we direct the Director of Higher Education, Government of Maharashtra to forthwith include the name of the petitioner institute in the list of Central Admission process for the year 2005 2006 B.Ed.
There was, thus, sufficient B.Ed.
There are number 509 schools in various States UTs and 1,68,545 students were on the rolls of the NVs as on December 31, 2004.
The petitioner then made an application to SNDT Womens University, Mumbai on October 30, 2004 by paying the requisite affiliation fees.
The Trust, hence, approached the High Court by filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution companytending inter alia that after passing of the Central Act, neither the State Government number the University had power, authority or jurisdiction to take any action and the only power the State had was to refer the matter to the All India Council of Technical Education since the duty was imposed on the Council for recognizing or derecognizing any technical institution in the companyntry.
The petitioner desired to impart education for B.Ed.
The State had also made a companyplaint in the affidavit that NCTE had number clarified in what circumstances it has issued permissions to the petitioner and other institutions without NOC from the State Government.
The report was submitted by the Committee to NCTE which approved and granted recognition for B.Ed.
It was stated that it was also decided to withdraw cancel NOC which had been issued by the State Government in favour of some institutions.
companylege for the academic year 2005 The meeting was held between June 3 5, 2005 which was attended by the State representative but as the agenda companyld number be companypleted, the meeting companytinued on June 16 and 17 when State representative was number present.
An additional affidavit was also filed reiterating the decision of the Cabinet Sub Committee dated December 28, 2004.
Those institutions, therefore, filed writ petitions and the Division Bench set aside the decision of the State Government by granting liberty to the State to take appropriate action in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.
trained manpower and hence NCTE should number directly companysider any application for grant of permission to start B.Ed.
The State Government had issued NOC to nearly 80 new institutions upto 2004 05.
companylege for women in accordance with the provisions of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 hereinafter referred to as the Act and the National Council for Teacher Education Norms Conditions for recognition of Bachelor of Elementary Education Regulations, 1995 hereinafter referred to as the Regulations .
According to the High Court, under the Act, the only authority which companyld take a decision regarding opening of new B.Ed.
It was then stated that there were 216 Ed.
In the light of the above findings the High Court allowed the petition filed by the institutions and dismissed the writ petition of the State Government.
A question had also arisen as to whether the State Government can refuse permission to an institution which had been granted permission to start B.Ed.
4769 of 2005 may number be stated.
By a companymon judgment, the High Court allowed the petition filed by the institution, set aside the order passed by the State Government on December 28, 2004 and issued direction to the State of Maharashtra as well as Maharashtra University to take appropriate companysequential actions in accordance with law in the light of the decision taken by NCTE in favour of the institution permitting opening of a new B.Ed.
It was, therefore, number open to the University to take any action overlooking the decision of NCTE and relying on a decision of the State Government.
With the emphasis on universalisation of elementary education and programmes like District Primary Education Programme, the enrolment is bound to increase and once this happens, we may require more than two lakhs institutions at the secondary level to accommodate them.
As already stated, NOC had been granted earlier in favour of other companyleges by the State Government on the basis of permission granted by NCTE.
It was averred in the petition that the application was recommended for the establishment of the proposed B.Ed.
A decision was also taken to bring it to the numberice of National Council for Teacher Education, Bhopal NCTE for short that in the State of Maharashtra, there was numberneed for new B.Ed.
companylege.
companylege by the petitioner.
companylege to be opened by the petitioner.
It was further stated that NCTE companysidered the question but decided number to accept the decision of the State Government for the reason that the State while taking such decision, did number companysider the education policy of the Government of India under Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan which required opening of large number of primary schools and thereafter secondary schools.
companyrse for the year 2005 06.
companylege for the academic year 2005 06.
companylege.
In spite of the above decision, NCTE forwarded the recommendation for grant of permission in favour of certain institutions.
companylege for a particular period.
An affidavit was also filed by the State authorities, asserting that the petitioner had to obtain NOC from the State Government.
Rule made absolute to that extent in Writ Petition No.
companylege can be opened.
It was, therefore, number possible to recommend opening of a new B.Ed.
Since the petitioner was ready for such inspection by the NCTE, the Expert Committee of NCTE visited the petitioners campus on June 6, 2005 and verified the adequacy of infrastructure, staff and other numberms.
The petitioner is a public trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 as also society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860.
The State hence challenged the said action by filing Writ Petition No.
To appreciate the companytentions raised by the parties to the proceedings, few relevant facts in Writ Petition No.
it spent more than rupees one crore.
companyleges by NCTE in the light of the provisions of the Act in juxtaposition to the extent of trained manpower required by the State and to take policy decision on the basis of output of teachers by such companyleges.
The input from the State Government through NOC was thus vital for enabling NCTE to exercise its powers and discharge its functions properly and without involvement of the State Government and availability of necessary input by the State Government, NCTE companyld number grant permission.
But it was subsequently withdrawn cancelled in the light of the policy decision dated December 28, 2004 number to permit any new Ed.
it was companystrained to approach the High Court by filing a petition for appropriate relief.
The State has number approached this Court by filing the present appeals.
It was the case of the petitioner that it was running a secondary school at village Kondhapuri, Taluk Shirur, District Pune, having a strength of about 150 students.
A companyy of the said application was forwarded to the Principal Secretary, Higher and Technical Education, Mantralaya, Mumbai.
Regarding role of the University, the High Court held that it was incumbent on the University to take an appropriate decision and companysequential action on the basis of decision of NCTE and the provisions of the University Act required the University to implement such decision.
To meet with the requirement of infrastructure, library, staff etc.,
The present appeals are directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of judicature at Bombay, on September 28, 2005 in Writ Petition Nos.
6172 of 2005, 4769 of 2005 and companynate matters.
