Maharishi Dayanand University vs M. L. R. Saraswati College Of Education

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2000 Supreme(SC) 1513

2000(6) Supreme 292
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Punjab and Haryana High Court)
M. Jagannadha Rao & Doraiswamy Raju, JJ.
Maharishi Dayanand University -Appellant
versus
M.L.R. Saraswati College of Education -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 5029 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 15198 of 1999)
Decided on 13-9-2000
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Nidesh Gupta, Ms. Minakshi Vij, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Dr. Meera Agarwal and R.C. Mishra, Advocates.

Headnote:Education-B.E. College-Admission to-Admission in breach of student teacher ratio-Legality-NCTE authorising admission of 70 students-College later appointing 8 ad hoc lecturer and seeking permission to admit 80 more students-High Court in writ petition directing NCTE to grant permission-College not consulting University and Director of Higher Education in appointing lecturer though statutorily required-High Court was in error in allowing increase in admission of 80 students-Selection of teachers improper and illegal-University cannot be compelled to permit college to admit 80 students-College restrained from admitting extra students beyond sanction 70 students-However, result of 80 students who had completed course and permitted to take examination by University was ordered to be released on peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
       The High Court, in our view, was in error in allowing increase in the admission of 80 students by assuming that the ad hoc selection of teachers dated 1.5.99 was sufficient to permit increase into students. The selection of these ad hoc Lecturers-addition to the existing regular staff-was done, without proper advertisement, without the candidates sending copies of application to the University, and without the participation of the nominees of the University and the Director of Higher Education. No list of such selected staff was sent by the College to the University as required. If we may say so, it was a selection in total violation of the procedure. The University was kept in dark till after permission was obtained from the NCTE for admission of extra 80 students. The College reversed the entire process by first going to the NCTE and then to the University. The selection of the ad hoc lecturers in our view cannot enable the College to compel the University to permit admission of these 80 students. Though NCTE is not before us, we are constrained to observe that the NCTE ought to have verified from the University whether the University had received applications of the candidates who had applied for selection on 1.5.99, whether a date for interviews was fixed in consultation with the University and whether the nominee of the University or the DHE participated in the selection and whether the College had informed the University after the selection. Apart from this the question regarding the satisfaction of the other infrastructural facilities also appears to have eluded the attention of the NCTE. The NCTE allowed itself to be misled by the College. We are, therefore, clearly of the view that the selection of ad hoc teachers on 1.5.99 was illegal and the College could not seek extra students on basis of extra ad hoc teachers and without satisfying the norms relating to the other infrastructural facilities too. The High Court s direction is, contrary to the guidelines of the NCTE, procedure in clause 9 of the University Statute. (Paras 26 to 28)
       Held, Consequently that the college be to be restrained from admitting the extra students beyond 70 unless regular selection of lecturers is made in accordance with prescribed procedure and accepted by the University and unless the University permits extra students to be admitted. (Para 38)

JUDGMENT

N. Jagannadha Rao, J.-Leave granted.

2. This appeal has been preferred by the Maharishi Dayanand University against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 16.8.99 in CWP No. 9452 of 1999 allowing the writ petition filed by the 1st respondent College. The said College is a B.Ed. College affiliated to the appellant University.

3. The point in issue in this appeal is as to whether the 1st respondent College is right in adding to the Faculty, eight ad hoc Lecturers w.e.f. 1.5.99 recruited by a selection Committee not consisting of the representatives of the University and of the Director of Higher Education and whether the College could claim, on that basis, admission of 80 additional students.

4. The following are the facts :

The NCTE is a statutory body established under the National Council of Teacher Education Act, 1993. As per the general instructions issued by NCTE on 1.5.97, in regard to B.Ed. Colleges, the student-teacher ratio ought to be 1 : 10. The 1st respondent College admitted 60 students after recruiting 6 members in its faculty as regular Lecturers. Those six lecturers were selected in accordance with the procedure required. Later on, the NCTE allowed, in its general instructions, the Principal/Physical Instructor of the College to be treated as a faculty member. On account of this directive, ten more students could be admitted. In view of the above, the authorised number of admissions of the respondent College stood at 70 students.

5. The respondent College wanted to increase the number of its students but this required appointment of more lecturers. It then approached the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in CWP 16061/98 to permit intake of students upto 200 contending that the NCTE could not require it to obtain No Objection Certificates from the State Government or the admission agency. In the said writ petition, the College did not implead the University or the State of Haryana. The High Court, by an order dated 5.11.98, directed NCTE to treat the said CWP as a representation and to consider the questions relating to dispensing with the requirement of NOC.

6. Much earlier, on 13.6.1997, the NCTE wrote to the State Government seeking its views on ad hoc appointments. It felt that some times, Lecturers posts fell vacant in some Colleges and it became necessary for making ad hoc appointments to fill up those vacancies. It, therefore, sought the views of the Haryana State. There is no evidence as to the response of the State or of the University for this proposal. But, the respondent-College appears to have gone ahead on the assumption that the above proposal had been accepted by the State and the University.

7. There appears to be some correspondence between the College and NCTE, particularly a letter dated 20.4.99 of the NCTE, Regional Director, Jaipur to the College on the subject of adhoc lecturer s appointment and we only have a reply by the College to the said officer of NCTE, quoting the said letter and stating that interviews will take place on 1.5.99 for adhoc appointments of Lecturers. On the assumption that the letter dated 13.6.1997 of the NCTE, which contained only proposals, implied permission for extra ad hoc appointments, the College appears to have unilaterally selected 10 lecturers on an ad hoc basis on 1.5.99. Neither the representative of the University nor the representative of the Director of Education were present at the said selection on 1.5.99. The proceedings of the Selection Committee show only the presence of Mr. Ram Kishan Gupta, Ext. MP, the Principal of the College, 2 Members nominated by the Governing body, and one nominee by the Principal. No representative of the University or of the Director of Higher Education were called or were present. The College sent up the list of lecturers to the NCTE, including those selected on an ad hoc basis on 1.5.99. The College took advantage of the order of the High Court dated 5.11.98 that the NCTE should consider the requ

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2000 Supreme(SC) 1513

Cases Referred (2)