http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

PETITIONER: MAHARISHI DAYANAND UNIVERSITY

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: M.L.R.SARASWATI COLLEGE OF EDUCATION

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       13/09/2000

BENCH: M. JAGANNADHA RAO  J. & DORAISWAMY RAJU  J.

JUDGMENT:

M.JAGANNADHA RAO,J.

Leave granted. L....I..........T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J

    This  appeal  has  been   preferred  by  the  Maharishi Dayanand  University  against the judgment of the  Punjab  & 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.

    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.

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.

    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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

questions  relating  to dispensing with the  requirement  of NOC.

    Much  earlier, on 13.6.97, 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   adhoc 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.

    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 13.6.97 of the NCTE, which contained only proposals, implied permission for extra adhoc appointments,  the  College  appears  to  have  unilaterally selected  10  lecturers  on  an  ’adhoc  basis’  on  1.5.99. Neither  the  representative  of   the  University  nor  the representative  of  the  Director of Higher  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,  Ex.   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 adhoc 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 request  of the  College.   As already stated, the University was not  a party to that Writ petition.

    It  is  rather surprising that the NCTE, though it  had earlier insisted in its letter dated 13.6.97 (referred to in the order of the High Court dated 5.11.98) that the NOC from the  State  and University were necessary, it  permitted  80 more  students  on  the  basis of the additional  8  ad  hoc lecturers selection.

    The  NCTE wrote to the appellant University on 11.6.99, giving  a  list  of  the Colleges and the  number  of  seats approved.   The  respondent College was at serial No.10  and the  number of seats permitted was shown as 150 rather  than 70,  thus  permitting 80 more students proportionate to  the eight adhoc lecturers recruited.

    The  University  was  taken by surprise  and  its  Dean immediately   wrote  to  NCTE  on   25.6.99  that  it   (the University)  was religiously following the guidelines of the NCTE  earlier  issued (i.e.  on 1.5.97) and that  additional seats  could  not  have  been  permitted  by  NCTE  "without reference  to the University".  On 30.7.99 the NCTE sent the list  of teachers as given by the College to the University. The  said  list included the 10 additional  adhoc  lecturers recruited  on 1.5.99.  By another letter dated 30.7.99,  the NCTE  informed  the  University   that  the  permission  for additional  students was on the basis of the list of ad  hoc

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

lecturers sent up by the College.

    Meantime,   on  6.7.99,  the   College  wrote  to   the University  that the NCTE had ’sanctioned’ 150 students  (70 plus  extra  80)  for the B.Ed.  course for the  1999-  2000 session.   The  College requested the University  to  permit admission  of  150 students.  The University felt that  this was  not permissible according to its statutes/rules because the  student  strength could not be increased on account  of addition  of  adhoc lecturers.  It did not  therefore  grant permission for the extra 80 students.

    As  the  University stood as an obstacle,  the  College approached  the High Court by way of a fresh Writ  petition, CWP 9452/99.  This time it impleaded the University alone as respondent  and  not the NCTE.  The High Court  allowed  the writ  petition  under the impugned judgment  dated  16.8.99. The  High  Court  gave  various directions.   It  was  fully conscious  that  the additional lecturers were appointed  by the College outside the prescribed procedure and contrary to clause  9 of the University Statutes.  At the same time, the High  Court  stated that once the NCTE had exercised  powers under  sections  14,  15 of the NCTE Act,  1993  and  issued orders on 16.8.99 sanctioning 150 students to the respondent College  "there  was no justification in the action  of  the University  in reducing the intake capacity of the College". It  therefore  issued a direction to the University that  it must  permit  admission of extra 80 students and not  merely for  70  students for the year 1999-2000 and these extra  80 seats  should be allotted within one week subject however to the  condition  that the University could satisfy itself  if the  10  adhoc teachers had the required qualification.   It was stated:

             "Adhoc appointment will not be questioned               solely on the ground that those were made               without  approach  of the  University  in               terms of clause 9 of the statutes of  the               University."

    The  High  Court  also  directed the  College  to  make regular recruitment of Lecturers on or before 31.12.99.  The adhoc  appointees  would  also be entitled  to  compete  for regular selection.

    It  is  against  the judgment that the  University  had filed this appeal by special leave.

    In  this  appeal, we have heard the submission  of  Mr. Nidesh  Gupta  for  the  appellant-University  and  of  Mrs. Dr.Meera Aggarwal for the 1st respondent College.

The following points arise for consideration:

    (1)  Whether  the proposal contained in the  letter  of NCTE  dated 13.6.97 to the State Government to permit  adhoc appointments  of Lecturers without following due  procedure, remained  only  a proposal or was accepted by the  State  of Haryana or the appellant-University?

    (2)   Whether  the  College   could  have  selected  10 additional  Lecturers, ’adhoc’, without the participation of a  representative  of the University and of the Director  of Higher Education, on 1.5.99?

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

    (3)  Whether  the University could be directed  by  the High Court to sanction admission of the extra 80 students on the basis of the letter of the NCTE?

    (4)  Whether  the University could be faulted  for  not releasing  the results of the examination of these extra  80 students?   Whether,  results  should  be  directed  to   be released?

Point 1:

    Reliance  was  placed for the College on the letter  of the  NCTE  to  the Government dated 13.6.97 wherein  it  was stated  that  the procedure for selection of  Lecturers  was taking time and proposing adhoc appointments to be made till regular  staff  was selected.  But, as pointed out  earlier, this  remained only a proposal.  There is no material to say that  any  such  proposal was accepted by the State  or  the appellant-University.   The  assumption of the College  that the  letter  permitted  ad   hoc  appointments  outside  the prescribed  procedure,  cannot  be  accepted.   Point  1  is decided accordingly.

        Points 2 and 3:-

    According  to  the  ’Norms and  Standards  for  Teacher Education  Institutions Secondary’, it is clearly stated  in para 2.5:

             "The   core  teaching  staff   shall   be               appointed on full time and regular basis.               Supporting  academic  administrative  and               technical staff may be appointed on part-               time  basis  in the  beginning.   In  all               cases   properly  constituted   selection               Committees             as             per               UGC/University/Government   rules    will               select the candidates."

    In para 3.1.0 the UGC notification regarding standards, 1990, it is stated:

             "The  direct recruitment to the  post  of               Lecturers, ...... in the Universities and               Colleges  shall be made on the  basis  of               merit through all India advertisement and               selections   by  the   duly   constituted               Selection  Committees to be set up  under               the Statutes/Ordinances of the  concerned               University. Such Committees should have a               minimum of three experts, the head of the               concerned department and the Principal of               the   concerned  College  (in   case   of               selection of College teachers)."

    The guideline 3.3.0 also speak of the qualification and minimum   requirement  of  55%.    Para  4.4.1  deals   with qualification of Lecturers including Lecturers in Education.

    The   appellant   University    has   also   prescribed

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

qualifications    for   the    posts    of   Lecturers    in Colleges/Universities.   Para  2  deals  with  lecturers  in College of Education.

    The  procedure for appointment of Lecturers appears  to be  contained in para 9 of the University Statute as appears from the judgment under appeal.

    The   appellant  University  had,   in   fact,   issued directions  to  all Principals of Colleges on  24.3.99  that vacancies   should  be  duly   advertised  in  two  National Dailies/Newspapers  (one in English & one in Hindi) of which one  must  have national circulation and other,  a  regional circulation.   The  applicants  for the post  were  to  send application  to  the College with copy to the Dean,  College Development  Council, M.D.University, Rohtak.  The Committee would  consist  of  nominee  of  University/Vice-Chancellor. There  must  be  sanction  from  the  department  of  Higher Education, Haryana and para 4 states:

             "the  date of interview should  be  fixed               after      consultation     with      the               University/Vice-Chancellor’s nominee."

        and para 6 says that:

             "the   proceedings   of   the   Selection               Committee  may be sent to the  University               immediately after the interview."

        Para 7 says:

             "In no case, appointment letter be issued               to  the candidates thus  selected  unless               the   proceedings   of   the    Selection               Committee    are    approved    by    the               University/DHE."

        Para 9 states that:

             "Approvals sought for appointment have to               be  accompanied also by the  sanction  of               the   Director   of   Higher   Education,               Haryana."

    In  the  light of the above procedure  prescribed,  the selection dated 1.5.99 must be held to be bad.

    It  is  also  clear to us from the proceedings  of  the Selection  Committee dated 1.5.99 (p.18/n of the Paper Book) that  only  the  Chairman, Principal, two  nominees  of  the Governing Body and one nominee of the Principal were present at the selection on 1.5.99.  Admittedly, no request was even sought  from the University to send its representative to be on  the  Selection Committee.  The prescribed  proforma,  in fact, required presence of the nominee of the University and also  a  nominee of the Director of Higher Education and  no such  nominees  were present on 1.5.99.  It is not also  the case of the College that any advertisement was published for this  interview of 1.5.99 in two newspapers as required.  At any  rate,  no such material has been filed.  Nor  were  the Committee  proceedings  and list of candidates sent  to  the University after the selection was over, as required.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

    In  fact,  the  College  filed the  first  WP  16061/98 against  NCTE, obtained the first order on 5.11.98 from  the High  Court to the NCTE to consider its representation.   In that writ petition the University was not impleaded.  In the present  writ petition, it impleaded the University but  not the NCTE.

    Once  the  selection  dated 1.5.99 was made  -  without following  procedure  -  it wrote directly to the  NCTE  for permission   to  increase  its   strength  and  ignored  the University  altogether.   The  NCTE,  on the  basis  of  the addition  of adhoc lecturers, sanctioned 80 seats extra  and sent its decision to the University on 11.6.99.  It was only then  that  the  University  came to  know  about  the  fait accompli  and wrote on 25.6.99 to the NCTE and on 31.8.99 to the  College  that the whole selection was contrary  to  the prescribed procedure.

    In  fact,  there is also clear documentary evidence  to show  that  the Principal was pressurised to  collect  extra amounts  of  fees from the students by management, that  the students  protested,  that  the  Principal  informed  higher authorities  and for that reason, she was removed.  She went to  Court and succeeded in a writ petition and re-joined the College on 2.9.99.

    Once  the  University did not grant permission for  the admission  of the additional 80 students (over and above the sanction  number  of 70 students),  the  respondent-College, which had no choice, tried to get over the problem by filing a  writ  petition.   The  High  Court  passed  the  impugned judgment  on  16.8.89  directing  the  University  to  grant approval for admission of 80 students.

    The  High Court, in our view, was in error in  allowing increase  in  the admission of 80 students by assuming  that the  adhoc selection of teachers dated 1.5.99 was sufficient to  permit  increase into students.  The selection of  these adhoc  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 adhoc  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.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

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  adhoc teachers on 1.5.99 was illegal and  the College  could  not  seek extra students on basis  of  extra adhoc  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.  Points  2 and 3 are decided accordingly.

Point 4:

    During  the  pendency of this appeal, the  College  has sought  release  of  the result of examination of  these  80 students.   We  are  conscious that the  students  who  have undergone this course are not before us.

    This  Court  has laid down in several cases,  that  the Courts cannot issue directions contrary to the rules.

    In  State  of Maharashtra Vs.  Vikas Sahebrao  Roundale (AIR  1992  SC 1926), while dealing with certain  directions issued by the Bombay High Court, this Court observed:

                   "The directions to the  appellants               to  disobey the law in subversive of  the               rule  of  law,  a  breeding  ground   for               corruption   and   feeding   source   for               indiscipline. The High Court, therefore,               committed  manifest  error  in  law,   in               exercising    its    prerogative    power               conferred   under  Article  226  of   the               Constitution,  directing the  appellants               to permit the students to appear for  the               examination etc."

    Again, in State of Punjab Vs.  Renuka Singla ( AIR 1994 SC 595), this Court observed:

                   "The  High Court or  Supreme  Court               cannot be generous or liberal in  issuing               such directions which in substance amount               to directing the authorities concerned to               violate  their  own statutory  rules  and               regulations, in respect of admissions  of               students.   ....The  High  Court   cannot               disturb the balance between the  capacity               of   the  institutions  and   number   of               admissions,  on  ’compassionate  ground’.               The  High Court should be  conscious  of               the  fact that in this process  they  are               affecting    the   education    of    the               students.....".

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

    More often, as pointed in the above judgments, Colleges or  schools  which violate the rules, either plead  for  the students  or set up the students to file cases in the Courts in  the  belief  that the courts can be persuaded  to  grant orders  to  jump over the rules.  This tendency has been  on the increase.  Commercialisation of education is the reason. This Court has been insisting on discipline and obedience to rules.  Where even the High Courts have been granting orders in  favour of the institutions/students, this Court has been setting aside those orders.

    The question is whether, on the facts of this case, the results of the examination can be directed to be released?

    In the normal course, the answer could only be that the results cannot be allowed to be released.  But there are, in our  opinion,  two circumstances which cannot,  however,  be disregarded.   One is that there was an order of the NCTE  - though,  as  stated above, the NCTE was not right in  giving permission - permitting additional students.  Unfortunately, the  NCTE is not a party before us and therefore we are  not able  to  set  aside its orders.  Secondly, these  extra  80 students  have  completed the two year course, and paid  the examination  fee.   The  University which is  the  appellant before  us  has  accepted the fee from  these  students  and allowed  them to take the examination.  Question is whether, in  such circumstances, we should permit the University  not to release the results?

    Though  this Court has, almost uniformly been  refusing to  show  any  concession  in  favour  of  students  or  the institutions, we have felt in the peculiar facts of the case and  in  view  of  the circumstances  mentioned  above,  the results could be directed to be released.

    We  may point out that by an order passed on  16.8.2000 this  Court  restrained  the College from making  any  extra admission  for  the  year 2000-2001.   Counsel  invited  our attention  to  the  various subsequent  proceedings  of  the Selection  Committee for regular selection of lecturers.  We do  not want to go into the said selection.  Learned counsel for  the  University  argued that even  the  latter  regular selection  dated 23.4.2000 was made by the College in haste, without  giving adequate time to the University to send  its representative  and  that the College sent a letter  to  the University  on 8.4.2000 deliberately fixing 10.4.2000 as the date  of selection and that it conveniently went ahead  with the  selection without a nominee from the University on  the selection Committee.  We do not want to go into the validity of this latter selection.

    We  however  direct the College not to admit any  extra students  beyond  70  unless  there   is  a  proper  regular selection  of lecturers by a Committee in which the  nominee of  the University and of the DHE are present and unless the University  also  approves  such   appointments  and  grants permission,  of  course  after  verifying  about  the  other infrastructural  facilities required to justify any  further increase of the student strength.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

    So  far as the 80 students of 1999-2000 are  concerned, in  view  of the above circumstances referred to  above,  we direct the University that their results be released.

    It  is  time  that the courts evolve  a  mechanism  for awarding damages to the students whose careers are seriously jeopardised  by unscrupulous management of  colleges/schools which  indulge  in violation of all rules.  This is not  the occasion  to go deep into that aspect but one day it has  to be done.

    With  these remarks, we allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court, direct result of the examination in  B.Ed.   to  be released, we restrain  the  College  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.   The Appeal is disposed of accoridngly.  No costs.