H.M. TRAINING COLLEGE, REP. BY SECRETARY, M.M. ALIYAR, H.M. TRUST, Vs. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MANAGEMENTS of existing B.Ed. colleges in the State are the petitioners challenging the action of the State Government in issuing "No Objection Certificates" to all the applicants for starting another 291 self -financed B.Ed. Colleges in the State commencing from the academic year 2003 -04. The State Government along with the counter affidavit produced report prepared by the expert committee constituted by the Government to assess the requirements of number of B.Ed. colleges in the State, depending upon the educational needs. The Committee recommended the additional requirement of B.Ed. college in the State at 75 which is accepted by the Government through a Cabinet committee decision. It may be noticed that there was an earlier round of limitation in this Court, pertaining to the same issue, which culminated in the judgment of this Court in W.A. No. 3013 dated 17.12.2002. It is conceded that pursuant to the judgment the committee that was earlier constituted on 11.1.2002 and which granted approval for nine specified colleges was revived by the Government by order dated 25.10.2002, produced as Ext. R2(1). The finding of the Division Bench of this Court in this regard is as follows:

(2.) EVENTHOUGH notice was issued to all the respondents, who have obtained NOC, some of them have only appeared and from among those appeared only a few have filed counter affidavits. In the normal course, OPs are not ripe for hearing as service to all the respondents is not complete. However, in view of the appearance of substantial number of contesting respondents and since as of now only general issues arise and individual cases of respondents are not considered, I heard counsel for the petitioners, Addl. Advocate General appearing for the State and counsel appearing for the respondents who have entered appearance and have also perused counter affidavits filed and the expert committee report submitted along with the counter filed by the State. After hearing the parties, I am of the view, that there is no need to wait to serve notice for the rest of the respondents because so far, the Government have not identified 75 applicants who are relatively more eligible to start B.Ed. colleges, subject to approval by NCTE and affiliation by the University. Since the individual case of each of the respondents is not to be considered by this Court at this stage and no adverse order is going to be issued in the case of any individual respondent, I feel the O.Ps. can be disposed of without waiting for completion of service and appearance by respondents of the respondents. Further waiting for their appearance and granting time for filing counter affidavit will only cause further delay in disposal of OPs. which will be prejudicial to their own interest. Therefore I proceed to dispose of the Original Petitions, especially because 237 out of 291 applications were filed with the Government in the year 2001 itself for NOC for commencing the course for the academic year 2002 -03 and even for 2003 -04 academic year; at leas the eligible will not be able to commence the course.

(3.) THE main contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that Government granted NOC to large number of applicants on political and extraneous considerations. The allegation is that Govt. by granting NOCs indiscriminately is permitting education to be carried on as a business. I do not think there is any difference between the managements running the existing colleges and those want to open new colleges. Whatever be the other motivating force behind these institutions or managements, massive investments are made by the self -financed colleges not just as social service, but for earning profit as well. However, I do not think there is any conflict between these two concepts. In other words, educational institution can achieve it's larger objective of providing educational opportunities to large number of the needy and simultaneously earn profit. The opening of large number of self -financed professional colleges recently in the State in response to the liberalised policy of the Government is sufficient encouragement and justification for the Government to permit more such institutions in diverse fields of education. The contention raised by counsel appearing for the respondents is that the petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the NOCs and their motive is only to prevent competition and ensure monopoly. The respondents also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in J.M. DESAI v. ROSHAN KUMAR wherein the Supreme Court rejected the challenge against the grant of NOC to a cinema theatre raised by a rival businessman. I do not think this decision can be applied to the facts of this case. Section 12(m) of the NCTE Act 1993 itself Mandates that the Council should take all necessary steps to prevent commercialisation of teacher -education, which applies to Govt, also at the stage of grant of NOC. Eventhough petitioners may have business -interest, I do not think the same will disqualify them from filing the OPs. "Commercialisation" of education prohibited or discouraged under the Act does not all together exclude generation of profit from an educational institution. The object of an educational institution should be essentially service and profit is only incidental. However, if the motive is only to make profit, then the Government and NCTE should not encourage such institutions and petitioners also can complaint against it. Apart from the motives of the petitioners, and protection of their interest, education involves public interest and this Court should protect public interest; no matter whoever brings the matter to the Court. Above all the Govt.'s decision to reduce the number of NOCs from 291 to 75 itself justified the filing of the OPs. Therefore the objection against maintainability of the OPs is not sustainable.