SETH TEK CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition seeks direction for inclusion of name of the petitioner in the list of institutions offering B.Ed. course for the purpose of counselling.

(2.) Case of the petitioner is that on 1.10.2007, recognition for 100 additional seats for B.Ed. had been granted in favour of the petitioner vide Annexure P.6 but the petitioner-college was not being included for Centralised counselling.

(3.) Reference in the petition has also been made to a judgement of this Court dated 7.8.2007 in CWP No. 9270 of 2007, Annexure PA, wherein colleges granted recognition were not being included for counselling nor were being allowed to make their own admissions. Stand taken on behalf of the State was that prospectus for admission having been issued in March 2007 and admission process raving been conducted between 15.5.2007 and 26.5.2007, new colleges granted recognition after March 2007 could not be allowed to make admissions or included in the counselling. It was submitted that there was no obligation to hold entrance test merely on grant of recognition as examinations were scheduled to be held in March 2008 and admissions could not be allowed after May 2007. It was held that though, the State had right to regulate admissions by providing a centralised and single window procedure but if the State did not do so, private institutions could hold their own joint Common Entrance Test subject to non-commercialisation, merit and transparency, as per law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.A. Inamdar V/s. State of Maharashtra, 2005 AIR(SC) 3226. It was further observed that though admissions could not be given in the mid-session or in such a way as not to complete the course, a schedule had to be laid down fixing duration of course, date of commencement of course and last date for admissions, as was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Medical Council of India V/s. Madhu Singh and another, 2002 AIR(SC) 3230 and Mridul Dhar (minor) and another V/s. Union of India and others, 2005 2 SCC 65. One of the institutions therein was granted recognition in September 2006 much before issuance of the prospectus and other institutions were granted recognition in June/July and thus, sufficient time being available, the State was held not to be justified in declining conducting or permitting admissions on account of its own delay. The State was required to lay down a policy about the time schedule for the duration of course, date of commencement of the course and the last date for admissions.