SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Del) 2317

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J.
IN THE MATTER OF:
Sana College Of Education – Appellant
Versus
National Council For Teacher Education & Anr. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 9685 of 2022 & CM APPL 28837 of 2022
Decided on : 13-01-2023

Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, Ms. Swati Jhunjhunwala, Ms. Pinky Pawar & Mr. Aakash Pathak, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Ms. Kartika Sharma & Ms. Vanshita Gupta, Advocates.

Regulatory bodies play a crucial role in maintaining educational standards, but the court has the authority to set aside orders and allow re-inspection if the petitioner claims to have fulfilled all requirements.

Headnote:

NCTE Regulations - Recognition Withdrawal - [B.Ed. Course] - [NCTE Act, 1993, Section 18] - [1, 17(1)] - The court discussed the deficiencies noted by the SRC and the Appellate Committee, including issues related to building completion certificate, non-encumbrance certificate, faculty qualifications, and website information. The court emphasized the importance of regulatory bodies in maintaining educational standards but allowed the petitioner to re-inspect the institution and pass a fresh order if all requirements are fulfilled.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner's B.Ed. course recognition was withdrawn due to deficiencies in compliance with NCTE Regulations. The petitioner appealed the decision, allowing admission for the academic session 2021-22. The Appellate Committee rejected the appeal, leading to the writ petition before the court.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that while deficiencies were noted, the petitioner claimed to have fulfilled all requirements and had already admitted students for the academic session 2021-22. The court set aside the impugned order and the appellate order, allowing the SRC to re-inspect the institution and pass a fresh order based on compliance with NCTE Regulations.

Issues: Recognition withdrawal based on deficiencies in compliance with NCTE Regulations, petitioner's claim of fulfilling all requirements, and the court's authority to set aside the orders and allow re-inspection.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of regulatory bodies in maintaining educational standards but allowed the petitioner to re-inspect the institution and pass a fresh order if all requirements are fulfilled.

Final Decision: The petition stands disposed of along with pending application in the aforesaid terms.

JUDGMENT :

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J.

1. This petition is directed against order dated 24.08.2021 passed by respondent No.2/Southern Regional Committee (hereinafter referred as SRC). The petitioner is also aggrieved by the order passed in appeal by the Appellate Authority constituted in terms of Section 18 of the National Council for Teacher’s Education Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred as NCTE).

2. The petitioner’s case is that, it was granted recognition for conducting B.Ed. course in terms of approval dated 21.12.2005 for the academic session 2005-06. The petitioner, thereafter, continued to impart education with respect to the said course. In the year 2016, there were certain instructions by the SRC of the petitioner Institution. On 08.11.2019, the SRC in its 381st meeting held on 31.10.2019 and 01.11.2019 decided to issue show cause notice to all such institutions who were deficient in compliance of the parameters of NCTE Regulation, 2014.

3. The petitioner Institution on 04.12.2019 submitted its response to the show cause notice and pointed out that the institution is not deficient in compliance of the said Regulations and had explained the circumstances. It appears that SRC in its 389th meeting held on 12/14.10.2020 decided to issue the final show cause notice. The petitioner on the basis of the minutes of the meeting submitted its response on 04.11.2020 to again explain the reasons and to satisfy the show cause notice. On 11/12.08.2021, the SRC in its 401st meeting considered the reply to the final show cause notice and had decided to withdraw the recognition granted to the petitioner Institution.

4. In terms of the order dated 24.08.2021, the recognition of B.Ed. course granted to the petitioner for two years duration with annual intake of 100 students was withdrawn w.e.f. the academic session 2021-22. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Committee against the said order. During the pendency of the appeal, since counselling for the academic session 2021-22 was to take place, the petitioner filed the writ petition being W.P.(C) 11605/2021 before this court, which was disposed of on 08.11.2021 allowing the petitioner to participate in the ongoing counselling and to admit the students in the academic session 2021-22.

5. It is stated that in accordance with the directions given by this court, the petitioner Institution has granted admission for the academic session 2021-22 and it is an ongoing institution and is fulfilling all requirements in accordance with the relevant Regulations. Later on, the Appellate Committee vide order dated 26.05.2022 passed the final order, whereby, the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rejected.

6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner while taking this court through the order dated 24.08.2021 pointed out that the deficiencies as were noted, mainly related to minor issue except deficiency No.4, which was with respect to faculty members in terms of NCTE Regulations. She states that not only before the Appellate Committee but even before this court also the petitioner has brought on record the list of the documents to indicate that there arise no deficiency and the teaching faculty has been duly approved by the Karnataka University.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has further pointed out from the appellate order dated 26.05.2022 to indicate that the explanation submitted by the petitioner Institution before the Appellate Authority has not been considered in right perspective. She, therefore, stated that when the petitioner Institution has already admitted students in terms of the interim order passed by this court for the academic session 2021-22 and the counselling for the academic session 2022-23 is ongoing. Therefore, it would be in the interest of students and all concerned to re-inspect the petitioner Institution and to assist as to whether the same fulfills all requirements in accordance with the NCTE Regulations or not.

8. Learned c

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
        supreme today icon
        logo-black

        An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

        Please visit our Training & Support
        Center or Contact Us for assistance

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon Back to top