The appellate authority must consider the documents submitted by the petitioner and make acceptable findings before making a decision on the withdrawal of recognition.

JUDGMENT

Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J. (Oral)

1. This petition is directed against the order dated 14.03.2022 passed by respondent No.2-Southern Regional Committee (hereinafter referred to as `SRC'), whereby the recognition for the B.Ed. course of the petitioner- institution has been withdrawn. The petitioner also challenged the order dated 12.07.2022 passed by respondent No.1-National Council for Teacher Education (hereinafter referred to as `NCTE'), whereby, the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 14.03.2022 has been rejected.

2. The facts of the case would show that the respondent No.2-SRC on 13.07.2006 granted the recognition to the petitioner-institution for the B.Ed. course of one year duration with an annual intake of 100 students for the Academic Session 2006-2007.

3. It is seen that the Regulations known as National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2014 (in short, `Regulations of 2014') came into force w.e.f 01.12.2014. The petitioner- institution on 20.01.2015 submitted an affidavit for its willingness to adhere to the provisions of the Regulations of 2014. Accordingly on 13.05.2015, a revised recognition order was issued in favour of the petitioner-institution for the Academic Session 2015-16. On 11.11.2021, a Show Cause Notice under Section 17 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (in short `Act of 1993') appears to have been issued to the petitioner and other institutions calling upon the petitioner and others, to submit their compliance to the provisions of the Regulations of 2014. On 25.11.2021, the petitioner- institution submitted its reply. On 28.12.2021, a Final Show Cause Notice was issued to the petitioner by respondent No. 2-SRC. It is seen that the petitioner submitted its reply to the Final Show Cause Notice on 04.01.2022. After considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, the respondent No. 2- SRC in terms of order dated 14.03.2022 has withdrawn the recognition of the petitioner-institution for the Academic Session 2022-23. The petitioner challenged the order dated 14.03.2022 in an appeal, under Section 18 of the Act of 1993 which has also been rejected by the impugned order dated 12.07.2022.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-institution submits that the impugned orders dated 14.03.2022 and 12.07.2022 are illegal and improper. According to her, respondent No.2-SRC did not consider the reply to the Final Show Cause Notice in the right perspective. She, therefore, submits that the order passed by respondent No. 2-SRC, at first place itself, is flawed and violative of the principles of natural justice and fair play. She, however, submits that in any case the deficiencies which were the basis for withdrawing the recognition of petitioner-institution were fulfilled and documents were brought on record before the appellate authority to satisfy that there remains no deficiency in the petitioner- institution. She, therefore, submits that the appellate committee, in terms of the impugned order, without considering the material produced by the petitioner, has rejected the same. She has placed reliance on a decision of this court in the case of KMG College of Education v. National Council for Teacher Education & Anr., passed in W.P.(C) 11638/2022 on 12.09.2022 to indicate that if the appellate authority has any doubt with respect to the authenticity of the document, the necessary clarification should have been asked for, instead of rejecting the document itself on the ground that the seal of the competent authority is in regional language.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-NCTE opposed the submissions and submitted that the case of the petitioner was rightly considered by the respondent No. 2-SRC and after having noted the fact that the petitioner-institution is deficient in compliance of the provisions of Regulations of 2014, the impugned decision was taken. She submitted