JUDGMENT

Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition seeking quashment of the order dated 29.07.2021 passed by respondent No.2-Southern Regional Committee (in short `SRC'), whereby, the recognition of the petitioner for running B.Ed course has been withdrawn. The petitioner also challenges the order dated 18.04.2022 passed by the respondent No.1-National Council for Teacher Education (in short `NCTE') rejecting the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner upholding the withdrawal order.

2. The facts of the case are that on 30.11.2004, the petitioner college was granted recognition for conducting a secondary (B.Ed) course of one year duration with an annual intake of 100 students from the academic session 2004-2005. On 01.12.2014, Regulations known as the National Council for Teacher Education [Recognition Norms and Procedure] Regulations, 2014 (in short `Regulations, 2014') were promulgated. Accordingly, on 16.05.2015 a revised provisional recognition order was issued in favour of the petitioner for conducting B.Ed programme of two years duration with an annual intake of 100 for two basic units of 50 students each from the academic session 2015-2016.

3. On 23.10.2019, the SRC issued a show cause notice (in short `SCN') to the petitioner pointing out certain deficiencies. On 04.11.2019 the petitioner submitted its reply. Between 14.03.2020 to 18.03.2020, the inspection of the petitioner was conducted and the visiting team prepared a report which was received by the SRC on 18.03.2022. Based on the findings of the visiting team, on 23.10.2020 a final SCN was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner again submitted a reply to the final SCN on 06.11.2020.

4. Thereafter, the SRC in its 400th meeting, conducted from 13.07.2021 to 14.07.2021 decided to withdraw the recognition granted to the petitioner for conducting B.Ed. programme w.e.f. the academic session 2021-2022. The petitioner challenged the said decision before the Appellate Committee (in short `AC') constituted in terms of Section 18 of the National Council of Teacher Education Act, 1993 (in short `NCTE Act, 1993').

5. In terms of the decision taken in its 400th meeting, the concerned SRC issued the formal order of withdrawal of the recognition on 29.07.2022. Since the counselling was to take place with respect to the academic session 2021-2022, the petitioner preferred W.P.(C)11597/2021 before this court, seeking permission to allow it to participate in the counselling. On 08.10.2021 this court allowed the petitioner to participate in the counselling and to admit the students for the academic year 2021-2022 in view of the proviso of Section 17 of the NCTE Act, 1993.

6. On 18.04.2022, the AC dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and affirmed the order of withdrawal, therefore, aggrieved by the original order dated 29.07.2022 and the order dated 18.04.2022 passed in appeal, the petitioner has preferred this petition.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the impugned decision is illegal and improper. The same has been passed in derogation of the applicable provisions and also the settled legal position. According to her, the order of withdrawal of recognition dated 29.07.2021 is cryptic in nature and the same goes beyond the scope of the SCN. She states that there were three deficiencies noted in the order dated 29.07.2021 and the petitioner has explained all three deficiencies not only before the concerned SRC but before the AC also.

8. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, two faculty members not possessing the required qualifications, as mentioned in the order dated 29.07.2021, were already replaced by new faculty members. She, therefore, states that so far as the deficiency with regard to the faculty members is concerned, the same was rectified and new faculty members were appointed which was approved by the affiliating University. With respect to the deficit in total built u