The main legal point established in the judgment is that an institution should be given a reasonable opportunity to address deficiencies before withdrawal of recognition, and additional reasons for withdrawal should not be introduced without providing the institution with a chance to be heard.

ORDER

Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J. (Oral)--The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition against the order of the Southern Regional Committee (hereinafter referred to as `SRC') dated 20.04.2022, whereby, the recognition of the petitioner-institution has been withdrawn with respect to B.Ed. course from the Academic Session 2022-23. The order of withdrawal dated 20.04.2022 has been affirmed in appeal in terms of the order dated 11.01.2023 passed by the Appellate Committee, which has also been challenged in the instant petition.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-institution states that the reasons assigned by the Appellate Committee are perverse and arbitrary. He also states that the petitioner-institution is an ongoing institution which was granted recognition in the year 2008-09 and since then, the petitioner-institution was successfully operating the B.Ed. Course but surprisingly, without following the due process in accordance with law, the order of withdrawal came to be passed. He further states that the Appellate Committee has gone beyond the deficiencies and the reasons which were forming part of the order of withdrawal. According to him, additional reasons have been assigned by the Appellate Committee in rejecting the appeal, and therefore, not only the order of withdrawal but the order passed by the Appellate Committee also suffers from material illegality.

3. Learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents vehemently opposes the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner-institution and he states that there is no substance in the instant writ petition. According to him, the petitioner-institution lacks the basic eligibility criteria and there is no proof of salary disbursement. In the absence of sufficient proof, it cannot be inferred that the petitioner-institution is fulfilling the requirement of applicable regulations. He also states that even as per the petitioner's own showing, the proof of salary disbursement is not placed on record. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents further states that the other documents with respect to land etc. are also required to be submitted by the petitioner-institution, which are also not placed on record.

4. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record.

5. The facts of the case would show that the petitioner-institution was granted recognition under Section 14 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the `NCTE Act, 1993') vide order dated 30.08.2008 for conducting B.Ed course of one year duration with an annual intake of 100 students. After promulgation of NCTE Regulations, 2014, the petitioner-institution consented to adhere to the norms stipulated therein and a notarized affidavit in that respect was submitted on 28.01.2015.

6. According to the revised recognition, the order was issued on 06.05.2015 for conducting B.Ed course for two years with an annual intake of 100 students (2 basis units of 50 each) from the Academic Session 2015-16. In terms of the request letter dated 10.12.2015 of the petitioner-institution, the intake was decreased from 2 to 1 unit vide order dated 06.09.2017.

7. It is seen that on 21.02.2019, a Show Cause Notice was issued to the petitioner-institution pointing out certain deficiencies. As per the case of the NCTE, the said Show Cause Notice was not replied by the petitioner-institution. The matter was then considered by the SRC and a final Show Cause Notice was decided to be issued. The petitioner-institution thereafter submitted its reply on 30.12.2019. The SRC in its meeting held on 29-30.03.2022 considered the matter and noted certain deficiencies. While observing those deficiencies, the SRC has decided to withdraw the recognition of the petitioner-institution in terms of Section 17(1) of the NCTE Act, 1993 from the following academic session i.e. Academic Session 2022-23. The deficiencies which form