The court emphasized the importance of proper consideration of deficiencies and explanations in the withdrawal of recognition under the NCTE Act, and the requirement for a fresh inspection and issuance of proper show cause notice by the SRC.

ORDER

Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner-institution has filed the instant writ petition against the order dated 07.01.2022 passed by the respondent-Southern Regional Committee (hereinafter referred to as `SRC') whereby, the recognition of the petitioner-institution for running B.Ed course has been withdrawn. The petitioner-institution also challenges order dated 21.12.2022 passed by respondent no.1-NCTE in appeal under Section 18 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as `NCTE Act').

2. The facts of the case show that the petitioner-institution is a Government aided educational institution. The petitioner-institution is running B.Ed course since 1986, even before NCTE Act came into force. After coming into force of the NCTE Act, the petitioner-institution was granted recognition with retrospective effect.

3. The petitioner-institution was granted recognition by the SRC vide order dated 14.10.1996 which has been placed on record as (Annexure P-2). Thereafter, vide recognition order dated 17.01.2002, the SRC also granted permanent recognition to the petitioner-institution for B.Ed course. After coming into force of the 2014 Regulations, the revised recognition order was issued on 18.03.2015.

4. On account of certain deficiencies in the petitioner-institution, a show cause notice (SCN) was issued by respondent no.1 to the petitioner- institution on 05.11.2019.

5. The petitioner-institution claims to have submitted the reply on 29.11.2019. The SRC recorded its satisfaction with respect to some deficiencies, however, it was found that there were several deficiencies, which were not cured by the petitioner-institution and accordingly, final SCN was issued on 07.10.2021. The petitioner-institution further claims to have replied to the final SCN in terms of a reply dated 07.12.2021. The respondent-SRC however, denies the said fact.

6. It is, thus seen, that on 07.01.2022 the respondent-SRC decided to withdraw the recognition of the petitioner-institution, mainly on the ground that no reply to the final SCN was submitted by the petitioner-institution. The order of rejection of the recognition was challenged in an appeal before the Appellate Authority (hereinafter referred to as `AA') in terms of Section 18 of the NCTE Act which was also dismissed on 12.07.2022 on the ground that the petitioner-institution has failed to submit the reply to the final SCN.

7. The petitioner-institution, thereafter, filed a writ petition bearing no. W.P.(C) 11788/2022 before this court. This court in terms of order dated 08.08.2022 found that the case of the petitioner-institution was not considered appropriately by the AA and accordingly, the same was remitted back to the AA for reconsideration in terms of the directions passed by this court vide order dated 08.08.2022. This court also set aside the order passed by the AA.

8. After matter was remanded back by this court, the AA passed the final order on 21.12.2022 rejecting the appeal of the petitioner-institution and affirming the order of withdrawal dated 07.01.2022 passed by the SRC. The petitioner-institution therefore, filed the instant writ petition.

9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-institution assails the impugned order passed by the original authority i.e. SRC and also the order passed by the AA. According to him, the AA has only considered four deficiencies. He submits that if the four deficiencies as have been pointed out by the AA are carefully perused, the same indicate that they were not the part of the final SCN.

10. Learned counsel has also explained that without prejudice to his argument, there was sufficient explanation against each deficiency which was already placed on record by the petitioner-institution and the same has not been considered properly. He elucidates that with respect to the built-up area, the petitioner-institution had already placed on record the building plan which is part