An institution must comply with the NCTE's built-up area requirements to maintain recognition, and inspection is not obligatory if documentation clearly shows non-compliance.

JUDGMENT

Prateek Jalan, J. (Oral)

The proceedings in the matter have been conducted through video conferencing.

1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners assail an order of the Eastern Regional Committee ["ERC"] of the National Council for Teacher Education ["NCTE"] dated 27.06.2019 withdrawing the petitioner's recognition for conduct of the B.Ed. Course. The petitioners also assail an order of the Appellate Committee of the NCTE dated 22.01.2021, by which the aforesaid order of the ERC was affirmed.

Facts

2. The petitioner institution was established for running a B.Ed. Course in the year 1998, and was granted a recognition order on 06.03.1998. After the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2014 [hereinafter, "2014 Regulations"] came into force, the petitioner was issued a revised recognition order dated 22.05.2015. The revised recognition order was in respect of the petitioner's course for two units of 50 students each, i.e., for a total of 100 students. It inter alia contained the following conditions:

" xxxx xxxx xxxx

xxxx xxxx xxxx

4. AND WHEREAS, it has been decided to permit the institution to have two basic units of 50 students each subject to fulfilling following conditions namely:

(i) The institution shall create additional facilities that include (a) additional built-up area, (b) additional infrastructure, (c) additional fund, (d) adhere to staff norms as per Regulations, 2014 and inform Regional Committee with required documents by October 31, 2015."

(Emphasis supplied.)

3. At a meeting held on 16/17.04.2018, the ERC considered the issue of compliance with the revised recognition orders, and a show cause notice was issued to the petitioners on 20.04.2018. The petitioners responded thereto by a communication dated 15.05.2018. However, a second show cause notice was issued on 14.12.2018, to which the petitioners responded on 31.12.2018. The response was not accepted by the ERC and a third show cause notice dated 21.02.2019 was issued. Once again, the petitioners responded on 05.03.2019, but a fourth show cause notice was issued pursuant to a decision taken on 24/25.04.2019. The petitioner institution responded to the said decision to issue a show cause notice.

4. However, the ERC decided at its meetings held on 30/31.05.2019 & 01.06.2019 and 14.06.2019, to withdraw the petitioner's recognition with effect from the academic session 2020-21. The first impugned order dated 27.06.2019 was issued by the ERC consequent upon this decision. In the order dated 27.06.2019, the ERC has noted inter alia that the petitioner had not submitted the building completion certificate, as required.

5. The petitioner unsuccessfully challenged the aforesaid decision before the Appellate Committee of NCTE, which affirmed the aforesaid order by its decision dated 26.09.2019.

6. The petitioners approached this Court against the aforesaid orders dated 27.06.2019 and 26.09.2019 by way of W.P.(C)10473/2020. The writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 16.12.2020. The Court noted the aforementioned facts and relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in National Council for Teacher Education and Anr. vs. Vaishnav Institute of Technology and Management, (2012) 5 SCC 139, wherein the Supreme Court had occasion to interpret Sections 13 and 17 of the NCTE Act, 1993 [hereinafter, "the Act"]. Having regard to the contention of the petitioners that the NCTE ought to have examined whether the petitioner institution fulfils the requisite norms and standards for conducting the course for either one basic unit (50 students) or two basic units (100 students), the Court found that this aspect had not been considered in the impugned orders. The writ petition was therefore disposed of with the following operative order:

"11. Accordingly, I allow the present writ petition and quash the order of the Appeal Committee dated 26.09.2019 and remand the matter back to the Appeal Committee to co