SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Sanjeev Narula, J.
Sri Srinivasa College of Education - Appellant
Versus
National Council for Teacher Education - Respondent
W.P.(C) 9212 of 2022 & CM Appl. 43713 of 2022
Decided On : 02-11-2022




Recognition of educational institutions cannot be withdrawn without considering subsequent compliance with regulations, ensuring procedural fairness in the evaluation process.

Headnote:(A) National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 - NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2014 - Withdrawal of recognition of teacher education institution - The impugned orders were challenged on the grounds that there was failure to consider the approved faculty list dated 14th June, 2020 - The Petitioner-institute submitted applications for change of intake and management, but non-compliance with requirements led to withdrawal action by the Respondents. (Paras 1, 3, 6, and 7)

(B) Legal Considerations - Failure to take into account subsequent compliance and developments is key in administrative decisions - The Respondents failed to provide sufficient assessment regarding compliance of faculty requirements before taking adverse actions against the Petitioner-institute. (Para 6)

Facts of the case:
The Petitioner was recognized for a B.Ed. course with an intake of 100 students, later requesting to reduce the number to 50. Non-submission of required documents led to the withdrawal of recognition by SRC, confirmed by NCTE.

Findings of Court:
Both impugned orders were set aside as they disregarded key evidence of compliance regarding faculty approval.

Issues: Main issues addressed included the consideration of new documentation post-show cause notice and the procedural fairness in the representation process.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that recognition should not be withdrawn without evaluating compliance with requirements; failure to consider the approved faculty list undermined the legality of both orders.

Result: The petition is allowed, and the impugned orders are set aside.

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Narula, J. Petitioner impugns, (i) order dated 08th March, 2021 of Respondent No. 2-Southern Regional Committee ["SRC"] withdrawing recognition to Petitioner-institute [hereinafter "withdrawal order"] and, (ii) order dated 18th April, 2022 of Appellate Committee of Respondent No. 1-National Council for Teacher Education ["NCTE"] confirming the withdrawal order [hereinafter "appeal order"] [collectively, referred to as "impugned orders"].

2. Facts:

2.1. Petitioner-institute was granted recognition by SRC vide order dated 10th May, 2007 for conducting B.Ed. course of one year duration with an annual intake of 100 students from academic session 2006-07.

2.2. On promulgation of NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2014 [hereinafter "NCTE Regulations, 2014"], Petitioner-institute submitted an affidavit dated 22nd January, 2015 for adherence to provisions of said regulations qua two units in B.Ed. course. Consequently, a Revised Provisional Recognition Order [hereinafter "RPRO"] dated 19th May, 2015 was issued to Petitioner-institute for 100 seats - two basic units of 50 students from academic session 2015-16.

2.3. Subsequently, vide letter 30th October, 2015 to SRC, Petitioner-institute sought to reduce the intake from 100 to 50 students (2 units to 1 unit) for B.Ed. course. The sanctioned strength of 50 students was granted by affiliating university vide communication dated 15th February, 2016 for academic session 2016-17 and thereafter, Petitioner-institute again requested SRC for reduction of intake vide letter dated 17th December, 2016.

2.4. Petitioner-institute also sought permission for change of management on 28th February, 2017. The afore-noted request was rejected vide letter dated 1st March, 2017 and request for reduction of intake for B.Ed. course was conditionally accepted by SRC. Further, vide said communication, Petitioner-institute was directed to submit latest approved faculty list for issue of fresh recognition order, in view of changed faculty norms, as per NCTE Regulations, 2014.

2.5. On 16th May, 2017, Petitioner-institute applied to affiliating university requesting for approval of faculty. In the above background, on 13th November, 2019, SRC issued first show cause notice ["First SCN"] to Petitioner-institute for not submitting the requisite documents in response to RPRO, with an opportunity to submit a reply within 21 days.

2.6. Petitioner-institute responded to First SCN vide letter dated 21st December, 2019.

2.7. Pursuant to Petitioner-institute's request, affiliating university on 14th June, 2020, duly approved the faculty list.

2.8. In the meantime, SRC issued a final show cause notice on 8th January, 2021 ["Final SCN"] on the ground that Petitioner-institute had not submitted any representation/compliance in response to SRC's letter dated 1st March, 2017. This was replied to by Petitioner-institute on 1st February, 2021 enclosing therewith afore-said approved faculty list, for issuance of fresh recognition order.

2.9. Thereafter, withdrawal order was issued by SRC on ground of failure to submit requisite documents as per Final SCN, which was confirmed by the Appellate Committee.

3. Mr. Mayank Manish, counsel for Petitioner-institute, argued that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside as approved faculty list dated 14th June, 2020 which was submitted by Petitioner-institute in response to Final SCN has not been taken into consideration by SRC as well as the Appellate Committee. The same ought to be considered in view of settled legal position relating to consideration of subsequent developments/additional documents.

4. Per contra, Mr. Govind Manoharan, counsel for Respondents, has strongly contended that Petitioner-institute was functioning in violation of NCTE Regulations, 2014 and therefore, impugned orders are correct in law. He emphasised that Petitioner-institute is bound to mandatorily fulfil all norms which include, inter alia, conditions relat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top