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
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
Recognition of educational institutions cannot be withdrawn without considering subsequent compliance with regulations, ensuring procedural fairness in the evaluation process.
The appellate authority must consider the documents submitted by the petitioner and make acceptable findings before making a decision on the withdrawal of recognition.
Compliance with NCTE Regulations is essential for recognition; failure leads to withdrawal of recognition, as demonstrated in this case.
The withdrawal of recognition of an educational institution was justified due to the failure to submit required documents, and the principles of natural justice were not violated as the petitioner di....
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 w....
The importance of proof of service of the Show Cause Notice and the violation of principles of natural justice influenced the court's decision.
Regulatory bodies play a crucial role in maintaining educational standards, but the court has the authority to set aside orders and allow re-inspection if the petitioner claims to have fulfilled all ....
Administrative action requiring withdrawal of recognition must adhere to principles of natural justice, including adequate notice and opportunity to respond, failing which the action may be deemed in....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.