IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Sanjeev Narula, J.
Vidyadhari College of Education - Appellant
Versus
National Council for Teacher Education - Respondent
W.P.(C) 6391 of 2021, CM Appls. 20066 of 2021, 3557 of 2022 & 36572 of 2022
Decided On : 04-11-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. findings of appellate committee regarding compliance. (Para 3) |
| 2. core reasons for withdrawal of recognition. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. arguments on inadequate built-up area. (Para 6 , 8) |
| 4. disputes concerning building completion certificate. (Para 12 , 14) |
| 5. qualifications of faculty according to regulations. (Para 13 , 17) |
| 6. final decision and dismissal of petition. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Narula, J.:
1. Petitioner-institute impugns, (i) order dated 6th November, 2020 of Respondent No. 2-Southern Regional Committee ["SRC"] withdrawing recognition to Petitioner-institute [hereinafter "withdrawal order"], and (ii) order dated 4th June, 2021 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's sponsoring society desirous of seeking recognition for B.Ed. course obtained land and building on lease, from its President-Sri Jami Bheemasankara Rao for a period of 30 years w.e.f. 20th December, 2006. Thereafter, Petitioner-institute's submitted an application with SRC which was accepted and recognition was granted on 6th October, 2008 for conducting B.Ed. course with an annual intake of 100 seats.
2.2. On promulgation of NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2014 [hereinafter "NCTE Regulations, 2014"], Petitioner-institute submitted an affidavit dated 28th January, 2015 for adherence to provisions of said regulations. Consequently, a Revised Provisional Recognition Order was granted on 26th May, 2015 for two units [hereinafter "revised recognition order"]. Subsequently, Petitioner-institute requested for reduction of seats from two to one (i.e., 100 students to 50 students) which was allowed vide order dated 21st July, 2017 of SRC.
2.3. In due course, on 18th February, 2019, SRC issued a show cause notice for non-submission of documents in compliance with revised recognition order [hereinafter, "First SCN"], to which Petitioner- institute submitted its reply on 6th March, 2019.
2.4. Subsequently, SRC, in its 381st meeting held from 31st October to 1st November, 2019, SRC decided to seek a set of 13 documents from all institutions who had not complied with SRC's revised recognition order. The said decision was conveyed to Petitioner-institute vide show cause notice dated 6th December, 2019 [hereinafter, "Final SCN", which was responded by Petitioner-institute on 30th December, 2019.
2.5. Thereafter, withdrawal order was issued by SRC, which was confirmed by the Appellate Committee.
3. The relevant portion of Appellate Committee's appeal order [Annexure P-18] reads as under:
"AND WHEREAS Appeal Committee noted the submissions made by appellant by its letter dated 01/04/2021 submitted at the time of appeal hearing on 06/04/2021. Appeal Committee also noted that appellant institution is recognised to conduct B.Ed. programme since 2008 and the present intake for the course is one unit (50 seats). Appeal Committee in its meeting (virtual) held on 29.05.2021 further noted the submission made through E-mail on 25.05.2021.
AND WHEREAS Appeal Committee noted that NCTE Regulation, 2014 provide for a minimum built up area of 1500 sq. meters for conducting B.Ed. programme with an intake of one unit (50 seats). The Building Completion Certificate (B.C.C.) submitted by appellant indicates that 3rd floor and Parking lot of 3800 and 1000 sq. feet are having A.C.C. roofing. Clause 8(7) of NCTE Regulation, 2014 provide that No temporary structure or asbestos roofing shall be allowed in the institution, even if it is in addition to the prescribed built-up area. Further the Building Completion Certificate (B.C.C.) submitted is not signed and authenticated by Competent Civic Authority. Appeal Committee also noted that faculty placed at Serial no. 8 i.e. Sh. K. N. Rao (Lecturer in Education) is appointed on 11/11/2020 and is neith
Compliance with NCTE Regulations is essential for recognition; failure leads to withdrawal of recognition, as demonstrated in this case.
Compliance with the minimum built-up area requirements is essential for the recognition of teacher education institutions.
The appellate authority must consider the documents submitted by the petitioner and make acceptable findings before making a decision on the withdrawal of recognition.
Recognition of educational institutions cannot be withdrawn without considering subsequent compliance with regulations, ensuring procedural fairness in the evaluation process.
The interpretation of 'temporary structure' versus 'permanent structure' in the context of educational institution regulations must consider regional practices and the overall compliance with built-u....
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 issuan....
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 ....
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....
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.