Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.
Kamala Bezbaruah Memorial College Of Teacher Education - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India And Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) 986 of 2020
Decided on : 27-06-2023
NCTE - Withdrawal of Recognition - NCTE Act, Section 17(1); NCTE (Recognition, Norms and Procedure) Regulation, 2014, Clause 8(7) - The court examined the legality of the NCTE's withdrawal of recognition from the petitioner College based on alleged deficiencies in compliance with the NCTE Regulations. The court highlighted that the interpretation of 'temporary structure' versus 'permanent structure' was pivotal, especially after amendments to the regulations. The court found that the NCTE's reliance on CI sheet roofing as a basis for withdrawal was flawed, leading to the conclusion that the recognition should be restored.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner College, established in 1990, had its recognition for conducting B.Ed courses withdrawn by the NCTE on 28.08.2019, citing deficiencies in compliance with the NCTE Regulations. The petitioner challenged this decision, arguing that the withdrawal was based on irrelevant factors and extraneous considerations.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the NCTE's decision to withdraw recognition was based on a misinterpretation of the term 'temporary structure' as it applied to CI sheet roofing. The court noted that the amended regulations did not prohibit CI sheet roofing and that the total built-up area exceeded the required minimum, thus rendering the NCTE's decision unsustainable.
Issues: Whether the NCTE's withdrawal of recognition was justified based on the alleged deficiencies in compliance with the NCTE Regulations, particularly regarding the interpretation of 'temporary structure' and the adequacy of built-up area.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the classification of a structure as 'temporary' must consider the context and prevailing practices in the region. The use of CI sheet roofing alone does not render a structure temporary, especially when the overall built-up area meets regulatory requirements. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the amended regulations in evaluating compliance.
Final Decision: The court set aside the NCTE's decision to withdraw recognition and directed the restoration of the College's recognition, ordering the NCTE to reflect the College's name on its website.
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.
The legality and validity of an order dated 28.08.2019 passed by the Eastern Regional Committee, National Council of Teacher Education (NCTE) by which the recognition of the petitioner College was withdrawn is the subject matter of challenge. The petitioner is also aggrieved by an order dated 05.12.2019 passed in the Statutory Appeal preferred before the NCTE Delhi against the aforesaid order of withdrawal of recognition. During the pendency of the writ petition, the matter was reconsidered in the 306th meeting of the ERC held on 14/15 September 2022, in which the impugned decision was affirmed and therefore, such affirmation has also been taken into the purview of the present challenge to do substantial justice to the parties before the Court. The principal ground of challenge is that the impugned decision has been taken on wholly irrelevant factors and extraneous considerations.
2. Before going to the issue which has arisen for consideration, it would be convenient if the facts of the case are narrated in brief.
3. The petitioner is a College of Teacher Education which was established in the year 1990 in the district of Jorhat for imparting teacher education. The College building was constructed in the year 2003. In the year 2015, the NCTE had granted the recognition for conducting B.Ed course for one year with annual intake of hundred numbers of students for the academic session 2015–16.
4. After coming into force, the NCTE (Recognition, Norms and Procedure) Regulation, 2014 the petitioner College had come under the purview of the said Regulation. It is the case of the petitioner that while the B.Ed. courses is being conducted in the College, the Eastern Regional Committee (hereinafter ERC) of the NCTE had issued a letter dated 14.02.2019 asking the petitioner to show cause with regard to compliance of certain additional requirements as per the Regulation of 2014.
The petitioner replied to the same on 26.03.2019, whereby all the requisite documents were furnished. However, as projected by the petitioner, on 14.05.2019, a further show cause notice was issued by which the Approved Faculty list, Building Plan and Building Completion Certificate were sought for. The said requirements, according to the petitioner were furnished on 14.06.2019, however, vide order dated 28.08.2019, the recognition of the petitioner College was withdrawn on the allegation that there were certain deficiencies in the College. The petitioner has contended that a Statutory Appeal was preferred before the NCTE, Delhi which was also rejected on 05.12.2019.
5. The claim of the respondents -NCTE, however, is that the impugned order of withdrawal of recognition was passed on relevant factors and therefore no interference is called for.
6. I have heard Shri TJ Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri PP Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner whereas the NCTE is represented by its Standing Counsel, Shri I. Alam. I have also heard Ms. M. Devi, learned Standing Counsel, Dibrugarh University. The materials produced before this Court have been carefully examined.
7. Shri Mahanta, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order dated 28.08.2019, by which the recognition granted to B.Ed. course was withdrawn under Section 17 (1) of the NCTE Act from the academic session 2020–2021 on the following grounds:
b) Building plan is not legible. Built up area does not clearly indicated.
c) Building completion certificate is not in accordance with NCTE prescribed proforma.
d) The validity of FDRs expired.”
8. Against the aforesaid order dated 28.08.2019, an appeal was preferred on 17.09.2019. Along with the Memo of Appeal, all the relevant documents were furnished. That apart, a written explanation was also submitted on 21.11.2019.
However, the Appellate Authority vide order dated 05.12.2019 had rejected the appeal by holding that the
Compliance with the minimum built-up area requirements is essential for the recognition of teacher education institutions.
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.
Compliance with NCTE Regulations is essential for recognition; failure leads to withdrawal of recognition, as demonstrated in this case.
The appellate authority must consider the documents submitted by the petitioner and make acceptable findings before making a decision on the withdrawal of recognition.
Section 17 of the NCTE Act empowers the Regional Committee of the NCTE to withdraw recognition granted to an institution offering course or training in teacher education, for reasons to be recorded i....
The importance of proof of service of the Show Cause Notice and the violation of principles of natural justice influenced the court's decision.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
