Back
2020 Supreme(Ker) 869
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, J.
Kannur Salafi B.Ed . College P.O.Koodali, Kannur District - Appellant
Versus
Kannur University Represented By Its Registrar, Thavakkara, Civil Station P.O., Kannur and Ors - Respondent
W.P.(C)No.26983 of 2020(W)
Decided On : 09-12-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sri.P.M.Pareeth Adv.
For the Respondent: Sri.M.Sasindran, Dr.Abraham P.Meachinkara, SC, NCTE, Sri.Sunil Nath N.B., Government Pleader
Important points:
If a recognised institution does not rectify the deficiencies and continues to function in contravention of the provisions of the NCTE Act or the Rules or the Regulations, the Regional Committee under Section 17 has full power to proceed for withdrawal of recognition in accordance with the procedure prescribed therein. Section 17 and Section 13 must be harmoniously construed.
Headnote:
National Council for Teacher Education-Section 17,Section 18 ;; The NCTE (Recognition Norms Procedure) Regulations, 2014- Regulation 9 ;;The Constitution of India- The inspection of a recognised institution is not necessary for the proposed action under Section 17-It can proceed in accordance with the law without following the route of inspection as provided under Section 13
Statement of facts:
Sought for direction to the 2nd respondent Registrar of the 1st respondent University to permit the petitioner institution to participate in the allotment process for B.Ed course for the academic year 2020-21; and a declaration that in view of the recognition granted by the 3rd respondent NCTE in Ext.P4 order dated 12.09.2017, for conducting B.Ed course with an intake of 50 students, the petitioner institution is entitled to admit students for two year B.Ed course, for the academic year 2020-21, and the action of the 1st respondent University to delete the name of the institution from the seat matrix of 2020-21 is illegal, arbitrary and ab initio void.
Finding of the court:
The college shall satisfy NCTE norms with regard to appointment of teaching staff within a period of one month, which is in violation of the norms and standards prescribed in Appendix-4 of the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2014 the petitioner institution, which had conducted B.Ed course during the previous academic year, i.e., 2019-20, with four unqualified Assistant Professors, cannot be permitted to admit students for B.Ed. course in the current academic year, i.e., 2020-21 and conduct the said course during the current academic year with unqualified faculty members.
Result: Writ petition dismissed
JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioner institution, namely, Kannur Salafi B.Ed College, which is conducting B.Ed course on the strength of the recognition granted by the 3rd respondent National Council for Teacher Education (for brevity, 'the NCTE'), Southern Regional Committee and the affiliation granted by the 1st respondent Kannur University, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P7 order dated 03.11.2020 of the 1st respondent University, whereby the petitioner was informed that since the NCTE has withdrawn the recognition granted for conducting B.Ed course, due to various deficiencies, the petitioner institution is not permitted to admit students from the academic year 2020-21 and that the name of the institution is deleted from the seat matrix of 2020-21. The petitioner has also sought for a direction to the 2nd respondent Registrar of the 1st respondent University to permit the petitioner institution to participate in the allotment process for B.Ed course for the academic year 2020-21; and a declaration that in view of the recognition granted by the 3rd respondent NCTE in Ext.P4 order dated 12.09.2017, for conducting B.Ed course with an intake of 50 students, the petitioner institution is entitled to admit students for two year B.Ed course, for the academic year 2020-21, and the action of the 1st respondent University to delete the name of the institution from the seat matrix of 2020-21 is illegal, arbitrary and ab initio void.
2. On 04.12.2020, when this writ petition came up for admission, this Court noticed that the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner as W.P.(C)No.22477 of 2020 was dismissed as withdrawn, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge the order of withdrawal of recognition issued by the 3rd respondent NCTE, by filing a statutory appeal. Ext.P7 order, which is under challenge in this writ petition is an order issued by the 1st respondent University based on that order of withdrawal of recognition issued by the NCTE. The Registry was directed to list this writ petition on 08.12.2020 along with the Judge's papers in W.P.(C)No.22477 of 2020.
3. On 08.08.2020, during the course of arguments, the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the faculty members included in Ext.P6 staff list approved by the 1st respondent University are still in service. The learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent University sought time to get instructions as to the date on which Ext.P6 staff list was approved by the University.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for Kannur University, representing respondents 1 and 2, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent NCTE and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the 4th respondent State.
5. The issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether any interference is warranted on Ext.P7 communication dated 03.11.2020 issued by the 2nd respondent, who is the registrar of the 1st respondent University, which is one 3rd issued based on Ext.P5 order dated 16.10.2020 of the respondent NCTE, whereby the recognition granted to the petitioner institution for conducting B.Ed course with an annual intake of 50 students, stands withdrawn.
6. By Ext.P5 order dated 12.09.2020, the 3rd respondent NCTE has withdrawn the recognition granted to the petitioner institution in Ext.P4 order, for conducting B.Ed course, on account of the deficiencies pointed out in that order. Deficiency No.3 pointed out in Ext.P5 reads thus;
“3. The institution has submitted an original staff list approved by Kannur University consisting of one Principal and eight Assistant Professors (one basic unit) vide dated nil.
Some of the deficiencies observed in the staff list are as follows;
a. Percentage of marks in PG Degree 2 Lecturers is less than 55%. The details of the staff are as follows;
I. Mrs. Aiswarya Lakshmi M. (Mal
