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

2024 Supreme(Mad) 341

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G.R. SWAMINATHAN, J.
The Secretary, St. Justin's College of Education, Madurai – Petitioner
Versus
The National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi and Others – Respondents
W.P. (MD) No. 5092 of 2024, W.M.P. (MD) Nos. 4874, 4878 of 2024
Decided On : 04-03-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Isaac Mohanlal, A. Amala.
For the Respondents: Su. Srinivasan, K.S. Selvaganesan, F. Deepak.

IMPORTANT POINT
The need for commensurate faculty strength as per the NCTE Act and the requirement for proper authorization for admitting students.

Headnote:

NCTE Act - Recognition Withdrawal - Section 17(3) and (4) - Summary: The court discussed the withdrawal of recognition for conducting B.Ed - AI programme and emphasized the need for commensurate faculty strength as per the NCTE Act. The court found fault with the management for not seeking amendment of the recognition order and admitted students without proper authorization. The court set aside the withdrawal orders and directed the petitioner to furnish relevant particulars for verification.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner's college had recognition for conducting B.Ed course, but the recognition was withdrawn by the NCTE. The petitioner admitted students without proper authorization and filed a writ petition challenging the withdrawal of recognition.

Finding of the Court:

The court found fault with the management for not seeking amendment of the recognition order and admitted students without proper authorization. The court set aside the withdrawal orders and directed the petitioner to furnish relevant particulars for verification.

Issues: Recognition withdrawal, admission of students without proper authorization

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for commensurate faculty strength as per the NCTE Act and found fault with the management for not seeking amendment of the recognition order and admitting students without proper authorization.

Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the withdrawal orders, and directed the petitioner to furnish relevant particulars for verification.

JUDGMENT :

G.R. SWAMINATHAN, J.

Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned proceeding of the 2nd respondent SRC in withdrawing the recognition of petitioner's college for conducting and B.Ed (Additional Intake) programme w.e.f. 2022-2023 academic session onwards in and in F. SRO/NCTE/APS08882/B.Ed-AI/(TN)/2021/29599 dated 27.12.2021 and consequential impugned order of the 1st respondent NCTE in APPLSRC 202214320 dated 12.07.2022 in rejecting the appeal, quash the same and further direct the respondents 1 and 2 to restore the recognition for the B.Ed (Additional Intake) programme conducted in the petitioner's college w.e.f. 2022-2023 academic session onwards.

1. The petitioner-institution has been imparting teaching education since 1968. It was duly recognized by National Council for Teacher Education also. The petitioner is running B.Ed course as well as M.Ed course. In this case, I am concerned with B.Ed course alone. The Southern Regional Committee of NCTE passed order dated 27.12.2021 withdrawing recognition granted to the petitioner for conducting B.Ed - AI programme of two years duration with effect from the academic session 2022-23 onwards. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority vide order dated 12.07.2022 confirmed the withdrawal order passed by the original authority. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed W.P (C) No. 15153 of 2022 before the Delhi High Court at New Delhi. An interim order was passed in favour of the petitioner on 02.11.2022. Based on the same, the petitioner admitted students for the academic session 2022-23. The petitioner admitted 54 students (50 basic + 4 additional) for the academic session 2023-24. Since for the four students admitted under the additional intake category, hall tickets have not been issued, the petitioner filed W.P. (MD) No. 4316 of 2024 before this Court. Since the petitioner had parallelly invoked the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court challenging the order withdrawing recognition, I declined to entertain the writ petition. I, however, granted liberty to the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition filed before the Delhi High Court and move this Court for relief. Availing the said liberty granted by this Court, the present writ petition came to be filed.

2. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated all the contentions set out in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition and called upon this Court to grant relief as prayed for.

3. The learned standing counsel appearing for NCTE raised several objections. The first objection was that this Court permitted the petitioner to file fresh writ petition provided the petitioner withdrew the writ petition filed before the Delhi High Court with liberty to file fresh writ petition on the same cause of action. It is pointed by him that W.P. (C) No. 15153 of 2022 was dismissed on 28.02.2024 but liberty to file fresh writ petition on the same cause of action was not granted. The learned standing counsel would contend that failure to obtain liberty from the Delhi High Court would come in the way of maintaining this writ petition. He also faulted the conduct of the petitioner-institution. Laying considerable stress on Section 17(3) and (4) of the NCTE Act, he contended that the very admission of students for the year 2023-24 was an act of blatant illegality. He also laid emphasis on the fact that though the petitioner obtained interim order for the year 2022-23, when a similar application was filed, it was dismissed on 10.10.2023. He pointed out that by then the petitioner had already admitted some students and this fact was not brought to the notice of the court. More than anything else, the petitioner having obtained recognition for conducting B.Ed - AI programme of two years duration with an annual intake of 100 stud

      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