Back
2014 Supreme(MP) 926
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
A.M. Khanwilkar, C.J., K.K. Trivedi, JJ.
Matushri Ahilya Devi Teachers Education Institute & another - Appellant
Versus
National Council for Teachers Education & others - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 21586 of 2013
Decided On : 13-05-2014
For the Petitioner:Siddharth Gupta, Deepak Raghuwanshi, Manish Mishra, Rajmani Singroul, Bramhadatt Singh, Rajneesh Gupta, Paritosh Gupta, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Tapan Kumar Trivedi, K.K. Singh, Prakash Upadhyay, Subhash Chaturvedi, Ms. Shobha Menon, C.A. Thomas, Ramesh Sharan Sharma, Advocates.
The main legal principle established in the judgment is the necessity of providing an opportunity of hearing and conducting inspections before cancellation of recognition of educational institutions under Regulation 8(5) of NCTE Regulations 2009. The judgment also emphasizes the need for the exercise of discretion and relaxation in obtaining accreditation from the NAAC, considering practical challenges.
Headnote:
NCTE Regulation 2009 - Recognition of Institutions - Regulation 8(5) - Summary of Acts and Sections: NCTE Act 1993, Regulation 8 of NCTE Regulations 2009 - The judgment discusses the interpretation and application of sub-clause (5) of Regulation 8 of NCTE Regulations 2009, which pertains to the conditions for grant of recognition to institutions. The court examines the legal provisions and their implications on the recognition of educational institutions, particularly in relation to the requirement of obtaining accreditation from the National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) for conducting certain courses. The judgment highlights the duty of the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) to conduct inspections and the necessity of providing an opportunity of hearing to the institutions before cancellation of recognition. It also emphasizes the power of relaxation under Regulation 12 of NCTE Regulations 2009 and the need for a case-by-case basis assessment.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves multiple writ petitions challenging the cancellation of recognition of educational institutions by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) under Regulation 8(5) of NCTE Regulations 2009. The petitioners contend that the cancellation was unjustified as they were not given an opportunity of hearing and were not informed about the requirement of obtaining accreditation from the NAAC. The respondents argue that the cancellation was based on the regulations and that the writ petitions are not maintainable as an appeal process exists under Section 18 of the NCTE Act 1993.
Finding of the Court:
The court finds that the cancellation of recognition by the NCTE was unjustified as it was done without providing an opportunity of hearing to the institutions and without conducting inspections as required by the NCTE Act 1993. The court also emphasizes the necessity of granting relaxation in obtaining accreditation from the NAAC, considering the practical difficulties faced by the institutions and the failure of the authorities to conduct timely inspections.
Issues: The key issues include the validity of the cancellation of recognition under Regulation 8(5) of NCTE Regulations 2009, the requirement of providing an opportunity of hearing before cancellation, and the practical challenges faced by institutions in obtaining accreditation from the NAAC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision is based on the interpretation of Regulation 8(5) of NCTE Regulations 2009, the provisions of the NCTE Act 1993, and the duty of the NCTE to conduct inspections and provide opportunities of hearing before cancellation of recognition. The court also emphasizes the need for the exercise of discretion and relaxation in obtaining accreditation from the NAAC, considering the practical difficulties faced by the institutions.
Final Decision: The court allows the writ petitions, quashes the orders of the respondents, and grants liberty to initiate proceedings afresh against the petitioners after granting them an opportunity of hearing and to pass fresh orders. The court also directs the respondents to examine applications for relaxation under Regulation 12 of NCTE Regulations 2009 on a case-by-case basis.
Judgment:
K.K. Trivedi, J.:--
This judgment will also govern the disposal of Writ Petition No. 16805/2013, Writ Petition No. 21669/2013, Writ Petition No. 21953/2013, Writ Petition No. 220/2014, Writ Petition No. 1571/2014, Writ Petition No. 1998/2014, Writ Petition No. 2066/2014, Writ Petition No. 2067/2014, Writ Petition No. 2068/2014, Writ Petition No. 2070/2014, Writ Petition No. 2071/2014, Writ Petition No. 2072/2014, Writ Petition No. 3262/2014, Writ Petition No. 5984/2014 and Writ Petition No. 19985/2013. As the common question is involved including the interpretation of sub-clause (5) of Regulation 8 of National Council for Teacher Education Regulations, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the NCTC Regulation 2009 for brevity), for the convenience facts are taken from this petition only.
2. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed seeking the following reliefs :-
“(a) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue appropriate writ/order/direction including a writ of certiorari setting aside and quashing the impugned communications dated 30.10.2013 and 12.09.2013 of the WRC, NCTE.
(b) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue appropriate writ/order/direction including a writ of mandamus directing the respondent university for conducting the examination of students of the petitioners institution having studied in the M.Ed. courses for the session 2012-13.
(c) The Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue appropriate writ/order/direction including a writ of mandamus directing the respondent NAAC for issuing the necessary accreditation certificates within a time bound period to the petitioners, if so found fit as per their norms and standards.
(d) Any other order or direction deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed with costs.”
3. To summarise the facts in all other cases also, it would be necessary to give certain brief statements of claim made in different writ petitions :
(i) Writ Petition No. 16805/2013 was filed by I.E.S. College of Education against the University seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondent university to conduct the examination of 35 students studying in M.Ed. courses for the session 2012-13, within time bound period. It was contended that the said institution was duly recognized by the National Council for Teacher Education (hereinafter referred to as the NCTE for short) and on the strength of such a recognition, students were admitted in the College, they have completed their course but their examinations were not allowed to be conducted. Therefore, the writ petition was required to be filed. During pendency of the said writ petition, since, in respect of various colleges, in terms of the provisions of Regulation 8(5) of NCTE Regulations 2009, such recognition was cancelled, the name of the institution was removed from the register of the recognized institution by the NCTE (Western Regional Committee), different writ petitions were filed challenging the said orders on various counts.
(ii) A Public Interest Litigation, being W.P. No. 19985/2013 was filed by one R.K. Khare, against several universities as also Union of India, National Assessment & Accreditation Council, NCTE, the State Government, seeking a command that the said authorities be directed not to conduct the examination of those students who were admitted in the institutions which were not fulfilling the conditions prescribed in Regulation 8(5) of NCTE Regulations 2009. Another relief was claimed that the examination of such students if conducted, their results may not be declared. The said Public Interest Litigation was also heard together with these writ petitions.
(iii) All other writ petitions are also against the order of cancellation of recognition of the concerned institutions, which were earlier granted recognition by the NCTE and, therefore, all those writ petitions were heard analogously in this group of cases.
4. Now adverting to the question involved in the present pet
