A regulatory body is not required to reconsider the withdrawal of recognition for an educational institution based on documentation obtained significantly after the withdrawal has attained legal finality, especially when the institution failed to comply with statutory norms during the period of its active operations.

Headnote:(A) Letters Patent - Section 10 - Act governing the establishment and regulation of teacher education institutions - Section 17(1) - Withdrawal of recognition - Scope of judicial review - An educational regulatory body’s decision to withdraw recognition due to persistent failure to comply with statutory norms regarding faculty, infrastructure, and mandatory administrative disclosures is valid if consistent with the statutory framework - Courts should refrain from interfering in regulatory decisions where the institution had sufficient opportunity to cure defects but failed to do so within the specified period. (Paras 1, 10, 16)

(B) Administrative Law - Remand - Subsequent events - While a remand to an appellate authority may be permissible for considering subsequent events that cure a deficiency pending the appeal process, such relief is not available where the institution seeks to rely on documentation obtained significantly after the conclusion of the appellate process and long after the withdrawal order has attained finality. (Paras 18, 19)

Facts of the case:
The regulator withdrew the recognition of an educational institution due to the absence of an approved faculty list, failure to maintain mandatory website disclosures, and lack of requisite building documentation. Despite receiving multiple opportunities and show-cause notices, the institution remained non-compliant. An appeal against the withdrawal order was dismissed. Subsequently, the institution sought a direction for reconsideration based on a faculty list obtained thirteen months after the appellate decision. A single judge directed the regulator to re-examine the proposal, leading to the present appeal by the regulator.

Findings of Court:
The withdrawal of recognition was legally sound as the institution failed to adhere to statutory requirements for several years. The procurement of documents long after the finality of the withdrawal order does not entitle the institution to a remand. The institution is permitted to apply for fresh recognition in accordance with the current regulations, provided it satisfies all necessary criteria.

Issues: Whether a regulatory body is obligated to reconsider a withdrawal of recognition based on evidence of compliance produced significantly after the terminal appellate order, and whether the court should interfere with a valid regulatory decision when the entity fails to meet mandatory standards within the statutory framework.

Ratio Decidendi: Regulatory actions, when based on sustained non-compliance, attain finality and cannot be reversed by reliance on documents that are produced with undue delay; judicial intervention is not warranted when the entity fails to rectify deficiencies within the provided administrative opportunities.

Result: Appeal allowed.

Table of Content
1. procedural context of the appeal against the high court's direction for reconsideration. (Para 1 , 2 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. appellant's contention that withdrawal of recognition for non-compliance with ncte norms had attained finality. (Para 3)
3. respondent's justification of delay in compliance due to affiliation issues and pending legal proceedings. (Para 4)
4. court's finding that the respondent institution lacked requisite faculty at the time of withdrawal. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
5. belated compliance after final order does not justify remand or reconsideration of recognition. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
6. final outcome of the appeal with the setting aside of impugned directions and cost waiver. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)

JUDGMENT :

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J.

1. The present intra Court appeal has been filed under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent read with Section 10 of Delhi High Court Act, 1966 assailing the order dated 23.09.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P(C) No. 1043/2022 titled as ‘Holy Child B.ED. College vs NCTE & Ors’.

2. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the learned Single Judge while upholding the validity of the order dated 26.02.2020 passed by the Appellant No.2 [i.e., Eastern Regional Committee (‘ERC’)] withdrawing the recognition of the B. Ed course offered by Respondent No. 1/Institute as well as the validity of the order dated 10.03.2021 passed by the Appellant No.1 [i.e., National Council for Teacher Education (‘NCTE’)], rejecting the appeal of Respondent No. 1, nevertheless directed the Appellant No. 2 to effectively consider Respondent No. 1’s eligibility for the prospective academic session. The operative part of the impugned order challenged in this appeal is as under: -

“…….

5. In terms of the proviso to Section 17(1) of the NCTE Act, 1993, the withdrawal of recognition has already come into effect and therefore, Petitioner college cannot intake students for the academic session 2022-23.

6. Petitioner - college was originally granted recognition for B.Ed. course from the academic session 2008-09 vide ERC's order dated 30 August, 2008. Given that Petitioner has claimed that the faculty list is now in place, it will be appropriate that ERC examine the same. Accordingly, ERC is directed to examine the afore-said faculty list and conduct an inspection if so required and take a decision for the prospective session, in accordance with law within a period of three months from today.

7. The above direction is subject to cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be deposited with Delhi High Court Advocates' Welfare Trust.

8. The Court has not examined the merits of the case of Petitioner and all rights and contentions are left open.

9. With the above directions, the petition is disposed of.”

Submissions by the Appellant

3. It is the case of the Appellants that Respondent No. 1/Institution was granted a revised recognition order dated 24.05.2015 for the B.Ed. programme with an annual intake of 100 students, subject to fulfilment of prescribed conditions, including submission of a faculty list duly approved by the affiliating University.

3.1. Mr. Hardik Rupal, learned counsel for the Appellants states that pursuant to coming into force of NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2014 (‘NCTE Regulations, 2014’), all Institutions recognized by the NCTE were granted time till 31.10.2015 to comply with the revised norms and standards. It is stated that Respondent No. 1, however, failed to comply with the norms, within the stipulated period and remained non-compliant thereafter as well.

3.2. He states that the NCTE Regulations, 2014, particularly Regulation 7, Regulation 7(13), and Regulation 7(14)(i), mandate compliance with faculty, infrastructure and administrative requirements by the concerned Institution (i.e., Respondent No. 1), including an approved faculty, approved building documents, and a functional website carrying complete statutory disclosures.

3.3. He states that in view of non

Click Here to Read the rest of this document