GOBINDAPUR ACADEMIC PTTI vs NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION & ANR.
$~36
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 305/2024
GOBINDAPUR ACADEMIC PTTI ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjay Sharawat and Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advs.
versus
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR
TEACHER EDUCATION & ANR. ….. Respondents
Through: Mr. Rahul Madan, Adv. for NCTE
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
O R D E R (ORAL)
% 09.01.2024
W.P.(C) 305/2024 and CM APPL. 1407/2024 (stay)
1. The petitioner Institute was granted recognition for running the B.Ed. course on 23 February 2018 with an intake of 100 seats in the year 2018-2019 under Clause 7(16) of the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms & Procedure) Regulations, 2014 (the 2014 Regulations).
2. On 30 September 2020, the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) issued a show cause notice to the petitioner under Section 17(1) of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (NCTE Act). The relevant portions of paras 2 and 3 of the said show cause notice read thus:
2. Hence, the committee decided to issue show cause notice u/s 14/15/17 of NCTE, Act 1993, to the institutions as listed below with a direction to submit the following within 60 days of the date of issuance of the show cause notice:-
(i) The list of teaching faculty approved by the affiliating body/university at the time of granting recognition by ERC after the issuance of LOI u/c 7(13) of Regulation-2014.
(ii) Latest teaching faculty list approved by the affiliating body/University duly signed by the competent authority along with affidavit, testimonials, service certificate, marks card etc.
3. The Committee is of the opinion that the institution prima facie, does not fulfill the requirements, the norms and standards laid down by the NCTE in accordance with the provisions of the amended Gazette Notification No. 237 dated 09.06.2017.
3. On 9 April 2022, a final show cause notice was issued by the NCTE to the petitioner. The following passages from the said show cause notice merit reproduction:
Hence, the committee decided to issue show cause notice u/s 14/15/17 of Regulation-2014 to the institutions as listed below with a direction to submit the following within 60 days of the date of issuance of the show cause notice:
(i) The list of teaching faculty approved by the affiliating body/university at the time of granting recognition by ERC after the issuance of LOI u/c 7(13) of Regulation-2014.
(ii) Latest teaching faculty list approved by the affiliating body/University duly signed by the competent authority along with affidavit, testimonials, service certificate, marks card etc.
Apart from above mentioned point No. (i) and (ii) the institutions are required additional information as per Clause 7(14), 8(6) 10 (3) of the NCTE Regulation 2014 and Clause 2 (C) of the NCTE Regulations dated 28.04.2017.
4. Clauses 7(14), 8(5)(6) and 10(3) of the 2014 Regulations and Clause 2(c) of the NCTE Regulations dated 28 April 2017 (hereinafter the 2017 Regulations) read thus:
(14) (i) All the applicant institutions shall launch their own website with hyperlink to the Council and corresponding Regional Office websites soon after the receipt of the letter of intent from the Regional Committee, covering, inter alia, the details of the institution, its location, name of the programme applied for with intake; availability of physical infrastructure, such as land, building, office, classrooms, and other facilities or amenities; instructional facilities, such as laboratory and library and the particulars of their proposed teaching faculty and non-teaching staff with photographs, for information of all concerned. The information with regard to the following shall also be made available on the website, namely:-
(a) sanctioned programmes along with annual intake in the
institution;
(b) name of faculty and staff in full as mentioned in school
certificate along with their qualifications, scale of pay and
photograph;
(c) name of faculty members who left or joined during the last quarter;
(d) names of students admitted during the current session along with qualification, percentage of marks in the qualifying examination and in the entrance test, if any, date of admission and such other information;
(e) fee charged from students;
(f) available infrastructural facilities;
(g) facilities added during the last quarter;
(h) number of books in the library, refereed journals subscribed to, and additions, if any, in the last quarter.
(ii) The institution shall be free to post additional relevant information, if it so desires.
(iii) Any false or incomplete information on its website shall render the institution liable for withdrawal of recognition.
*****
8. Conditions for grant of recognition.
(5) The institution or society shall furnish an affidavit on Rs. I 00 stamp paper duly attested, by Oath Commissioner or Notary Public stating the precise location of the land (Khasra number, village, district, state, etc.), the total area in possession and the permission of the competent authority to use the land for educational purposes and mode of possession, i.e., ownership or lease. In case of Government institutions, the said affidavit shall be furnished by the Principal or the Head of the Institution or any other higher authority. The affidavit shall be accompanied with the certified copy of land ownership or lease documents issued
by the registering authority or civil authority, permission of the competent authority to use the land for educational purposes (and approved building plan) as per provision contained in sub-regulation (4) of the Regulation 5.
(6) The copy of the affidavit shall be displayed by the institution on its official website. In case, the contents of the affidavit are found to be incorrect or false, the society or trust or the institution concerned shall be liable for civil and criminal action under the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code and other relevant laws, and shall also be liable for withdrawal of recognition by the Regional Committee concerned.
*****
10. Financial Management.
(3) Every institution shall display on its official website, every financial year by the 30th day of September, the following statements of accounts duly certified by a Chartered Accountant:-
(i) Balance sheet as on the last date of the financial year;
(ii) Income and expenditure account for the financial year;
(iii) Receipt and payment account for the financial year.
*****
2. In the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2014 (hereafter referred to as the said regulation),
(c) For sub-regulation (14), the following shall be substituted, namely:-
(14) The institution shall adhere to the mandatory disclosures in the prescribed format and display up-to-date information on its official website and on-line monitoring of the institution shall be done through the website of such Institution by National Council for Teacher Education or an agency authorised by it and the amount payable for this purpose shall be determined by the National Council for Teacher Education from time to time.
5. The petitioner responded to the afore-noted show cause dated 9 April 2022 vide communication dated 6 June 2022. Mr. Sharawat submits that, of the 16 faculty members recruited by the petitioner all of whom have been approved by the West Bengal University of Teacher’s Training, Education Planning and Administration, Kolkata, West Bengal (the affiliating University, hereinafter) nine faculty members had resigned, in whose place, the petitioner had recruited nine other lecturers. The petitioner, thereafter, addressed communication to the affiliating University on 17 May 2022, requesting the affiliating University to nominate an expert to select 15 newly recruited faculty members which included the afore-noted nine newly appointed faculty members. Though the letter dated 17 May 2022, annexed as Annexure P-8 to the writ petition does not formally read as a request for grant of approval to the newly recruited faculty members, Mr. Sharawat submits that the letter was effectively a letter seeking approval.
6. By a withdrawal order dated 24 November 2022, the NCTE withdrew the recognition granted to the petitioner for its B.Ed. programme under Section 17(1) NCTE Act w.e.f. the end of the academic session next following the date of communication of withdrawal order. Though, to my mind, this would indicate that the withdrawal order would take effect from the end of the 2023-2024 academic session; Mr. Sharawat submits that a Division Bench of this Court has taken the view, following an earlier Supreme Courts decision, that the effect of the order would be that the petitioner would not be entitled to admit new students for 2023-2024 academic session.
7. It would be seen, from the withdrawal order, that the only deficiencies, on the basis of which the withdrawal of recognition of the petitioner institution was sought to be justified were:
(i) failure on the part of the petitioner to submit the latest list of faculty duly approved by the affiliating University,
(ii) failure on the part of the petitioner to upload the requisite information on its website, as required under Clause 7(14) of the 2014 Regulations, and
(iii) failure, on the part of the petitioner, to update its website as per the 2014 Regulations for academic session 2020-21.
8. The petitioner appealed against the aforesaid order dated 24 November 2022 to the Appellate Committee in the NCTE.
9. By the impugned order dated 7 March 2023, the NCTE has dismissed the said appeal. The reasoning and operative portion of the said decision read thus:
The Appeal Committee in its 3rd Meeting, 2023 held on 27.02.2023 considered the documents submitted alongwith the Memorandum of Appeal as compliance of grounds of withdrawal order and observed that the appeal of the institution is still deficient on the following points: –
(i) The institution has not submitted latest staff list duly approved by the affiliating body. Further, the institution has failed to submit copies of certificates of academic & professional educational qualification viz. B.Ed., M.Ed., NET, Ph.D. etc. and experience of teaching staff.
(ii) The proof regarding disbursement of salary of the teaching and non-teaching staff, whether it is being paid through cheque/online payment has also not been submitted.
Hence, the Appeal Committee is of the view that the appellant institution is still lacking on the above grounds. The Appeal Committee concluded that the ERC was justified in withdrawing the recognition and decided that the instant appeal deserves to be rejected and therefore, the impugned withdrawal order dated 24.11.2022 issued by ERC is confirmed.
10. From a perusal of the impugned appellate order, it transpires that the withdrawal of the recognition granted to the petitioner has now been found to be justified on the following grounds:
(i) failure on the petitioner to submit the latest staff list duly approved by the affiliating University,
(ii) failure on the part of the petitioner to submit copies of certificates of academic and professional qualifications and experience of the teaching staff, and
(iii) failure on the part of the petitioner to provide proof of disbursement of salary to the teaching and non-teaching staff.
11. Mr. Sharawat submits that of these three grounds, grounds (ii) and (iii) travel outside both the show cause notices dated 30 September 2020 and 9 April 2022 which had been issued to the petitioner, and that, therefore, they could not constitute justifiable grounds to withdraw the petitioners recognition.
12. Having heard Mr. Sharawat, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Madan, learned Counsel for the respondents, the submission requires prima facie to be accepted in view of Section 17(1) of the NCTE Act, which reads thus:
17. CONTRAVENTION OF PROVISIONS OF ACT AND CONSEQUENCES THEREOF
(1) Where the Regional Committee is, on its own motion or on any representation received from any person, satisfied that a recognised institution has contravened any of the provisions of this Act, or the rules, regulations, orders made or issued thereunder, or any condition subject to which recognition under sub-section (3) of section 14 or permission under sub-section (3) of section 15 was granted, it may withdraw recognition of such recognised institution, for reasons to be recorded in writing:
Provided that no such order against the recognised institution shall be passed unless a reasonable opportunity of making representation against the proposed order has been given to such recognised institution:
Provided further that the order withdrawing or refusing recognition passed by the Regional Committee shall come into force only with effect from the end of the academic session next following the date of communication of such order.
13. Clearly, Section 17(1) requires any decision to withdraw recognition of a recognised institution to be preceded by grant of a reasonable opportunity to the institution of making of representation against the proposed order of withdrawal. It is obvious, therefore, that the institution concerned must be communicated the grounds on which the recognition is proposed to be withdrawn. Withdrawal of recognition on grounds regarding which no reasonable opportunity has been provided to the institution to offer a response is prima facie in violation of Section 17(1).
14. Grounds (ii) and (iii) above, as contained in the impugned appellate order dated 7 March 2023, therefore, prima facie could not have constituted grounds for justifying the withdrawal of petitioners recognition, as the petitioner was never granted any reasonable opportunity to file a response thereto.
15. Insofar as ground (i) is concerned, Mr. Sharawat candidly acknowledges that this ground does find place in all communications starting from the show cause notices issued to the petitioner.
16. Clearly, the proposed ground was that the petitioner had not submitted its latest staff list duly approved by the affiliating University. Mr. Sharawat submits that there is, in fact, no requirement in the Regulations of a recognised institution periodically having to submit its staff list. At the time of recognition, submits Mr. Sharawat, that the staff list had been provided to the NCTE and all members of the said staff list had been approved by the affiliating University. It was on the basis of the said staff list that the institution was granted recognition.
17. Mr. Sharawat submits that there is no regulation requiring an institution to submit the staff list again at any later point of time. Mr. Madan has not been able to draw my attention to any such requirement contained in the Regulations.
18. Mr. Madan relies on Regulation 7(13) of the 2014 Regulations. However, the reliance is prima facie misplaced. Regulation 7(13) refers to submission of the list of University approved faculty prior to grant of recognition to the institution concerned. It is only after the staff list is submitted and verified that the University is granted recognition.
19. Mr. Madan submits, then, that, even if there is no expressed provision requiring the institution to periodically submit the list of University approved faculty it is implicit in the Regulations that if the any faculty is changed, the petitioner would have to obtain approval of the affiliating University for the newly recruited faculty and intimate the NCTE accordingly.
20. Even assuming, arguendo, that the submission deserves consideration, in the facts of the present case, out of the 16 faculty members, who were originally in place when the recognition was granted to the petitioner, all of whom have been approved by the affiliating University, nine had resigned. Apropos the remaining nine faculty members, the petitioner had communicated to the affiliating University, requiring it to grant approval for the said nine faculty members. It is difficult to understand what more could be expected from the petitioner. Mr. Sharawat submits that, in fact, in the State of West Bengal, the grant of affiliation by Universities had come to a halt for a period of around two years and that the affiliating University has now re-commenced grant of affiliation.
21. Be that as it may, it appears, to me to be prima facie unfair to withdraw recognition to the petitioner Institution on the ground that it had not submitted the list of University approved faculty, when, at the time of recognition, the list was submitted and as on date, there are only nine faculty members, who had been recruited thereafter and in respect of whom, as well, a request for grant of approval has been made by the petitioner to the affiliating University.
22. In that view of the matter, a prima facie, case has been made out by Mr. Sharawat.
23. Issue notice to show cause as to why rule nisi be not issued.
24. Notice is accepted by Mr. Rahul Madan.
25. Counter affidavit be filed within a period of four weeks with advance copy to learned Counsel for the petitioner who may file rejoinder there, if any, within a period of four weeks thereof.
26. List on 20 February 2024.
CM APPL. 1058/2024 (stay)
27. Issue notice.
28. Notice is accepted by Mr. Rahul Madan.
29. Reply be filed within a period of four weeks with advance copy to learned Counsel for the petitioner who may file rejoinder there, if any, within a period of four weeks thereof.
30. List on 20 February 2024. No extension of time will be granted for filing reply or rejoinder.
31. Till the next date of hearing, the operation of the withdrawal order dated 24 November 2022 shall stand stayed.
C.HARI SHANKAR, J
JANUARY 9, 2024
rb
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
W.P.(C) 305/2024 Page 12 of 12