t" 44$- * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI w.P.(C) s39412010 & CM No.10632 12010 (dS 151 CPC for stay) J.R.MEMORIAL COLLEGE OF EDUCATION ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Sanjay Sharawat, Advocate Versus . NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Ravi Sikri & Ms. Neha Bhatnagar, Advocates for R-2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW ORDER 11.08.2010 1. The petitioner was granted recognition by the respondents for irnparting education in the B.Ed. course with effect from the year 2007. Recognition was also granted to the petitioner for conducting the D.Ed. course with effect frorn the year 2008. The Northern Regional Comrnittee (NRC) of the National Council for Teacher Education Q.[CTE) served a notice dated 13tl' Septernber, 2009 on the petitioner in exercise of powers under Section 17 of the NCTE Act, 1993to show cause as to why the recognition for B.Ed. course be not withdrawn for the deficiencies mentioned therein. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner vide its tr.P.(c) 539120r0 Page I of5 , _1 .e Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified a reply dated 25ft September, 2009 informed the NRC that there were no deficiencies as alleged. Another show cause notice dated l't June, 2010 was issued to the petitioner stating three other deficiencies. The petitioner again submitted reply thereto. 2. The NRC vide its order dated 31't July, 2010 de-recognized the petitioner qua B.Ed. course on the following two grounds: "T. Faculty has not been selected through the duly constituted selection cornmittee as per NCTE norms for B.Ed. 2. The list of Faculty approved by the affiliating University has not been submitted." 3. The petitioner has preferred the Statutory Appeal to the Appeal Cornmittee of the NCTE. The said appeal is still pending. This writ petition has been preferred seeking stay of the order of the NRC. It is the case of the petitioner that the prospectus for adrnission to B.Ed. course is likely to be published soon and unless the order of the NRC is stayed, name of the petitioner will not be shown as an Institute offering the B.Ed. course and the petitioner even if ultimately successftil in the appeal preferred by it would lose out on the admissions for the current academic yen. Considering the nature of controversy, the counsels have been heard finally on the writ petition. rv.P.(c) s394nu0 Page 2 of5 -a: '.s q ) 4. On enquiry, the coursel for the petitioner states that there are seven teachers in the petitioner Institute besides the Principal for imparting education to B.Ed. students. It is contended that the entire faculty has been appointed by a Selection Committee having a nominee of the University to which the petitioner is affiliated and the entire faculty is duly qualified as per the norms of NCTE as well as the University. The counsel for the petitioner ftirther contends that while the recognition granted by the NCTE is valid till withdrawn, the affiliation by the University is on a yearly basis and the University renews the affiliation every year only upon satisfuing itself that the Institute affiliated to it have the requisite faculty for conducting the course. It is contended that no notice for withdrawal of affiliation has been given by the University to which the petitioner is affiliated and on the contrary in the last academic year the petitioner Institute was placed by the said Universrty in the 'A'...category. It is further the case of the petitioner that the particulars of the entire faculty as well as of their appointment were ftirnished to the NRC. 5. I have in order dated 8tr'July, 2010 in wP(c) No 1322012009 titled Shurtti College of Educatiort Vs. NCTE directed the Regional Committees and the Appeal Comrnittee to pass reasoned orders frorn which it can be intelligible as to what are the reasons which have prevailed for making the order. Inspite of the same, the order dated 31" July, 20L0 of the NRC w.P.(C) 5394D0r0 Page 3 of5 \ any details I impngned in this petition is again cryptic, without giving whatsoever. I have enquired from the counsel for the respondents appearing on advance notice as to whether the fault has been found with the entire faculty or with'only a few members of it and if so, which onei. The counsel states that he will have to take instructions. From a reading of the order, it is not clear whether the dissatisfaction was wiflr the entire facultv or with a few of the rnernbers onlv and if so for what reasons. 6. The counsel for the petitioner contends that though the prospectus as aforesaid is likely to be published shortly but the counselling in which the prospective students will make a choice of Institutes is likely to take place in the rnonth of September-October, 2010 only. It is contended that if the petitioner is unsuccessftil before the Appeal Committee also, then subject to otlrer remedies of petitioner, it will be open to the State Government I University to rernove the truro. of the petitioner at the time of counselling from the Institutes being offered for admission to B.Ed. course. 7 . In view of the aforesaid position, the writ petition is disposed of by directing that till the decision of the appeal prefered by the petitioner before the Appeal Committee, there shall be stay of the order of the NRC de- recognizing the petitioner for conducting the B.Ed. course. The petitioner shall be entitled to have its name included in the prospectus to be published for admission to B.Ed. courses in the current academic year. The Appeal ,tt P.(c) 539420t0 Page 4 of5 4 !' Cornrnittee of the NCTE is also directed to decide the appeal of the petitioner within three weeks of today. This order is further subject to the condition that if owing to the inclusion of the name of the petitioner in the prospectus, any student suffers any loss, the petitioner shall be liable to make good the said loss and on such tenns as may then be determined by this Court on the applicatioqrJf the shrdeirt. The respondents NCTEA{RC to also within three days hereof communicate to the University to which the petitioner is affiliated, the stay of the order of de-recognition so that the University can include the nalne of the petitioner in the prospectus to be published. The petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Copy of the order b; Siven dasti under signature of the Court Master to the counsel for the parties. RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J AUGUST L1,20 gsr tv.F.(c) s394/2010 Page 5 of5 I a