IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITON NO.22090 OF 2008, WRIT PETITON NO.22099 OF 2008, WRIT PETITON NO.22100 OF 2008, WRIT PETITON NO.22101 OF 2008, WRIT PETITON NO.22102 OF 2008, WRIT PETITON NO.22105 OF 2008 WRIT PETITON NO.22106 OF 2008 WRIT PETITON NO.22123 OF 2008 AND WRIT PETITON NO.22795 OF 2008 In WRIT PETITION NO : 22090 of 2008 Between: New Era College of Education Slaapadu Road, Vadlamudi Chebrolu Mandal, Guntur District, rep.by its Secretary and Correspondent ..... PETITIONER AND 1 National Council for Teacher Education Southern Regional Committee 1st Floor CSD Building HMT Post Bangalore-560031 rep.by its Regional Director 2 Acharya Nagarjuna University, rep. by its Registrar, Nagarjunanagar, Guntur. 3 A.P. State Council of Higher Eduation, Saifabad, Hyderabad, rep. by its Secretary. 4 The Convenor (Admissions), EdCET 2008, C/o. A.P.State Council of Higher Education, Saifabad, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or order direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in withdrawing recognition of the petitioner College vide impugned proceedings F.SRO/NCTE/2008-09/5363 dt 29-09-2008 and the consequential withdraw of affiliation by the 2nd respondent vide proceedings No.ANU/Affil/S7/New Era/08 dt 30-9-2008 as arbitrary, illegal, being in violation of principles of natural justice and issue a consequential direction to the Respondents to continue permitting the petitioner to impart study in B.Ed Course for the students allotted to the petitioner College in EdCET 2008 Admission. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. D.V.SITARAMAMURTHY Counsel for the Respondents : MR.B.ADINARAYANA RAO (SC FOR N.C.T.E) In WRIT PETITION NO : 22099 of 2008 Between: Dr.D.S Kothari College of Education Chillakallu Post,Jaggaiahpet(M) Krishna District-521178 rep.by its Secretary and Correspondent ..... PETITIONER AND 1 National Council for Teaher Education Southern Regional Committee 1st Floor CSD Building HMT Post Bangalore-560031 rep.by its Regional Director 2 Acharya Nagarjuna University Rep.by its Registrar,Nagarjunanagar,Guntur 3 A.P.State Council of Higher Education Saifabad,Hyderabad rep.by its Secretary 4 The Convenor(Admissions) EdCET 2008,C/o. A.P State Council of Higher Education Saifabad,Hyderabad .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or order direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in withdrawing recognition of the petitioner College vide impugned proceedings F.SRO/NCTE/2008-09/5363 dt 29-09-2008 and the consequential withdraw of affiliation by the 2nd respondent vide proceedings No.ANU/Affil/S7/Dr.D.S.K/08 dt 30-9-2008 as arbitrary illegal, being in violation of principles of natural justice and issue a consequential direction to the Respondents to continue permitting the petitioner to impart study in B.Ed Course for the students allotted to the petitioner College in Ed CET 2008 Admission. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. D.V.SITARAMAMURTHY Counsel for the Respondents : MR. B.ADINARAYANA RAO (SC FOR N.C.T.E) In WRIT PETITION NO : 22100 of 2008 Between: Manair College of Education, ( Established by Manair Educational Academy), Siricilla Road, Padmanagar, Karimnagar, Rep. by its Correspondent, K. Anantha Reddy ..... PETITIONER AND 1 National Council for Teacher Education Southern Regional Committee 1st Floor CSD Building HMT Post Bangalore-560031 rep.by its Regional Director 2 Kakathiya University, Warangal, Rep. by its Registrar. 3 A.P.State Council of Higher Education Mahavir Marg, Masab Tank, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Secretary. 4 The Convenor(Admissions) EdCET 2008,C/o. A.P State Council of Higher Education Mahavir Marg, Masab Tank, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in withdrawing recognition of the petitioner College vide impugned proceedings F.SRO/NCTE/2008-09/5363 dated 29-09-2008 as arbitrary, illegal, offending Article 14 of the Constitution of India, being in violation of principles of natural justice and issue a consequential direction to the Respondents to continue permitting the petitioner to impart study in B.Ed Course for the students allotted to the petitioner College ion Ed CET 2008 Admissions. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. S.SRI RAM Counsel for the Respondents : MR. B.ADINARAYANA RAO (SC FOR N.C.T.E) In WRIT PETITION NO : 22101 of 2008 Between: M E S College of Education, Barugudem H/o. Arempula, Khammam Mandal & District, Rep by its Correspondent, S.Najma. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 National Council for Teaher Education Southern Regional Committee, Bangalore, rep.by its Regional Director 2 Government of andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Education Department, at Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3 A.P. State Council of Higher Eduation, Masab Tank, Hyderabad, Rep by its Secretary. 4 The Convenor, EdCET 2008, C/o. A.P.State Council of Higher Education, Masab Tank Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other appropriate Writ or Writs, order or Direction, declaring the proceedings dated 29-9-2008 in F.SRO/NCTE/2008-09/5363 on the file of the first respondent, in so far as it relates to the petitioner herein, as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction by holding that the same is in contravention of Section 17 of N C T E Act; Award Costs. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. N.SRIDHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents : MR.B.ADINARAYANA RAO (SC FOR N.C.T.E) In WRIT PETITION NO : 22102 of 2008 Between: Rousseau College of Education, Siricilla Road, Village Venkatraopalli, Narsingapur Post, Karimnagar District, Rep by its Secretary cum Correspondent, P. Devender Rao, S/o. Murthyam Rao ..... PETITIONER AND 1 National Council for Teacher Education, Southern Regional Committee, 1st Floor, CSD Buildings, HMT Post, Bangalore - 560031, Rep by its Regional Director 2 Kakatiya University, Warangal, Rep by its Registrar 3 AP State Council of Higher Education, Saifabad, Hyderabad Rep by its Secretary 4 The Convenor (Admissions) Ed. CET 2008 AP State Council of Higher Education, Saifabad, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in withdrawing recognition of the petitioner College vide impugned proceedings F.SRO/NCTE/2008-09-5363 dated 29-9-2008 as arbitrary, illegal, offending Article 14 of the constitution of India, being in violation of principles of natural justice and issue a consequential direction to the Respondents to continue permitting the petitioner to impart study in B.Ed. Course for the students allotted to the petitioner College in EdCET 2008 Admissions. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. S.SRI RAM Counsel for the Respondents : MR. DEEPAK BHATTACHARJEE In WRIT PETITION NO : 22105 of 2008 Between: R.B.V.R.R. College of Education, (established by Raja Bhadhur Venkata Rami Reddy Vignan Parishad) Sitharamapur, Karimnagar, Rep. by its Correspondent, P. Bhaskar Reddy ..... PETITIONER AND 1 National Council for Teacher Education, Southern Regional Committee, 1st Floor, CSD Buildings, HMT Post, Bangalore - 560031, Rep by its Regional Director 2 Kakatiya University, Warangal, Rep by its Registrar 3 A.P State Council of Higher Education, Saifabad, Hyderabad Rep by its Secretary 4 The Convenor (Admissions) Ed. CET 2008 C/o. A.P State Council of Higher Education, Mahavir Marg, Masab Tank, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in withdrawing recognition of the petitioner College vide impugned proceedings F.SRO/NCTE/2008-09-5363 dated 29-9-2008 as arbitrary, illegal, offending Article 14 of the constitution of India, being in violation of principles of natural justice and issue a consequential direction to the Respondents to continue permitting the petitioner to impart study in B.Ed. Course for the students allotted to the petitioner College in EdCET 2008 Admissions. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. S.SRI RAM Counsel for the Respondents : MR. B.ADINARAYANA RAO (SC FOR N.C.T.E) In WRIT PETITION NO : 22106 of 2008 Between: St Johan's Colleage of Education Dammapet Aswaraopet(M) Khammam District rep.by its President BHK Sarojini ..... PETITIONER AND 1 National Council For Teacher Education Southern Regional Committee Bangalore Rep.by its Regional Director 2 Government of Andhra Pradesh rep.by its Principal Secretary Education Department, at Secretariat,Hyderabad 3 A.P.State Council for Higher Education Masab Tank Hyderabad rep.by its Secretary 4 Convenor EDCET 2008 A.P State Council For Higher Education,Masab Tank Hyderabad .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased too issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or writs order or direction declaring the proceedings dt 29-9-2008 in F.SRO/NCTE/2008-09/5363 on the file of the 1st respondent in so far as it relates to the petitioner herein as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction by holding that the same is in contravention of Section 17 of NCTE act Award costs. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. N.SRIDHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR EDUCATION In WRIT PETITION NO : 22123 of 2008 Between: Madeena B.Ed.College, M.G.Road, Kothagudem, Khamma District., Rep by its Correspondent, K.Appi reddy. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 National Council for Teaher Education Southern Regional Committee, Bangalore, rep.by its Regional Director 2 Government of andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Education Department, at Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3 A.P. State Council of Higher Eduation, Masab Tank, Hyderabad, Rep by its Secretary. 4 The Convenor, EdCET 2008, C/o. A.P.State Council of Higher Education, Masab Tank, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other appropriate Writ or Writs, order or Direction, declaring the proceedings dated 29-9-2008 in F.SRO/NCTE/2008-09/5363 on the file of the first respondent, in so far as it relates to the petitioner herein, as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction by holding that the same is in contravention of Section 17 of N C T E Act; Award Costs. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. N.SRIDHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents : MR. B.ADINARAYANA RAO (SC FOR N.C.T.E) A N D In WRIT PETITION NO : 22795 of 2008 Between: St. Mary's College of Education, Jangaon, Warangal District, Rep by its Correspondent, Dennis Reddy ..... PETITIONER AND 1 National Council for Teacher Education, Southern Regional Committee, Bangalore, Rep by its Regional Director 2 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Education Department, at Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3 AP State Council for Higher Education, Masab Tank, Hyderabad Rep by its Secretary, 4 Convenor, EDCET 2008, AP State Council for Higher Education, Masab Tank, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or writs, order or direction, declaring the proceedings dt. 29-9-2008 in F.SRO/NCTE/2008-09/5363 on the file of the first respondent, in so far as it relates to the petitioner herein, as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction by holding that the same is in contravention of section 17 of NCTE Act, Award costs. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. N.SRIDHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents : MR. B.ADINARAYANA RAO The Court made the following common order : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITON NO.22090 OF 2008, WRIT PETITON NO.22099 OF 2008, WRIT PETITON NO.22100 OF 2008, WRIT PETITON NO.22101 OF 2008, WRIT PETITON NO.22102 OF 2008, WRIT PETITON NO.22105 OF 2008 WRIT PETITON NO.22106 OF 2008 WRIT PETITON NO.22123 OF 2008 AND WRIT PETITON NO.22795 OF 2008 COMMON ORDER : The petitioners in all these writ petitions are the institutions which were initially granted recognition by the National Council for Teacher Education (for short, ‘NCTE’) for imparting study in B.Ed. Programme. These writ petitions are filed with a common prayer to declare that the action of the National Council for Teacher Education in withdrawing the recognition to the petitioner colleges and the consequential withdrawal of affiliation by the concerned Universities as arbitrary and illegal. Hence, all these writ petitions are heard together and decided by this common order. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are granted recognition for B.Ed. course of one year duration with a specified annual intake of students under Section 14 (1) of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (for short, ‘NCTE Act, 1993’) subject to fulfillment of the following conditions: (i) The institution shall, within one month of the receipt of recognition order, convert the endowment fund account into a joint account to be operated along with an official of the Southern Regional Committee. (ii) The institution shall comply with the various other norms and standards prescribed in the NCTE regulations, as amended from time to time. (iii) The institution shall shift to its own premises/building within three years from the date of recognition. (in case the course is started in rented premises) (iv) The institution will ensure that Principal and Seven faculty members duly approved by the affiliating University are in position for an intake of 100 students before commencement of the course and a report to this effect shall be sent to the Southern Regional Committee immediately. Pursuant thereto, the concerned Universities granted affiliation and the required permission under Section 20 of the A.P. Education Act, 1982 was also granted by the Government. Though yearly renewal of recognition to each college has not been communicated, the list of the recognized colleges is being communicated to the Government and the affiliating University every year, and basing on the same students are being allotted to the petitioner colleges. While so, show-cause notices were issued by the NCTE during the academic year 2008-09 calling upon the petitioners to explain the shortcomings specified therein. All the petitioners submitted their explanations. Thereafter, though nothing was communicated to the petitioners, by letter dated 29.09.2008 the State Government was informed that the Southern Regional Committee of NCTE in its 164th and 165th meetings held on 20.09.2008 and 27/28.9.2008 decided to withdraw the recognition to the petitioner intuitions from the academic year 2008-09. Pursuant thereto, the petitioners were informed by the concerned Universities by separate orders that the petitioner institutions were disaffiliated with effect from the academic year 2008-09. The said action has been challenged in these writ petitions contending inter alia that the withdrawal of recognition ordered by NCTE was in violation of the procedure laid down in Section 17 (1) of the NCTE Act, 1993 since the petitioner intuitions were not put on notice or given an opportunity to make a representation against the impugned action of withdrawal of recognition. It is also contended that since absolutely no reasons were recorded, the impugned order dated 29.09.2008 was in violation of the first proviso to Section 17 (1) of the NCTE Act, 1993. It is also contended by the petitioners that the withdrawal of the recognition from the academic year 2008-09 is contrary to Section 17 (1) of the NCTE Act, 1993 which mandates that an order withdrawing the recognition would come into effect only from the end of the academic session next following the date of communication of such order. Having found that a prima facie case was made out, this Court while issuing rule nisi, suspended the impugned proceedings dated 29.09.2008 and directed the respondents not to withdraw the students already allotted to the petitioner colleges and to continue the allotment in the ongoing counselling for the academic year 2008-09. Thereafter, the NCTE communicated separate orders to all the petitioners stating that the explanations given by the petitioners were placed before the Southern Regional Committee in its 161st Meeting held on 6/7.8.2008 and as decided by the Committee, institutions were inspected under Section 17 (1) of the NCTE Act, 1993 and as per the report received by the visiting teams, the institutions were not ready for the inspections. The said repots were considered by the Southern Regional Committee in its 165th meeting held on 27/28.09.2008 and having regard to the deficiencies pointed out in the reports, it was decided to withdraw the recognition from the academic session 2008-09 on the grounds specified therein. Having regard to the said orders, the petitioners got the prayers in the writ petitions amended seeking a declaration that the orders of withdrawal are arbitrary and illegal. It is alleged by the petitioners that no inspection was conducted by the visiting teams and the alleged reports of the visiting teams were never communicated to the petitioners. It is further contended that since the alleged deficiencies on the basis of which the recognitions are withdrawn are factually incorrect and without any basis, the impugned action is arbitrary and illegal. In the counter-affidavits filed on behalf of NCTE, it is contended that in view of the alternative remedy of appeal available under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993, the writ petitions cannot be maintained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. On merits, it is contended that show-cause notices were issued to all the petitioners pointing out the deficiencies and the explanation submitted by the petitioners were considered by the Southern Regional Committee and thereafter notices were issued for inspection by the visiting teams. However, the intuitions were not ready for inspections and the inspection teams were not allowed to conduct inspections and therefore the Southern Regional Committee had rightly taken a decision to withdraw the recognition. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record. The contentions that no opportunity was given to the petitioners to make their representations against the proposed action and that the NCTE while withdrawing the recognition had failed to satisfy the mandatory requirement of assigning the reasons under the first proviso to Section 17 (1) of the NCTE Act, 1993 are apparently unfounded since the order dated 29.09.2008 which was initially challenged in the writ petitions was only a communication to the Government furnishing the list of institutions in respect of which the recognition was withdrawn. Subsequently, all the petitioners were served with detailed orders assigning reasons for the withdrawals. It is also clear from the material on record that recognitions were granted to the petitioner institutions subject to fulfillment of certain conditions and that all the petitioners were issued notices informing the alleged deficiencies. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners were informed the date of inspection by the visiting teams. In the circumstances, the impugned orders cannot be held to be in violation of the principles of natural justice. However, it is urged on behalf of the petitioners that the impugned orders are unwarranted since the conclusions arrived at with regard to the alleged violations are erroneous. It is also specifically pleaded by the petitioners that there were no inspections at all and therefore there was no opportunity to the petitioners to establish that all the conditions subject to which the recognition was granted were satisfied. Thus it is contended that the impugned withdrawal of recognitions based upon non-existing grounds are arbitrary, illegal and unjustified. It is to be noticed that the issue whether the petitioners have fulfilled the conditions required for continuation of recognition or not requires a detailed enquiry into various disputed questions of fact which cannot be undertaken by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the correctness of the findings recorded by the NCTE in the impugned orders can only be examined and decided by the appellate authority which is a final authority of fact finding. Since Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993, provides for such Appeal, the petitioners ought to have availed the said remedy before the Appellate Authority. Accordingly, all these writ petitions are disposed of granting liberty to the petitioners to file statutory appeals under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993, if not already filed, within a period of four weeks from today. If any such appeals are preferred, the appellate authority shall receive treating the same as appeals filed within limitation and dispose of in accordance with law after hearing both the parties. Till such time, status quo obtaining as on today in all respects shall be maintained. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI,J. Dt. 11.08.2009 gbs Note:- CC in 3 days. (B/O) gbs