CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13103 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13103 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: AUGUST 20 , 2010 Doon Valley Institute of Education .....Petitioner VERSUS The National Council for Teacher Education and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? -.- PRESENT: Mr. T.S. Dhindsa, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Vinod S. Bhardwaj, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Sunil Nehra, Sr. DAG, Haryana, for the State. None for the remaining respondents. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner-institution has filed this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari, mandamus or any other suitable writ, direction or order for quashing the decision of the Northern Regional Committee (NCTE) CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13103 of 2010 -2- dated 26-29th May, 2010. Vide this decision, the Committee had decided to refuse recognition to the petitioner-institution for B.Ed. Course. It is averred in the petition that NCTE had granted recognition to the petitioner-institution for the B.Ed. Course of one years' duration with an annual intake of 300 students on 16.8.2004. Subsequently, the Kurukshetra University also granted affiliation to the petitioner-institution. On 15.6.2009, the petitioner-institution requested the NCTE to grant approval for merging of 100 seats of B.Ed. Course pertaining to Doon Valley College of Education, Chirao, Karnal into Doon Valley Institute of Education Karnal (the petitioner). This, however, received a response with order of withdrawing the recognition of the petitioner-institution on 25.1.2010. The petitioner- institution filed an appeal against this order. When the said appeal was not being decided, the petitioner-institution had approached this Court. The appeal filed by the petitioner-institution was then accepted on the ground that the recognition was withdrawn without affording any opportunity of hearing and the order was, accordingly, set aside. Thereafter, another order is passed after serving a show cause notice on the petitioner-institution, on 21.5.2010 for withdrawing the recognition, which was earlier granted. Thus, the petitioner has now filed this writ petition before this Court. Reply has been filed by respondent Nos.1 & 2. The stand projected by the NCTE is that the permission has been withdrawn as there was violation of the Regulations framed in the year 2005 & 2009. Counsel refers to the various provisions of CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13103 of 2010 -3- Regulations. The plea raised by the NCTE that the petitioner- institution has to own the land, is really not made out from the contents of the Regulations. The Regulations, which were relevant and which will govern the grant of recognition to the petitioner- institution only provides that the land could either be owned by the institution running the school or it could be on lease also. Thus, the condition of owning land by institution cannot be legally insisted upon. Subsequently, 2009 Regulations were formulated, but admittedly are not applicable to the case of the petitioner-institution. That being the factual position, the action of the NCTE in withdrawing the recognition earlier granted to the petitioner-institution is not justified. An opportunity was offered to the NCTE to reconsider the issue, but the counsel says that NCTE is not prepared to reconsider the issue. This attitude of the NCTE cannot be appreciated. The NCTE is expected to be fair to the institutions. Once the recognition was granted to the petitioner-institution, withdrawal of the same could only be on some valid ground. Once it is seen there is no valid reason to withdraw this recognition, the action has to be held to be wholly unjustified. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The consequence would be that the petitioner-institution would have recognition for an intake of all the 300 seats as was earlier granted. August 20, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13103 of 2010 -4-