1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT DB Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1057/2009 IN SB Civil Writ Petition No. 9987/2008 Director/Chairman/Member Secretary, National Council for Teacher Education & anr Versus NIMT Mahila B.Ed. College & anr 03.05.2010 Hon'ble the Chief Justice Mr Jagdish Bhalla Hon'ble Mr Justice MN Bhandari Mr Swati Pareek – for appellants Mr Madhav Mitra– for respondent No.1 BY THE COURT: By this appeal, a challenge has been made to the order dated 19.8.2009 thereby writ petition filed by non-appellant No.1 – NIMT Mahila B.Ed. College was allowed. It is a case where writ petition was filed to challenge 2 orders dated 6.5.2008 and 19.8.2008 (Annexures-7 and 9 respectively to the writ petition). Writ petition was allowed mainly on the ground that pursuant to provisions of section 17 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (for short 'the Act'), opportunity of personal hearing was not accorded to respondent No.1 before passing adverse order, apart from the fact that the order so passed is not a speaking one. Learned counsel for appellants submits that section 17 of the Act provides for submission of representation and there exist no provision for providing opportunity of personal hearing. In the present matter, respondent No.1 submitted representation pursuant to the notice given and thereafter, impugned order was passed de-recognising the respondent No.1 herein from the end of the academic session 2007-08 for all the existing courses i.e. B.Ed., ETT and NTT. In the light of the aforesaid, it is prayed that impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge may be set aside. Learned counsel for respondent No.1-College, on the other hand, submits that section 17 of the Act provides for submission of representation which includes opportunity of personal hearing. In view of aforesaid, learned Single Judge committed no wrong in passing the impugned judgment because 3 no opportunity of personal hearing was provided to respondent No.1 before passing order of de-recognition. The order of de- recognition was otherwise not a speaking order thus for that reason also it was quashed by the learned Single Judge. In view of aforesaid, prayer is to maintain judgment of the learned Single Judge. It is alternatively prayed that if the judgment of learned Single Judge is set aside, it may be made clear that respondent-non-appellant herein would be entitled to make application/representation for recognition of B.Ed. and other courses after removal of deficiencies. We have considered rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Since two issues have been raised to challenge the judgment of the learned Single Judge, we are addressing on those issues. The first issue is as to whether personal hearing is required under section 17 of the Act? Bare perusal of section 17 of the Act shows that reasonable opportunity of making representation is required to be given before passing any adverse order. Perusal of the record shows that that a representation was submitted by the non-appellant-College. In view of aforesaid, it cannot be said that 4 personal hearing is mandatory under section 17 of the Act. Apart from aforesaid, we have perused the impugned order passed by the appellants and find that reasons have been given for withdrawing recognition granted to the institution-respondent No.1 herein from the end of the academic session 2007-08 for all the existing courses i.e. B.Ed., ETT and NTT with further directions thus on that account also we cannot accept the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge in its judgment. The judgment of the learned Single Judge accordingly deserves to be set aside. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 19.8.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. Learned counsel for the non-appellant No.1 made a just prayer that this order should not come as a hindrance for future recognition of the courses, if the non-appellant No.1 herein make good of the deficiencies and submit a fresh application for recognition. To this, learned counsel for appellants submits that if any application is made, it would be considered as per law. In view of aforesaid, we observe that the impugned order passed by the appellants-Council will not come in the way of the non-appellant No.1 herein if it makes an application for 5 recognition after making good of the deficiencies. If such an application is made, the NCTE will consider the same sympathetically in accordance with law. (MN Bhandari), J. (Jagdish Bhalla)CJ bnsharma