IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11478 of 2010 1. TEACHER'S TRAINING COLLEGE, 83 ASHOK NAGAR, GAYA- 823001 THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, AWADHESH KUMAR S/O LATE RAM BADAN SHARMA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE CHAIRPERSON, NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHERS EDUCATION, HQRS- (A STATUTORY BODY OF THE GOVT. OF INDIA) HANS BHAWAN, WING-II, I, BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI 3. THE VICE-CHAIRPERSON, NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHERS EDUCATION, HQRS- (A STATUTORY BODY OF THE GOVT. OF INDIA) HANS BHAWAN, WING-II, I, BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG NEW DELHI 4. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHERS EDUCATION, EASTERN REGIONAL COMMITTEE (A STATUTORY BODY OF THE GOVT. OF INDIA) 15, NEELKANTHA NAGAR, NAYAPALLI, BUBNESHWAR 5. THE REGISTRAR, MAGADH UNIVERSITY, BODH GAYA, GAYA 6. THE MEMBERS OF VISITING TEAM OF EASTERN REGIONAL COMMITTEE, NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHERS EDUCATION, 15, NEELKANTHA NAGAR, NAYAPALLI, BHUBNESHWAR with CWJC No.12038 of 2010 1. TEACHER'S TRAINING COLLEGE 83, ASHOK NAGAR, GAYA- 823 001 THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN AWADHESH KUMAR, S/O LATE RAM BADAN SHARMA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HUMAN RESOURCE DEV. DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE CHAIRPERSON, NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHERS EDUCATION HQRS. (A STATUTORY BODY OF GOVT. OF INDIA), HANS BHAWAN, WING II, 1, BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI 3. THE VICE CHAIRPERSON NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHERS EDUCATION, HANS BHAWAN, WING II, N, BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI 4. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHERS EDUCATION EASTERN REGIONAL COMMITTEE, 15, NEELKANTHA NAGAR, NAYAPALLI, BHUBNESHWAR 5. THE MEMBERS OF VISTING TEAM OF EASTERN REGIONAL COMMITTEE NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHERS EDUCATION, 15, NEELKANTHA NAGAR, NAYAPALLI, BHUBNESHWAR ----------- 2 For the Petitioners :- Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, Sr. Adv Mr. Lakshmi Kant Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv. For the N.C.T.E. :- Mr. S. N. Pathak, SCC-4 For the University:- Mr. Anil Sinha, Adv. ----------------- 4. 16.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and for the N.C.T.E. in both the applications. A counter affidavit has been filed by the N.C.T.E. in C.W.J.C. No. 12038 of 2010. Counsel for the N.C.T.E. submits that the two writ applications related to the same educational institution in respect of two different courses i.e., Bachelor of Education and Elementary Teachers Education. Therefore, the same counter affidavit shall suffice for both the cases. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in C.W.J.C. No. 11478 of 2010, recognition was granted on 15.2.2006 by the N.C.T.E. for running the B. Ed. course from February, 2006 permanently with intake capacity of 100 students. In C.W.J.C. No. 12038 of 2010 permission for running the Elementary training course was permanently granted on 4.6.2007 with an intake capacity of 50 students. On 30.8.2008 on an application made the intake capacity for the B. Ed. course was increased to 200 students. A complaint was then made against the institution in May, 2009 leading to a fresh inspection report dated 29.6.2009. It is 3 asserted that this inspection report recommended in favour of the petitioner. Nonetheless the N.C.T.E. issued a show cause notice on 14.10.2009 which was duly replied whereafter recognition has been withdrawn on 14.1.2010 and appeal rejected on 7.6.2010. He submits that in fact the institution fulfils all the requirements for recognition and necessary original documents have also been submitted to the N.C.T.E. Counsel for the N.C.T.E. submits that it is an expert body dealing with issues of recognition. The Court should not lightly interfere with the experts decision based on its subjective satisfaction. Nonetheless the Court does retain the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to examine the decision making process to arrive at the conclusion whether there was fairness in process or not. The counter affidavit of the N.C.T.E. states that the recognition was withdrawn as it was not imparting training within the prescribed norms and standards as stipulated in the Act and regulations. The counter affidavit and the orders dated 14.1.2010 and 7.6.2010 are completely silent on the aspect of grant of permanent recognition in February, 2006 and June, 2007 respectively. A grant of permanent recognition nonetheless remains amenable to the regulatory control 4 of the N.C.T.E. and can be cancelled at any time if standards are found to be wanting. It is not in controversy that the institution was inspected before permanent recognition was granted. So much so permission was granted in the B. Ed. Course for enhancement of the intake capacity also. Without derogating from the powers of the N.C.T.E. to exercise regulatory control on issue of continued recognition, nonetheless, there has to be specific case made out that what were the standards found acceptable earlier which subsequently deteriorated. The N.C.T.E. after the fresh inspection on the complaint and a report submitted on 29.6.2009 issued a show cause notice on 14.10.2009. It does not contain any discussion of how the N.C.T.E. was satisfied that these conditions fulfilled in 2006/07 gradually deteriorated and when the standards had fallen. There shall be a presumption under Section 114(e) of the Evidence Act that recognition was granted after satisfaction of the N.C.T.E., a statutory body. But it is a rebutable presumption. It was for the N.C.T.E. to raise issues properly rebutting it and specifying the deficiencies by deterioration of standards as existed at the time of grant of recognition. Without going into that issue, this Court is satisfied on the facts of the present case that fairness on the part of the N.C.T.E. in the 5 decision making process cannot be held to be mist free. Keeping in mind, the limitation of this Court to interfere on merits with regard to issue of recognition for which the N.C.T.E. is an expert body, this Court gives the following direction. The petitioner claims that original documents have been submitted to N.C.T.E. If original documents have been submitted surely the petitioner must be having a receipt, or it can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the N.C.T.E. from the records that submission of the originals do form part of the records. Without prejudice to the same, the petitioner shall also be at liberty to submit/resubmit the originals. The N.C.T.E. shall grant a personal hearing to the petitioner who shall make its submissions in a written manner answering all the allegations against it which the N.C.T.E. is required to decide item wise by a reasoned and speaking order. If the N.C.T.E. opines the needs to carry out further inspection it shall be at liberty to do so after calling upon for deposit of fee. Needless to state that if the N.C.T.E. wishes to carry out any further or fresh inspection, the institution is bound to answer all questions furnished on materials and render all necessary assistance. Any failure on part of the institution to do so, by reason of the present order of 6 otherwise shall vest the discretion in the N.C.T.E. to act in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the N.C.T.E. in certain other cases has granted six months time for removal of deficiency. The Court observes that if any deficiencies are found, the N.C.T.E. shall grant reasonable time to the petitioner as it may have done to others for removing of such deficiencies before taking a final decision in the matter. Let this order be complied with in the manner discussed within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/ submission of necessary particular/application by the petitioner. The impugned orders in both the writ applications shall in no manner be an impediment for such fresh consideration and decision. The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)