IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. JUDGMENT NIMT Mahila B. Ed. College Vs. Union of India & Others (S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.9987/2008) S.B. Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Date of Judgment: August 19, 2009 PRESENT Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. S. Chauhan Mr. Madhav Mitra, for the petitioner. Mr. Sanjay Pareek, for respondent. REPORTABLE Per Court: Aggrieved by the orders dated 6-5-2008 and 19-8-2008, the petitioner has challenged the same before this Court. By the former order, the National Council for Teacher Education (the `NCTE' for short) has withdrawn the recognition to the petitioner institution. By the latter order, the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the appellate authority of the NCTE. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 4-7-2005 the Northern Regional Committee of NCTE granted recognition to the petitioner institution for running course of B. Ed. with an intake of 100 seats w.e.f. June, 2005. On 2-12-2006 the Committee of NCTE further granted recognition to the petitioner institution to run the STC course. According to the petitioner, the NCTE granted the recognition after inspecting the institute and after considering the reports of the visiting teams. Despite the excellent infrastructure available at the institute, but because of certain complaints made by few disgruntled students, on 16-11-2006 the NCTE sent a notice to petitioner institute under Section 17 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (the `Act' for short). The petitioner institute was informed that a team of experts would be visiting the institute on 23-11-2007. Vide notice dated 5-2-2008 the NCTE informed the petitioner institute about certain deficiencies discovered at the institute and directed it to submit its reply thereto. In its meeting held on 27-3-2008, the Northern Regional Committee of NCTE decided to withdraw the recognition granted to the petitioner institute. According to the petitioner, at the said meeting it was not given any chance of hearing. Thus, the said decision was taken behind its back. In continuation of the decision so taken, vide order dated 6-5-2008, the NCTE withdrew the recognition granted to the petitioner institute. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority of the NCTE itself. Vide letter dated 8-7-2008, the petitioner was informed that its appeal would be considered on 23-8-2008. However, even before 23-8-2008, vide order dated 19-8-2008, the NCTE rejected the appeal of the petitioner and confirmed the order of the Northern Regional Committee dated 6-5-2008. Hence, this petition before this Court. 3. Mr. Madhav Mitra, the learned counsel for the petitioner institute, has vehemently raised the following contentions before this Court: firstly, according to section 17 of the Act, although the NCTE is empowered to withdraw the recognition, but the same can be done only after giving an opportunity of hearing to the concerned institute. An opportunity of hearing is not a mere formality to be observed. A substantial opportunity of hearing should have been given to the institute in the meeting held on March 27 to 29, 2008. The petitioner institute should have been given ample opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the NCTE has failed to follow the requirement of Section 17 of the Act. 4. Secondly, both the orders dated 6-5-2008 and 19-8-2008 are non-speaking orders, as neither of the orders give any reason for revoking the recognition. 5. Thirdly, that although the petitioner was informed that its appeal would be heard on 23-8-2008, the appeal was rejected prior to 23-8- 2008, without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Thus, no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner while deciding the appeal. Hence, the action of the NCTE is violative of principles of natural justice. 6. Lastly, the NCTE is a facet of the State, therefore, its every action is supposed to be fair, just and reasonable. However, since the NCTE has violated the principles of natural justice, the impugned orders are unfair and unjust. Hence, the NCTE has violated the constitutional mandate enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Sanjay Pareek, the learned counsel for the NCTE, has raised following counter contentions: firstly, that the NCTE had received a number of complaints against the petitioner institute. Even the reports of the experts were adverse to the institute. Therefore, the NCTE was justified in revoking the recognition. 8. Secondly, the NCTE had permitted the petitioner to file its reply, as such the requirement of principles of natural justice was made. There was no need for an oral hearing of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is unjustified in claiming that the principles of natural justice have been violated. 9. Thirdly, there is no requirement that while revoking the recognition, the NCTE should pass a reasoned order. Having considered the complaints, reports of the experts, reply filed by the petitioner institute, the NCTE had validly concluded that the recognition should be revoked. 10. Lastly, while agreeing with the finding of the Northern Regional Committee of the NCTE, the appellate authority is not required to give a reasoned order. Therefore, the learned counsel has supported the impugned orders. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 12. Under a constitutional democracy, the State is the highest protector and benefactor of the people. As the trustee of the people, the State is constitutionally bound to function in the interest of the people. Every action of the State, is required to be just, fair and reasonable. Any action, which is unjust, unfair and unreasonable is ipso facto an anathema to the sacred concept of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Equality before the Law and equal protection of the Law is the heart of democracy. Any action which violates the concept of equality would be legally unsustainable. 13. Principles of natural justice are almost universal in application. Audi Alteram Partem is one of the principles—to hear the other side before passing any adverse order affecting the civil or fundamental rights. The said principle is embodied in Section 17 of the Act, which reads as under:- 17. Contravention of provisions of the Act and consequences thereof. (1) Where the Regional Committee is, on its own motion or on any representation received from any person, satisfied that a recognised institution has contravened any of the provisions of this Act, or the rules, regulations, orders made or issued thereunder, or any condition subject to which recognition under sub-section (3) of section 14 or permission under sub- section (3) of section 15 was granted, it may withdraw recognition of such recognised institution, for reasons to be recorded in writing: Provided that no such order against the recognised institution shall be passed unless a reasonable opportunity of making representation against the proposed order has been given to such recognised institution: Provided further that the order. withdrawing or refusing recognition passed by the Regional Committee shall come into force only' with effect from the end of the academic session next following the date of communication of such order. (2) A copy of every order passed by the Regional Committee under sub-section (1),-- (a) shall be communicated to the recognised institution concerned and a copy thereof shall also be forwarded simultaneously to the University or the examining body to which such institution was affiliated for cancelling affiliation; and (b) shall be published in the Official Gazette for general information. (3) Once the recognition of a recognised institution is withdrawn under sub-section (1), such institution shall discontinue the course or training in teacher education, and the concerned University or the examining body shall cancel affiliation of the institution in accordance with the order passed under sub-section (1), with effect from the end of the academic session next following the date of communication of the said order. (4) If an institution offers any course or training in teacher education after the coming into force of the order withdrawing recognition under sub-section (1), or where an institution offering a course or training in teacher education immediately before the appointed day fails or neglects to obtain recognition or permission under this Act, the qualification in teacher education obtained pursuant to such course or training or after undertaking a course or training in such institution, shall not be treated as a valid qualification for purposes of employment under the Central Government, any State Government or University or in any school, college or other educational body aided by the Central Government or any State Government. 14. According to this section a recognition cannot be revoked until and unless an opportunity of hearing is given to the concerned institute. Opportunity of hearing is not a mere formality to be observed. In fact, the law requires that a substantial opportunity of hearing should be given before any adverse order can be passed. Merely by giving a right to file reply, while denying a right of oral hearing, reduces the opportunity of hearing to a mere illusion. The right of a hearing is not an illusionary right, but is a substantive right of the concerned person. 15. Admittedly, in the meeting held on March 27 to 29, 2008, the Northern Regional Committee of the NCTE did not give an opportunity of oral hearing to the petitioner institute. Oral hearing is sine qua non, for the simple reason that during oral proceeding questions can be asked and many doubts can be cleared. By merely considering the reply, without any oral proceeding, questions and doubts may linger in the mind of the Committee. Moreover, it is fundamental principle of law that justice should not only be done, but must appear to be done. Therefore, it was imperative for the committee to give an opportunity of oral hearing to the petitioner institute. Since, the Committee failed to do so, its decision that recognition should be withdrawn, is legally unsustainable. 16. The impugned order dated 6-5-2008 clearly reveals that the NCTE has only stated that: The matter was again considered by the Northern Regional Committee (NRC) in its 127th meeting held on 27th-29th March, 2008 and having taken into consideration all the relevant facts of the case, it was decided to withdraw recognition for conducting B.Ed. (Secondary), ETT/ STC (Elementary) and NTT (Pre Primary) courses from the end of the academic session i.e. 2007-2008. 17. The order passed by the Committee of NCTE is not an administrative order. Since the order is passed under Section 17 of the Act, since Section 17 of the Act requires an opportunity of hearing to be given to the concerned institute, the NCTE functions as a quasi- judicial body. One of the requirements of administrative law is that a quasi-judicial authority must pass a reasoned order. After all, its decision is subject to further challenge before an appellate authority and/ or before a court of law. Considering these aspects of the case, the NCTE is legally bound to state the reasons for concluding that recognition should be withdrawn. However, according to the passage, quoted above, the committee of the NCTE has not given any cogent reason for withdrawing the recognition. Therefore, the said order amounts to a non-speaking order. Hence, it is legally unsustainable. 18. Similarly, the relevant portion of the impugned order dated 19- 8-2008 reads thus: And whereas after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit, VT report and after hearing oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council felt that there was no ground to accept the appeal and it should be rejected. Accordingly, the appeal was rejected and NRC's order was confirmed. 19. Since, this order passed by the appellate authority of NCTE is subject to judicial review, the appellate authority of NCTE was also required to pass a reasoned order. The impugned order is not only cryptic, it is also enigmatic. As the reasons for upholding the order passed by the appellate authority is not spelt out, such cryptic and enigmatic orders are unsustainable in the eyes of law. Therefore, the impugned orders dated 6-5-2008 and 19-8-2008 suffer from being non-speaking orders. 20. For the reasons stated above, this writ petition is, hereby, allowed and the orders dated 6-5-2008 and 19-8-2008 are hereby quashed and set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. (R. S. CHAUHAN) J. arn