National Council For Teacher Edn. & Anr vs Venus Public Education Society & Ors

6. Presently to the factual narration. The respondent-society submitted an application on 27.10.2009 to the Western Regional Committee (for short “the WRC”) of National Council for Teacher Education (for brevity “the NCTE”) for grant of recognition for the purpose of conducting D.El.Ed. course from the academic session 2010-11. On receipt of the said application the WRC, after scrutiny of the same, issued a communication dated 10.2.2010 to remove certain deficiencies, namely, the institution had submitted the lease deed issued by Gwalior Development Authority in favour of the Society for a period of thirty years but the same was not certified by the competent authority; that it had submitted copy of the building plan approved by Nagar Nigam, Gwalior meant for school purposes and not for the college; that the land use certificate issued by the competent Government authority was not submitted; that the building completion certification from the competent Government authority was not filed; that the encumbrance certificate from the competent Government authority was not submitted; and that necessary undertaking in the prescribed format was not enclosed. The respondent institution was advised to remove the deficiencies within a span of sixty days. It was also required to submit a reply pertaining to the deficiencies pointed out by the WRC. The respondent submitted its reply on 20.3.2010 and the same was considered in the 133rd meeting of the WRC held on 20-21.04.2010. On 11.5.2010 the WRC informed the respondent that it would conduct an inspection for D.El.Ed. course for the academic session 2010-11 on a date between 21.5.2010 to 30.5.2010. The visiting team carried out the inspection and submitted its report to the WRC which, in its 136th meeting held on 5-7.6.2010, decided to issue a show cause notice under Section 14(3)(b) of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (for brevity ‘the 1993 Act’) and, accordingly, a show cause notice was issued on 19.6.2010 requiring the respondent to file its representation within twenty one days. The reply to show cause notice was received on 7.7.2010 and the WRC considered the same and took the decision on 20- 21.7.2010 to refuse recognition on the ground that the approved building plan submitted by the college showed a square building with ground and two floors, whereas the videograph showed the building was rectangular and having ground and one floor. The said decision was communicated vide order dated 3.8.2010 whereunder the WRC refused recognition in exercise of power under Section 14(3)(b) of the 1993 Act.

7. As the factual matrix further gets unfolded, the respondent preferred an appeal on 29.9.2010 under Section 18 of the 1993 Act and the appellate authority by order dated 10.11.2010 opined as follows: -

8. After the appeal was disposed of, the WRC decided to constitute a visiting team. In the meantime the respondent preferred Writ Petition No. 4541 of 2011 for issue of writ of mandamus to the NCTE to grant recognition for the academic session 2010-11 for D.El.Ed. course. During the pendency of the writ petition, on 22.7.2011 the WRC decided to conduct further inspection between 22.7.2011 to 30.7.2011. The inspecting team visited the respondent institution on 27.7.2011 and submitted its report to the WRC. The report indicated that a functionary of the Society told the team that as the matter was subjudice, the WRC had no authority to inspect. However, the team went to the institution and took photographs of the building. When the matter came up before the High Court on 28.7.2011, it, after narrating the chronological events and the order passed by the appellate authority, issued the following directions: -

9. As the order was not complied with within the stipulated time, the respondent preferred Writ Petition No. 5776 of 2011. The High Court disposed of the same by observing that the grievance of the petitioner was that in spite of direction issued by the court in the earlier writ petition, the respondents had yet not complied with the direction and for the aforesaid purpose, the petitioner was at liberty to file a contempt petition. The High Court further observed that it was expected that the respondents shall obey the direction issued by the court in W.P. C No. 4541/2011.

12. It is worthy to note that the WRC was to file the reply within three weeks. During the pendency of the contempt petition, the respondent preferred Writ Petition No. 6674 of 2011 for grant of recognition for academic session 2011-12 for D.El.Ed. course. The High Court, vide order dated 30.9.2011, directed the Regional Director of the WRC to remain present and explain as to why the decision had not been taken in regard to grant of recognition of the respondent institution. As is perceived, the WRC vide order dated 27.10.2011 issued an order of recognition. The relevant portion of the same is reproduced hereinbelow: -

13. Being grieved by the aforesaid order the respondent preferred Writ Petition No. 7664 of 2011 with a prayer to command the NCTE to grant recognition from the academic session 2011-12 for D.El.Ed. course or to treat the recognition dated 27.10.2011 for the academic session 2011-12 instead of 2012-13. The High Court dealt with the said writ petition along with the contempt petition and, after referring to its earlier order passed in Writ Petition No. 4541 of 2011, the chronology of events, the issue of “letter of intent” and eventual grant of recognition, concluded as under: -

14. After so stating the Bench disposed of the contempt petition and the writ petition by directing that in the recognition order dated 27.10.2011 it shall be added that the institution was entitled for recognition for the D.El.Ed. course with an annual intake of 50 students for academic session 2011-12 also. The said order is the subject-matter of assail in this appeal.

36. Before parting with the case, we are obliged to state that the NCTE should have acted in quite promptitude, for a statutory authority which is conferred with the power, is required to act within the parameters of law and the directions given by the court and further not to create a feeling among the educational institutions that they are harassed. This Court expects that the NCTE shall function with propriety regard being had to the statutory responsibility bestowed on it by the Parliament. Its actions neither should show arbitrariness nor should it reflect any indulgence. Objectivity, reliability and trust are to be the motto of the NCTE and the committees working under it. We say no more on this score.

37. In view of our aforesaid premised reasons, the appeal is allowed, the order passed by the High Court is set aside and that of the NCTE is restored. There shall be no order as to costs.