Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court - Orders

Sidh Laharnath Womens S College Of ... vs National Council For Teacher Education ... on 19 December, 2022

                          $~60
                          *      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          +      W.P.(C) 16927/2022
                                 SIDH LAHARNATH WOMENS S COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
                                                                            ..... Petitioner
                                             Through: Mr. Gaurav Arora, Advocate.

                                                    versus

                              NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION & ANR.
                                                                       ..... Respondents
                                              Through: Mr. Rahul Madan, Advocate for
                                                         NCTE.
                              CORAM:
                              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN
                                              ORDER

% 19.12.2022 CM APPL. 53658/2022(exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 16927/2022 & CM APPL. 53657/2022(for stay)

3. The present petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-

(a) issue a writ of certiorari and quash the decision taken by Respondent No.2 qua Petition at S.No.76 in minutes of 322nd meeting held from 223rd to 24th November, 2020 vide which recognition of Petition for B.Ed. course has been withdrawn; and

(b) Issue a writ of mandamus and direct the Respondent No.2 to issue an order of restoration of recognition and to reflect the status of the Petitioner as a recognised institution for B.Ed course and to send a written communication in this regard to the affiliating University of the Petitioner and to the Department of Higher Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ARUNA KANWAR Signing Date:20.12.2022 19:09:54 Education, Government of Maharashtra with the instruction that the Petitioner is entitled to take part in counselling and to admit students for academic session 2022-23 and for all subsequent academic session; and

(c) Consequentially pass an order and permit the Petitioner to take part in the admission process/counselling for academic session 2021-22 and to admit students accordingly."

4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that recognition of the petitioner for B.Ed. course has been withdrawn by the decision taken by WRC-NCTE in its 322nd meeting held from 23rd to 24th November, 2020, which was followed by withdrawal order dated 20 th December, 2020. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no show-cause notice was given in terms of the provisions of the NCTE Act (in short "the Act"). He draws the attention of the Court to Annexure P- 8 (pages 52-53) wherefrom it becomes evident that the notice sent to the petitioner was returned back undelivered, therefore, he contends that the principles of natural justice have not been complied with before passing an order of withdrawal of recognition.

5. He also relies on the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 20th July, 2022 passed in WP(C) No.3069/2022, wherein under the similar circumstances, this Court allowed the petition and consequently the decision taken by the WRC in its 322nd meeting qua the petitioner therein was set aside on the ground that service of show-cause notice was not proved. The operative part of the judgment reads as under:-

"13. Further as regards the controversy regarding service of the show-cause notice dated 29th September, 2020, the Court would lean in favour of Petitioner-institute. Service of show-

cause notice is a vital communication for an institute as it affords an opportunity to them to put forth their stand qua the alleged deficiencies, failing which adverse consequences are bound to follow. This opportunity is thus, crucial for the institutes whose recognition and operation are at stake. To prove the service, Respondents have relied upon a dispatch report, but failed to annex any proof of dispatch therewith. The show-cause notice dated 29th September, 2020 mentions the mode of dispatch as "but Speed Post/Regd. Post" but no speed post receipt or tracking report has been brought on record which can convince the court that a show-notice was indeed served on Petitioner-institute.

14. In light of the above, the Court is inclined to allow the present petition and accordingly, the decision taken by WRC qua Petitioner-institute in the 322nd meeting held from 23rd to 24th November, 2020, and the withdrawal order, is set aside. The WRC shall now issue an order of restoration of recognition and reflect the status of Petitioner-institute as a recognised institution for B.Ed. course and send a written communication in this regard to the affiliating university of Petitioner-institute and to the Department of Higher Education, Government of Maharashtra with instructions that the Petitioner-institute is entitled to take part in counselling and admit students for all academic sessions within a period of two weeks from today.

15. It is clarified that this order shall not preclude Respondents from issuing a fresh show-cause notice to Petitioner-institute as per their discretion. It is further clarified that the Court has not expressed any opinion on the contentions advanced by the parties qua the issuance of a second show-cause notice as Petitioner-institute is entitled to succeed on other grounds. The Court has not delved into the merits of the case and views expressed herein are only for the purpose of deciding the present petition."

6. Issue notice. The learned counsel above-named accepts notice.

7. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that since the notice was sent on the correct address therefore a presumption of service needs to be drawn.

8. I find from the printouts of the website of the NCTE (Annexure P-8) that the show-cause notice issued to the petitioner has come back undelivered. The learned counsel for the respondents does not controvert the factum of non-delivery of the show-cause notice as is borne out from the printouts of the pages of the website of NCTE.

9. I also do not find any merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that presumption of service of show-cause notice is to be drawn. Once the record reveals that the show-cause notice came back undelivered, no presumption could be drawn with regard to the service of the same.

10. In the circumstances, the present writ petition is allowed with the following directions:

(i) The decision taken by the WRC qua petitioner in 322nd meeting held from 23rd to 24th November, 2022 and the consequent withdrawal order dated 20th December, 2020 are set aside.

(ii) Resultantly, the WRC shall issue an order of restoration of recognition and reflect the status of petitioner/institute as recognized institution for B.Ed. course and send a written communication in this regard to the affiliating university of petitioner/institute and to the Department of Higher Education, Government of Maharashtra with specific instructions that the petitioner/institute is entitled to take part in counseling and Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ARUNA KANWAR Signing Date:20.12.2022 19:09:54 admit students for all academic sessions within a period of two days from today.

11. It is also clarified that this order shall not preclude respondent from issuing fresh show-cause notice to the petitioner/institute in terms of the provisions of the Act.

12. The present writ petition along with application for stay stands disposed of in the above terms.

13. It is also made clear that the Court has not delved into the merits of the case and the question with regard to the shifting of petitioner/institute to its own premises, is also left open to be decided by the WRC, NCTE.

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J DECEMBER 19, 2022 ak Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ARUNA KANWAR Signing Date:20.12.2022 19:09:54