Kerala High Court
The Manager vs National Council For Teacher Education on 7 October, 2020
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 15TH ASWINA, 1942
W.P.(C)No.19665 OF 2020(G)
PETITIONER:
THE MANAGER, KARMELA RANI TRAINING COLLEGE,
FATIMA ROAD, NEAR ST. ALOYSIUS H.S.S.,
CUTCHERRY P.O, KOLLAM-691 013.
BY ADVS.
SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM (SR.)
SRI.TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM
SRI.THOMAS GEORGE
RESPONDENTS:
1 NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION
G-7, SECTOR 10, NEAR SECTOR 10 METRO STATION,
DWARAKA, NEW DELHI-110075.
2 THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR,
SOUTHERN REGIONAL COMMITTEE,
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION,
G-7, SECTOR 10, NEAR SECTOR 10 METRO STATION,
DWARAKA, NEW DELHI-110 075
3 UNIVERSITY OF KERALA,
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, PALAYAM,
TRIVANDRUM-695 034
R1-R2 BY DR.ABRAHAM P.MEACHINKARA,SC,NCTE
R3 BY SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM, SC, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.10.2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).20168/2020(U), WP(C).20355/2020(T),
WP(C).20429/2020(C), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) Nos.19665, 20168, 20355 & 20429 of 2020
2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 15TH ASWINA, 1942
W.P.(C) No.20168 OF 2020(U)
PETITIONER:
FAROOQ EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY
PRAPPUR P.O. KOTTAKAL PIN-676 503,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
BY ADVS.
SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.)
SMT.NISHA GEORGE
RESPONDENTS:
1 NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION
SOUTHERN REGIONAL COMMITTEE, G-7, SECTOR 10,
DWARAKA NEW DELHI - 110075,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL DIRECTOR.
2 THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT,
THENJIPALAM P.O. MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 673 635,
REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR.
3 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
(HIGHER EDUCATION), GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
R1 BY DR.ABRAHAM P.MEACHINKARA,SC,NCTE
R2 BY ADV.SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, CALICUT UNVTY
R3 BY ADV.SRI.SUNIL NATH, GOVT. PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.10.2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).19665/2020(G), WP(C).20355/2020(T),
WP(C).20429/2020(C), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) Nos.19665, 20168, 20355 & 20429 of 2020
3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 15TH ASWINA, 1942
W.P.(C).No.20355 OF 2020(T)
PETITIONER :
BAFAKY YATHEEMKHANA B.ED TRAINING COLLEGE
KALPAKANCHERRY, VIA TIRUR,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676551,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.
BY ADVS.
SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.)
SMT.NISHA GEORGE
RESPONDENTS:
1 NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION
SOUTHERN REGIONAL COMMITTEE,
G-7, SECTOR, DWARAKA,
NEW DELHI-110075,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL DIRECTOR.
2 THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT
THENJIPALAM.P.O,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673635,
REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR.
3 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY(HIGHER
EDUCATION),
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
R1 BY DR.ABRAHAM P.MEACHINKARA,SC,NCTE
R2 BY SRI P.C.SASIDHARAN- SC,CALICUT UNIVERSITY
R3 BY SRI SUNIL NATH N.B- GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.10.2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).19665/2020(G), WP(C).20168/2020(U),
WP(C).20429/2020(C), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) Nos.19665, 20168, 20355 & 20429 of 2020
4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 15TH ASWINA, 1942
W.P.(C)No.20429 OF 2020(C)
PETITIONER:
R.BALAKRISHNA PILLAI,AGED 86 YEARS
MANAGING TRUSTEE, M/S.R.BALAKRISHNA PILLAI CHARITABLE
TRUST, THAMPANOOR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT KEEZHOTTU VEEDU,
KOTTARAKKARA-691506, KOLLAM DISTRICT,
(MANAGER,R.V.TRAINING COLLEGE,
VALAKOM(P.O),KOLLAM DISTRICT).
BY ADVS.
SRI.G.BIJU
SRI.V.A.VINOD
RESPONDENTS:
1 NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION
G.7, SECTOR-10, DWARAKA, NEAR METRO STATION,
NEW DELHI-110075,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY.
2 THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR,
SOUTHERN REGIONAL COMMITTEE,
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION,
PLOT NO.G.7,SECTOR 10, DWARAKA,NEW DELHI-110075.
3 THE REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA,
UNIVERSITY OF KERALA SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS,
PALAYAM.P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695034.
4 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
R1-R2 BY DR.ABRAHAM P.MEACHINKARA,SC,NCTE
R3 BY SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM, SC, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA
R4 BY SRI SUNIL NATH N.B- GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.10.2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).19665/2020(G), WP(C).20168/2020(U),
WP(C).20355/2020(T), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) Nos.19665, 20168, 20355 & 20429 of 2020
5
JUDGMENT
The petitioner institutions offering courses in teacher education on the strength of the recognition granted by the Southern Regional Committee of the National Council for Teacher Education (for brevity, 'the NCTE') and affiliation with the respective affiliating University, have filed these writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, feeling aggrieved by the decision taken by the Southern Regional Committee of the NCTE, whereby the recognition granted to the respective institutions is withdrawn, invoking the provisions under Section 17 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (for brevity, 'the NCTE Act'). Since common issue is raised, these writ petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. W.P(C).No.19665 of 2020:- The petitioner is the Manager of Karmela Rani Training College, which is conducting B.Ed and M.Ed courses on the strength of the recognition granted by the NCTE and affiliation granted by the 3rd respondent Kerala University. Originally, the annual intake for B.Ed course was 100 with effect from the academic session 1960-61 and that for M.Ed course was 6 W.P.(C) Nos.19665, 20168, 20355 & 20429 of 2020 6 from the year 2005-06, which was later enhanced to 12. In the year 2014, in supersession of the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2009, the NCTE made the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2014 (for brevity, 'the NCTE Regulations, 2014'). After the coming into force of the NCTE Regulations, 2014, the petitioner applied for recognition before the Southern Regional Committee of the NCTE. The petitioner has also filed an affidavit dated 24.01.2015 for statutory compliance of the NCTE Regulations, 2014. Based on that application, the Southern Regional Committee of the NCTE by Ext.P9 order dated 13.05.2015 granted recognition for B.Ed course with 100 seats, i.e., 2 basic unit of 50 students, from the academic session 2015-16. By Ext.P10 order dated 20.05.2015 recognition was granted for M.Ed programme with annual intake of 50 seats, i.e., one basic unit of 50 students. Later by Ext.P12 corrigendum dated 07.07.2015 the intake for B.Ed course was reduced to 50 seats, i.e., one basic unit of 50 students.
2.1. By Ext.P14 show cause notice dated 15.03.2019, issued by the 2nd respondent Regional Director, under W.P.(C) Nos.19665, 20168, 20355 & 20429 of 2020 7 Section 17 of the NCTE Act, the petitioner was required to produce certain documents. On receipt of Ext.P14 show cause notice (in respect of B.Ed course), the petitioner submitted Ext.P15 reply dated 09.04.2019. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent issued Ext.P16 show cause notice dated 30.04.2019 (in respect of M.Ed course), to which the petitioner submitted Ext.P17 reply dated 25.05.2019. After receipt of Exts.P15 and P17 replies, the 2nd respondent issued Ext.P18 final show cause notice dated 09.12.2019 pointing out certain observations of the Southern Regional Committee of the NCTE and requiring the petitioner to submit certain documents/clarifications, to which the petitioner submitted Ext.P19 reply dated 01.01.2020. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent issued Exts.P20 & P21 communications dated 20.02.2020, whereby the petitioner was required to submit latest staff list, in the prescribed format, as per the provisions of NCTE Regulations, 2014. Therefore, the petitioner approached the 3rd respondent University with Ext.P22 request dated 13.03.2020 to countersign the staff list of B.Ed programme. The petitioner has also informed the matter to the 2nd respondent vide Ext.P23 letter dated 18.03.2020 and Ext.P24 letter dated W.P.(C) Nos.19665, 20168, 20355 & 20429 of 2020 8 19.03.2020. As per Ext.P25 minutes of the 387 th meeting of the Southern Regional Committee held on 24th & 25th August, 2020, vide decision No.108, it was decided to withdraw the recognition of the petitioner's institution, under sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the NCTE Act. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent issued Ext.P26 withdrawal order dated 07.09.2020.
2.2. Feeling aggrieved by Ext.P26, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P26 decision taken in the 387th meeting of the Southern Regional Committee held on 24th & 25th August, 2020; a declaration that the petitioner is entitled to proceed with admissions for B.Ed and M.Ed courses for the academic year 2020-21; a writ of mandamus commanding the 3rd respondent University to make allotments to the petitioner's college for B.Ed through the Centralised Admission Process (CAP) into quota set apart for CAP.
2.3. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a statement opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition, raising various contentions.
3. W.P(C).No.20168 of 2020:- The petitioner, namely, Farooq Educational Society, is running Farooq B.Ed. College, W.P.(C) Nos.19665, 20168, 20355 & 20429 of 2020 9 on the strength of the recognition granted by the NCTE and affiliation granted by the 2nd respondent Calicut University. Originally, the annual intake for B.Ed course was 100, from the academic session 2004-05 as evidenced by Ext.P1 dated 23.02.2005. After the coming into force of the NCTE Regulations, 2014, the petitioner applied for recognition before the Southern Regional Committee of the NCTE. The petitioner has also filed an affidavit dated 28.01.2015 for statutory compliance of the NCTE Regulations, 2014. Based on that application, the Southern Regional Committee of the NCTE granted recognition for B.Ed course with 50 students, i.e., one basic unit, from the academic session 2015-16.
3.1. By Ext.P5 show cause notice dated 21.02.2019, issued by the 1st respondent under Section 17 of the NCTE Act, the petitioner was required to produce certain documents. On receipt of Ext.P5 show cause notice, the petitioner submitted Ext.P6 reply dated 19.03.2019 along with certain documents. After receipt of Ext.P6 reply, the 1 st respondent issued Ext.P7 final show cause notice dated 20.01.2020 pointing out certain observations of the Southern Regional Committee and requiring the petitioner to submit certain documents. The petitioner submitted W.P.(C) Nos.19665, 20168, 20355 & 20429 of 2020 10 Ext.P8 reply dated 06.02.2020 producing therewith certain documents. As per Ext.P9 minutes of the 388 th meeting of the Southern Regional Committee of the NCTE held on 14 th and 15th September, 2020, vide decision No.93, it was decided to withdraw the recognition of the petitioner's College, invoking the provisions under sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the NCTE Act.
3.2. Feeling aggrieved by Ext.P9, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P5 show cause notice dated 21.02.2019, Ext.P7 final show cause notice dated 20.01.2020 and Ext.P9 minutes of 388th meeting of the 1st respondent; a writ directing the 1 st respondent to hear the petitioner on the defects noted in Ext.P9 minutes and take a fresh decision in accordance with law; and issue a writ declaring that the petitioner's college is eligible to make admissions in the academic year 2020-21 and entitled to get allotment of students to their college in the allotment process for the academic year 2020-21. During the pendency of this writ petition, the 1 st respondent issued Ext.P10 order of withdrawal of recognition dated 21.09.2020, in the prescribed format. Therefore, the petitioner has amended the writ petition in order to W.P.(C) Nos.19665, 20168, 20355 & 20429 of 2020 11 challenge that order by seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P10 withdrawal order dated 21.09.2020 issued by the NCTE; and a declaration that Ext.P10 decision has been taken in violation of the principles of natural justice and therefore, bad in law.
3.3. The 1st respondent has filed a statement opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition, raising various contentions.
4. W.P(C).No.20429 of 2020:- The petitioner, who is the Managing Trustee of R.Balakrishna Pillai Charitable Trust, is running R.V Training College from the academic year 2004-05 on the strength of recognition granted by NCTE and affiliation granted by the 3 rd respondent Kerala University. Originally, the annual intake for B.Ed. course was 100, for the academic session 2004-05 as evidenced by Ext.P1 dated 25.02.2005. After the coming into force of the NCTE Regulations, 2014, the petitioner applied for recognition before the Southern Regional Committee of the NCTE. The petitioner has also filed Ext.P2 affidavit dated 16.01.2015 for statutory compliance of the NCTE Regulations, 2014. Based on that application, the Southern Regional Committee of the NCTE issued Ext.P3 order dated W.P.(C) Nos.19665, 20168, 20355 & 20429 of 2020 12 15.05.2015 granting recognition for B.Ed course with 100 seats, i.e., 2 basic units of 50 students each, from the academic session 2015-16. The petitioner requested to reduce the intake as 1 basic unit of 50 students, as evidenced by Ext.P4 communication dated 22.05.2015. Since no revised orders were issued, the petitioner sent a reminder to Ext.P4 vide Ext.P6 dated 27.08.2017. Ext.P7 is the list of number of students admitted in the petitioner's college from the academic year 2015-16.
4.1. By Ext.P8 show cause notice dated 26.03.2019 issued by the 2nd respondent, under Section 17 of the NCTE Act, the petitioner was required to produce certain documents. On receipt of Ext.P8 show cause notice, the petitioner submitted Ext.P9 reply dated 06.05.2019. After the receipt of Ext.P9 reply, the petitioner was issued with Ext.P10 final show cause notice dated 31.10.2019, whereby he was required to clarify certain things based on the observations made by the Southern Regional Committee of the NCTE. The petitioner submitted Ext.P11 reply dated 23.11.2019. However, as per Ext.P12 order dated 22.01.2020, the recognition granted to the petitioner college has been withdrawn in terms of the decision taken W.P.(C) Nos.19665, 20168, 20355 & 20429 of 2020 13 in the 383rd meeting of the Southern Regional Committee held on 07.09.2020, under sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the NCTE Act. Challenging Ext.P12 order, the petitioner has filed Ext.P13 appeal before the 1st respondent, which was rejected by Ext.P14 order dated 15.09.2020. Ext.P15 is a copy of the lease deed dated 19.08.2004 executed by the petitioner. Ext.P16 is a copy of the building completion certificate dated 19.03.2020 and Exts.P17 and P18 are copy of the building plan and copy of the website page of the college respectively.
4.2. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P12 withdrawal order dated 22.01.2020 and Ext.P14 order dated 15.09.2020 issued by the NCTE; a declaration that Ext.P12 order issued by the 2nd respondent withdrawing recognition of the petitioner's college and Ext.P14 order issued by the Appeal Committee/1st respondent confirming the withdrawal order is contrary to Section 17(1) of the NCTE Act, 1993; a declaration that Ext.P12 order withdrawing recognition of petitioner's college with effect from the next academic session and confirmation of the withdrawal order vide Ext.P4 order by the 1st respondent is violative of the 2 nd W.P.(C) Nos.19665, 20168, 20355 & 20429 of 2020 14 proviso to Section 17(1) of the NCTE Act, 1993; and a writ of mandamus commanding the 3rd respondent University to allot 25 merit quota students for B.Ed course in petitioner's college for the academic session 2020-22 and permit the college to admit students in the remaining 25 seats.
4.3. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a statement opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition, raising various contentions.
5. W.P(C).No.20355 of 2020:- The petitioner, namely Bafaky Yatheemkhana B.Ed Training College, is imparting B.Ed course on the strength of recognition granted by the NCTE and affiliation granted by the 2 nd respondent Calicut University from the academic session 2004-05. Originally, the annual intake for B.Ed course was 100 seats, as evident from Ext.P1 recognition granted by the NCTE, for the academic year 2004-05. After the coming into force of the NCTE Regulations, 2014, the petitioner applied for recognition before the Southern Regional Committee of the NCTE. The petitioner has also filed an affidavit dated 27.01.2015 for statutory compliance of the NCTE Regulations, 2014. Based on that application, by Ext.P4 order dated 15.05.2015, the Southern Regional W.P.(C) Nos.19665, 20168, 20355 & 20429 of 2020 15 Committee of the NCTE granted recognition for B.Ed course with 50 students, i.e., one basic unit, from the academic session 2015-16.
5.1. By Ext.P5 show cause notice dated 01.12.2016, issued by the 1st respondent, under Section 17 of the NCTE Act, the petitioner was required to produce certain documents. On receipt of Ext.P5 show cause notice, the petitioner submitted Ext.P6 reply dated 23.12.2016. After the receipt of Ext.P6 reply, the petitioner was issued with Ext.P7 final show cause notice dated 10.12.2019, whereby the petitioner was required to produce certain documents. Going by the averments in the writ petition, in response to Ext.P7 final show cause notice, the petitioner submitted Ext.P8 reply dated 26.12.2019 along with the documents. As per Ext.P9, in the 388th meeting of the Southern Regional Committee held on 14th and 15th September, 2020, vide decision No.96, it was decided to withdraw the recognition granted to the petitioner college, under sub- section (1) of Section 17 of the NCTE Act.
5.2. Feeling aggrieved by Ext.P9, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P5 show cause notice dated 01.12.2016, Ext.P7 final W.P.(C) Nos.19665, 20168, 20355 & 20429 of 2020 16 show cause notice dated 10.12.2019 and Ext.P9 minutes of the 388th meeting of the Southern Regional Committee of the NCTE held on 14th and 15th September, 2020; a writ directing the 1st respondent to hear the petitioner on the defects noted in Ext.P9 minutes and take a fresh decision in accordance with law; and a writ declaring that the petitioner's college is eligible to make admissions in the academic year 2020-21 and entitled to get allotment of students to the college in the allotment process for the academic year 2020-21. During the pendency of this writ petition, the 1st respondent issued Ext.P10 order of withdrawal of recognition dated 21.09.2020, in the prescribed format. Therefore, the petitioner has amended the writ petition in order to challenge that order by seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P10 withdrawal order dated 21.09.2020 issued by the 1st respondent.
5.3. The 1st respondent has filed a statement opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition, raising various contentions.
6. Heard the learned Senior Counsel/learned counsel for the petitioner institution in the respective writ petitions, the learned Standing Counsel for the NCTE, the W.P.(C) Nos.19665, 20168, 20355 & 20429 of 2020 17 learned Standing Counsel for the respective Universities and also the learned Government Pleader for the State.
7. The issue that arises for consideration in these writ petitions is as to whether the proceedings initiated against the petitioner institution in the respective writ petitions, under sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the NCTE Act, for withdrawal of recognition can be sustained in law.
8. The NCTE Act is enacted by the Central Government to provide for the establishment of a National Council for Teacher Education with a view to achieve planned and coordinated development for the teacher education system throughout the country, the regulation and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the teacher education system *[including qualifications of school teachers] and for matters connected therewith. [*inserted by Section 2 of the NCTE (Amendment) Act, 2011, with effect from 01.06.2012]. Clause (c) of Section 2 of the NCTE Act define 'Council' to mean the National Council for Teacher Education established under sub-section (1) of Section 3. Clause (d) define 'examining body' to mean a University, agency or authority to which an institution is affiliated for conducting examinations in teacher education qualifications. W.P.(C) Nos.19665, 20168, 20355 & 20429 of 2020 18 Clause (e) of Section 2 define 'institution' to mean an institution which offers courses or training in teacher education. Clause (l) of Section 2 define 'teacher education' to mean programmes of education, research or training of persons for equipping them to teach at pre-primary, primary, secondary and senior secondary stages in schools, and includes non-formal education, part-time education, adult education and correspondence education.
9. Section 12 of the NCTE Act deals with functions of the Council. As per Section 12, it shall be the duty of the Council to take all such steps as it may think fit for ensuring planned and coordinated development of teacher education and for the determination and maintenance of standards for teacher education and for the purposes of performing its functions under this Act, the Council may (a) undertake surveys and studies relating to various aspects of teacher education and publish the result thereof; (b) make recommendations to the Central and State Governments, Universities, University Grants Commission and recognised institutions in the matter of preparation of suitable plans and programmes in the field of teacher education; (c) coordinate and monitor teacher education and its W.P.(C) Nos.19665, 20168, 20355 & 20429 of 2020 19 development in the country; (d) lay down guidelines in respect of minimum qualifications for a person to be employed as a teacher in recognised institutions; (e) lay down norms for any specified category of courses or training in teacher education, including the minimum eligibility criteria for admission thereof, and the method of selection of candidates, duration of the course, course contents and mode of curriculum; (f) lay down guidelines for compliance by recognised institutions, for starting new courses or training and for providing physical and instructional facilities, staffing pattern and staff qualifications; (g) lay down standards in respect of examinations leading to teacher education qualifications, criteria for admission to such examinations and schemes of courses or training; (h) lay down guidelines regarding tuition fee and other fee chargeable by recognised institutions; (i) promote and conduct innovation and research in various areas of teacher education and disseminate the results thereof; (j) examine and review periodically the implementation of the norms, guidelines and standards laid down by the Council and to suitably advise the recognised institutions; (k) evolve suitable W.P.(C) Nos.19665, 20168, 20355 & 20429 of 2020 20 performance appraisal systems, norms and mechanisms for enforcing accountability on recognised institutions; (l) formulate schemes for various levels of teacher education and identify recognised institutions and set up new institutions for teacher development programmes; (m) take all necessary steps to prevent commercialisation of teacher education; and (n) perform such other functions as may be entrusted to it by the Central Government.
10. Section 13 of the NCTE Act deals with inspection. As per sub-section (1) of Section 13, for the purposes of ascertaining whether the recognised institutions are functioning in accordance with the provisions of this Act, the Council may cause inspection of any such institution, to be made by such persons as it may direct, and in such manner as may be prescribed. As per sub-section (2), the Council shall communicate to the institution the date on which inspection under sub-section (1) is to be made and the institution shall be entitled to be associated with the inspection in such manner as may be prescribed. As per sub-section (3), the Council shall communicate to the said institution, its views in regard to the results of any such inspection and may, after ascertaining the opinion of that W.P.(C) Nos.19665, 20168, 20355 & 20429 of 2020 21 institution, recommend to that institution the action to be taken as a result of such inspection. As per sub-section (4), all communications to the institution under this section shall be made to the executive authority thereof, and the executive authority of the institution shall report to the Council the action, if any, which is proposed to be taken for the purposes of implementing any such recommendation as is referred to in sub-section (3).
11. Section 14 of the NCTE Act deals with recognition of institutions offering course or training in teacher education. As per sub-section (1) of Section 14, every institution offering or intending to offer a course or training in teacher education on or after the appointed day, may, for grant of recognition under this Act, make an application to the Regional Committee concerned in such form and in such manner as may be determined by regulations. As per the first proviso to sub-section (1), an institution offering a course or training in teacher education immediately before the appointed day, shall be entitled to continue such course or training for a period of six months, if it has made an application for recognition within the said period and until the disposal of the application by the Regional Committee. W.P.(C) Nos.19665, 20168, 20355 & 20429 of 2020 22 As per the second proviso to sub-section (1), such institutions, as may be specified by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette, which (i) are funded by the Central Government or the State Government or the Union territory Administration; (ii) have offered a course or training in teacher education on or after the appointed day till the academic year 2017-2018; and (iii) fulfil the conditions specified under clause (a) of sub-section (3), shall be deemed to have been recognised by the Regional Committee.
12. As per sub-section (2) of Section 14, the fee to be paid along with the application under sub-section (1) shall be such as may be prescribed. As per sub-section (3), on receipt of an application by the Regional Committee from any institution under sub-section (1), and after obtaining from the institution concerned such other particulars as it may consider necessary, it shall, (a) if it is satisfied that such institution has adequate financial resources, accommodation, library, qualified staff, laboratory and that it fulfils such other conditions required for proper functioning of the institution for a course or training in teacher education, as may be determined by regulations, W.P.(C) Nos.19665, 20168, 20355 & 20429 of 2020 23 pass an order granting recognition to such institution, subject to such conditions as may be determined by regulations; or (b) if it is of the opinion that such institution does not fulfil the requirements laid down in sub-clause (a), pass an order refusing recognition to such institution for reasons to be recorded in writing. As per the proviso to clause (b) of sub-section (3), before passing an order under sub-clause (b), the Regional Committee shall provide a reasonable opportunity to the concerned institution for making a written representation. As per sub-section (4), every order granting or refusing recognition to an institution for a course or training in teacher education under sub- section (3) shall be published in the Official Gazette and communicated in writing for appropriate action to such institution and to the concerned examining body, the local authority or the State Government and the Central Government. As per sub-section (5), every institution, in respect of which recognition has been refused shall discontinue the course or training in teacher education from the end of the academic session next following the date of receipt of the order refusing recognition passed under clause (b) of sub-section (3). As per sub-section (6), every W.P.(C) Nos.19665, 20168, 20355 & 20429 of 2020 24 examining body shall, on receipt of the order under sub- section (4), (a) grant affiliation to the institution, where recognition has been granted; or (b) cancel the affiliation of the institution, where recognition has been refused.
13. Section 15 of the NCTE Act deals with permission for a new course or training by recognised institution. As per sub-section (1) of Section 15, where any recognised institution intends to start any new course or training in teacher education, it may make an application to seek permission therefor to the Regional Committee concerned in such form and in such manner as may be determined by regulations. As per the proviso to sub-section (1), inserted by the NCTE (Amendment) Act, 2019, with effect from 17.08.1995, the course or training in teacher education offered on or after the appointed day till the academic year 2017-2018 by such institutions, as may be specified by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette, which (i) are funded by the Central Government or the State Government or the Union territory Administration; and (ii) fulfil the conditions specified under clause (a) of sub-section (3), shall be deemed to have been granted permission by the Regional Committee. As per sub-section W.P.(C) Nos.19665, 20168, 20355 & 20429 of 2020 25 (2) of Section 15, the fees to be paid along with the application under sub-section (1) shall be such as may be prescribed. As per sub-section (3), on receipt of an application from an institution under sub-section (1), and after obtaining from the recognised institution such other particulars as may be considered necessary, the Regional Committee shall, (a) if it is satisfied that such recognised institution has adequate financial resources, accommodation, library, qualified staff, laboratory, and that it fulfils such other conditions required for proper conduct of the new course or training in teacher education, as may be determined by regulations, pass an order granting permission, subject to such conditions as may be determined by regulation; or (b) if it is of the opinion that such institution does not fulfil the requirements laid down in clause (a), pass an order refusing permission to such institution, for reasons to be recorded in writing. As per the proviso to clause (b), before passing an order refusing permission under clause (b), the Regional Committee shall provide a reasonable opportunity to the institution concerned for making a written representation. As per sub- section (4) of Section 15, every order granting or refusing W.P.(C) Nos.19665, 20168, 20355 & 20429 of 2020 26 permission to a recognised institution for a new course or training in teacher education under sub-section (3), shall be published in the Official Gazette and communicated in writing for appropriate action to such recognised institution and to the concerned examining body, the local authority, the State Government and the Central Government.
14. As per Section 16 of the NCTE Act, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no examining body shall, on or after the appointed day, (a) grant affiliation, whether provisional or otherwise, to any institution; or (b) hold examination, whether provisional or otherwise, for a course or training conducted by a recognised institution, unless the institution concerned has obtained recognition from the Regional Committee concerned, under Section 14 or permission for a course or training under Section 15.
15. Section 17 of the NCTE Act deals with contravention of provisions of the Act and consequences thereof. As per sub-section (1) of Section 17, 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 W.P.(C) Nos.19665, 20168, 20355 & 20429 of 2020 27 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. As per the first proviso to sub-section (1), 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. As per the second proviso to sub-section (1), 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. As per sub-section (2) of Section 17, 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. As per sub-section (3) of Section 17, once the W.P.(C) Nos.19665, 20168, 20355 & 20429 of 2020 28 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. As per sub-section (4) of Section 17, 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. W.P.(C) Nos.19665, 20168, 20355 & 20429 of 2020 29
16. Section 18 of the NCTE Act deals with appeals. As per sub-section (1) of Section 18, any person aggrieved by an order made under Section 14 or Section 15 or Section 17 of the Act may prefer an appeal to the Council within such period as may be prescribed. As per sub-section (2), no appeal shall be admitted if it is preferred after the expiry of the period prescribed therefor. As per the proviso to sub- section (2), an appeal may be admitted after the expiry of the period prescribed therefor, if the appellant satisfies the Council that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the prescribed period. As per sub-section (3), every appeal made under this section shall be made in such form and shall be accompanied by a copy of the order appealed against and by such fees as may be prescribed. As per sub-section (4), the procedure for disposing of an appeal shall be such as may be prescribed. As per the proviso to sub-section (4), before disallowing an appeal, the appellant shall be given a reasonable opportunity to represent its case. As per sub-section (6), the Council may confirm or reverse the order appealed against.
17. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 31 of the NCTE Act, the Central Government made the National W.P.(C) Nos.19665, 20168, 20355 & 20429 of 2020 30 Council for Teacher Education Rules, 1997 (for brevity, 'the NCTE Rules'). Rule 10 of the NCTE Rules deals with appeal. As per sub-rule (1) of Rule 10, any person aggrieved by a refusal order made under Section 14 or Section 15 or withdrawal order made under Section 17 of the NCTE Act, may prefer an appeal in Form I or Form II appended to the Rules, to the Council within sixty days of issue of such orders, along with a fee of Rs.25,000/- payable online with the submission of appeal. As per the proviso to sub-rule (1), an appeal may be admitted after the expiry of the said period of sixty days, if the appellant satisfies the Council that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the period of limitation of sixty days. As per sub-rule (2), the appeal may be submitted electronically through online mode on the website of National Council for Teacher Education along with processing fee of Rs.10,000/-. The appellant shall download the filled in online application and post two sets of hard copies accompanied with the requisite documents, to the Member Secretary, NCTE, New Delhi within two days of online submission of the appeal.
18. As provided in Form I, the memorandum of appeal should be accompanied by a fee of Rs.1000/- paid W.P.(C) Nos.19665, 20168, 20355 & 20429 of 2020 31 by way of crossed demand draft in favour of the NCTE, New Delhi payable at New Delhi. The fee is non-refundable and non-transferable. Memorandum of appeal received without the prescribed fee shall not be entertained. A copy of the order appealed against should invariably be enclosed to the memorandum of appeal. The appeal should be submitted in duplicate, both copies with all enclosures. Copies of the documents relied upon should be appended to the memorandum of appeal. All documents enclosed to the appeal should be duly authenticated by the appellant. The Memorandum of Appeal should be on plain paper neatly typed in double space; should be addressed to the Member Secretary, NCTE by designation only; should contain an index for list of documents indicating page numbers consecutively given; should be complete in all respects and contain all material statements and arguments on which reliance are placed. The statements contained in the appeal should be duly supported by documentary evidence, wherever necessary; should not contain any extraneous or irrelevant points; should be divided into suitable paragraphs, each paragraph containing a specific point or issue; should not contain any disrespectful or improper W.P.(C) Nos.19665, 20168, 20355 & 20429 of 2020 32 language; should be signed on the left hand side bottom of every page by an authorised person giving his/her official position with the office seal of the institution on whose behalf the appeal is being preferred. Corrections, if any, should be duly initialled. If there are any deficiencies in the form or content of the appeal or any other shortcomings, the appellant shall be given an opportunity to cure them within 15 days of the issue of a communication in this regard from the Council. No extension of time will be allowed for this purpose.
19. Rule 11 of the NCTE Rules deals with procedure for disposal of appeals. As per sub-rule (1) of Rule 11, on receipt of memorandum of appeal, the Council shall call for the records of the case from the Regional Committee concerned which passed the order appealed against and after giving the appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard pass such orders as it may deem fit. As per sub-rule (2), the appellant shall be entitled to be represented by an employer or officer of the appellant institution. As per sub- rule (3), the Council shall decide every appeal as expeditiously as possible and ordinarily every appeal shall be decided on a perusal of documents, memorandum of W.P.(C) Nos.19665, 20168, 20355 & 20429 of 2020 33 appeal, written arguments, if any, affidavits and after hearing such oral arguments as may be advanced. As per sub-rule (4), the Council shall endeavour to dispose of every memorandum of appeal within a period of three months from the date of its filing. As per sub-rule (5), the Council shall not ordinarily allow more than three adjournments in any appeal.
20. In view of the provisions under sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the NCTE Act, where the Regional Committee, on its own motion or on any representation received from any person, is satisfied that a recognised institution has contravened any of the provisions of the 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. As per the first proviso to sub-section (1), 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. As per the second proviso to sub-section (1), the W.P.(C) Nos.19665, 20168, 20355 & 20429 of 2020 34 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. In view of the provisions under sub-section (3) of Section 17, 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.
21. In State of U.P. v. Bhupendra Nath Tripathi [(2010) 13 SCC 203] the Apex Court noticed that, as per sub-section (3) of Section 17 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 with effect from the end of the academic session next following the date of communication of the said order. W.P.(C) Nos.19665, 20168, 20355 & 20429 of 2020 35
22. In Adarsh Shiksha Mahavidyalaya v.
Subhash Rahangdale [(2012) 2 SCC 425] the Apex Court reiterated that the withdrawal of recognition becomes effective from the end of the academic session next following the date of communication of the order of withdrawal. Once the recognition is withdrawn under sub- section (1) of Section 17 of the NCTE Act, the concerned institution is required to discontinue the course or training in teacher education and the examining body is obliged to cancel the affiliation.
23. In Shri Morvi Sarvajanik Kelavni Mandal Sanchalit MSKM B.Ed College v. National Council for Teachers' Education [(2012) 2 SCC 16] it was contended by the appellant that the students admitted to the college for the academic session 2011-12 could be allowed to appear in the examination to avoid prejudice to them and to save their careers. It was contended further that the order withdrawing recognition could not affect students admitted to the institution for the academic session 2011-12 as the withdrawal order could only be prospective in nature and having been passed in August, 2011 was relevant only for the academic session 2012-13. W.P.(C) Nos.19665, 20168, 20355 & 20429 of 2020 36 Repelling the said contentions, the Apex Court held that, the recognition of the institution stood withdrawn on 20.07.2011 which meant that while it had no effect qua admissions for the academic session 2010-11 it was certainly operative qua admissions made for the academic session 2011-12 which commenced from 01.08.2011 onwards. The fact that there was a modification of the said order of withdrawal on 24.08.2011 did not obliterate the earlier order dated 20.07.2011. The modifying order would relate back and be effective from 20.07.2011 when the recognition was first withdrawn. Such being the position admissions made for the academic session 2011-12 were not protected under the statute. Further, the Apex Court has in a long line of decisions rendered from time to time disapproved of students being allowed to continue in unrecognised institutions only on sympathetic considerations. The Apex Court held that, the institution established by the appellant is not equipped with the infrastructure required under the NCTE Act and the Regulations. It is not in a position to impart quality education, no matter admissions for the session 2011-12 were made pursuant to the interim directions issued by the W.P.(C) Nos.19665, 20168, 20355 & 20429 of 2020 37 High Court.
24. In view of the provisions under sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the NCTE Act, any person aggrieved by an order made under Section 17 of the Act may prefer an appeal to the Council within the period prescribed. As per sub-section (2), the Appellate Authority may admit an appeal filed after the expiry of the period prescribed, if the appellant satisfies that he had sufficient cause for the delay. As per sub-section (3), every appeal shall be made in the form prescribed and shall be accompanied by a copy of the order appealed against and the fees prescribed. As per the proviso to sub-section (4), before disallowing an appeal, the appellant shall be given a reasonable opportunity to represent its case.
25. In view of the provisions under sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 10 of the NCTE Rules, any person aggrieved by withdrawal order made under Section 17 of the NCTE Act, may prefer an appeal in Form I or Form II, through online mode on the website of NCTE, along with the fee and processing fee prescribed. As per sub-rule (1) of Rule 11, the Council shall pass such orders as it may deem fit on the appeal, after giving the appellant a reasonable opportunity W.P.(C) Nos.19665, 20168, 20355 & 20429 of 2020 38 of being heard. As per sub-rule (2), the appellant shall be entitled to be represented by an employer or officer of the appellant institution. In view of the provisions under sub- rule (3) of Rule 11, ordinarily every appeal shall be decided on a perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, written arguments, if any, affidavits and after hearing such oral arguments as may be advanced.
26. Section 17 of the NCTE Act empowers the Regional Committee of the NCTE to withdraw recognition granted to an institution offering course or training in teacher education, for reasons to be recorded in writing, where the Regional Committee is satisfied, on its own motion or on any representation received from any person, 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. As per the first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 17, no such order against the recognised institution shall be passed unless a reasonable opportunity of making representation against the proposed order has been given W.P.(C) Nos.19665, 20168, 20355 & 20429 of 2020 39 to such recognised institution.
27. In Adarsh Shiksha Mahavidyalaya v.
Subhash Rahangdale [(2012) 2 SCC 425] the Apex Court noticed that the mechanism for dealing with the cases involving violation of the provisions of the NCTE Act or the rules, regulations, orders made or issued thereunder or the conditions of recognition by a recognised institution finds place in Section 17. Once the recognition is granted, the same can be withdrawn only under sub-section (1) of Section 17 if there is a contravention of the provisions of the Act or the Rules, or the Regulations, or orders made therein, or any condition subject to which recognition was granted under clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 14 or permission was granted under clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 15.
28. It is well settled that, when the statute requires to do certain thing in certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other methods or mode of performance are impliedly and necessarily forbidden. The said proposition of law is based on a legal maxim 'expressio unius est exclusion alteris' meaning thereby that, if the statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular W.P.(C) Nos.19665, 20168, 20355 & 20429 of 2020 40 manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner, and following other course is not permissible. The said proposition of law about limitation of exercise of statutory power has first been identified by Jassel M.R. in the case of Taylor v. Taylor [1876 (1) Ch.D. 426], wherein it was laid down that, where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, that thing must be done in that way, or not at all, and that other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden. The Privy Council applied the said principle in the case of Nazir Ahmed v. King Emperor [AIR 1936 PC 253].
29. In Ajanta Industries v. Central Board of Direct Taxes [(1976) 1 SCC 1001], a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that, when law requires reasons to be recorded in a particular order, affecting prejudicially the interest of any person, who can challenge the order in court, it ceases to be a mere administrative order and the wise or violation of the principles of natural justice on account of omission to communicate the reasons is not expiated. The said decision of the Apex Court was in the context of Section 127(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which empowers the Commissioner of Income Tax to W.P.(C) Nos.19665, 20168, 20355 & 20429 of 2020 41 transfer any case from one Income Tax Officer subordinate to him to another, also subordinate to him, after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter, wherever it is possible to do so, and after recording his reasons for doing so. After taking note of the corresponding section in the Income Tax Act, 1922, i.e., Section 5(7A), the Apex Court held that, unlike Section 5(7A) of the 1922 Act, Section 127(1) of the 1961 Act requires reasons to be recorded prior to the passing of an order of transfer. However, the impugned order does not state any reasons whatsoever for making the order of transfer. The Apex Court held that, the requirement of recording reasons under Section 127(1) of the 1961 Act is a mandatory direction under the law and non-communication thereof is not saved by showing that the reasons exist in the file although not communicated to the assessee. The Apex Court held further that, the reason for recording of reasons in the order and making those reasons known to the assessee is to enable an opportunity to the assessee to approach the High Court under its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution or even the Apex Court under Article 136 of the Constitution in an appropriate case for W.P.(C) Nos.19665, 20168, 20355 & 20429 of 2020 42 challenging the order, inter alia, either on the ground that it is a mala fide or arbitrary exercise or that, it is based on irrelevant and extraneous considerations.
30. In Shri B. D. Gupta v. State of Haryana [(1973) 3 SCC 149] the Apex Court was dealing with a case in which disciplinary proceedings was initiated against the appellant under the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952. There was two distinct charges made against the appellant, which were based on allegations that the appellant had taken illegal gratification. One of the contentions taken was that, the appellant did not get a reasonable opportunity to reply to the show cause notice dated 26.10.1966 on the basis of which he had been censured by the Government, inasmuch as, the notice was too vague to enable him to give an effective reply. The Apex Court noticed that, the only ground on which the Government proposed to censure the appellant is the fact that the appellant's explanation dated 18.12.1956 in reply to the statement of charges and allegations had been found unsatisfactory by Government. The appellant's explanation of 18.12.1956 which is said to have been found unsatisfactory by Government was a reply not only to W.P.(C) Nos.19665, 20168, 20355 & 20429 of 2020 43 Charge 1(a) but also to Charge 1(b). Of these two charges, so far as Charge 1(a) is concerned the appellant had been completely exonerated in October, 1958. There is nothing, however, in the show cause notice of 26.10.1966 to indicate clearly that the dissatisfaction of Government with the appellant's reply of 18.12.1956 had nothing to do with Charge 1(a). The show cause notice merely states in vague general terms that the appellant's reply to the charges and allegations was unsatisfactory. Even if it is assumed, though there is no reasonable ground for this assumption, that Government did not have in mind the contents of Charge 1(a) while serving this show cause notice, there is nothing in the show cause notice to give any indication that the particular allegations regarding which the appellant had failed to furnish a satisfactory explanation were referable only to Charge 1(b). The notice is vague on other grounds as well. As one reads the first paragraph of the notice, the questions that at once assail one's mind are many: In what way was the explanation of the appellant unsatisfactory? Which part of the appellant's explanation was so unsatisfactory? On what materials did the Government think that the appellant's explanation was unsatisfactory? It is W.P.(C) Nos.19665, 20168, 20355 & 20429 of 2020 44 essential for a show cause notice to indicate the precise scope of the notice and also to indicate the points on which the officer concerned is expected to give a reply. The show cause notice in the instant case did not give the appellant any real opportunity to defend himself against the complaint that his previous explanation of 18.12.1956 had been unsatisfactory. The appellant did not, therefore, get any chance at all to show that he did not deserve a censure upon his conduct. Before the Apex Court, it was contended on behalf of the State that, since the appellant was aware of the charge and also aware of the reply he had given to the charges made against him, it was enough for Government to tell him that his answer was unsatisfactory. Since the show cause notice really pointed this out and mentioned that the very lenient sentence of censure upon the appellant's conduct was going to be imposed, there was nothing further that Government could be expected to do in this case. Rejecting the said contention, the Apex Court held that, it is manifestly clear that the show cause notice was too vague to permit the appellant to deal with it effectively and that consequently the order of censure passed on him is bad and liable to be struck down. W.P.(C) Nos.19665, 20168, 20355 & 20429 of 2020 45
31. In Subramanian v. State of Kerala and others [1986 KLT 359] one of the issues that came up for consideration before this Court was as to whether Ext.P7 notice issued by the Government asking the writ petitioner, who is the Manager of an Aided Upper Primary School, why the management of the school should not be taken over by the Government under Section 14 of the Kerala Education Act, 1958, is a valid notice under sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act. As per sub-section (1) of Section 14, whenever it appears to the Government that the Manager of any aided school has neglected to perform any of the duties imposed by or under the Act or the rules made thereunder, and that in the public interest it is necessary to take over the management of the school for a period not exceeding five years, they may, after giving the Manager and the educational agency, if any, a reasonable opportunity for showing cause against the proposed action and after considering the cause, if any, shown, do so, if satisfied that such taking over for the period is necessary in the public interest. This Court held that, it is clear that for the above provisions to operate, the following conditions, among others, should be satisfied:- (i) there should be something W.P.(C) Nos.19665, 20168, 20355 & 20429 of 2020 46 to suggest that the Manager has neglected to perform any of his duties under the Act or the Rules; (ii) he should be given a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the proposed take over; (iii) the cause, when shown, should be considered by the Government before the final decision is taken. This Court noticed that, Ext. P7 notice does not refer specifically to any single duty under the Act or Rules which the Manager has neglected to perform. It simply accuses the Manager of having not properly conducted the school. This Court held that, some kind of specification of the duties neglected to be performed by a Manager, apart from a vague accusation of not properly conducting the school, is a minimum requirement of a show cause notice under Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act. Without such a specification, the Manager will not get a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the proposal. Therefore, this Court held that Ext. P7 notice cannot be treated as a valid notice under sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act.
32. In Tarlochan Dev Sharma v. State of Punjab [(2001) 6 SCC 260] the issue that came up for W.P.(C) Nos.19665, 20168, 20355 & 20429 of 2020 47 consideration before the Apex Court was as to whether the impugned order of removal of the appellant from the post of President and Councillor of Rajpura Municipal Council is sustainable within the purview of Section 22 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911. The appellant was issued with a notice dated 19.8.1998, by the Principal Secretary, Department of Local Government, State of Punjab, requiring him to show cause why he be not removed from the post of President and of Member of the Municipal Council and also why he be not restrained from contesting elections of the Municipal Council for the next five years. As per Section 22 of the Act, any President or Vice President maybe removed from office by the State Government on the ground of abuse of his powers or of habitual failure to perform his duties or in pursuance of a resolution requesting his removal passed by two-thirds of the members of the committee. As per second proviso to Section 22, before the State Government notifies his removal, the reason for his proposed removal shall be communicated to him by means of a registered letter in which he shall be called upon to tender within 21 days an explanation in writing and if no such explanation is received in the office of the appropriate Secretary to Government W.P.(C) Nos.19665, 20168, 20355 & 20429 of 2020 48 within 21 days of the despatch of the said registered letter, the State Government may proceed to notify his removal. The Apex Court held that, the proceedings for removal must also satisfy the requirements of natural justice. The second proviso to Section 22 requires that the reason for the proposed removal shall be communicated to the person proceeded against by means of a registered letter and he shall be allowed 21 days for putting up his explanation in writing and thereafter alone, the State Government may proceed to notify his removal. In between a duty to take decision by due application of mind to the allegations made and the explanation given is implicit and shall have to be read in the provision though not expressly stated therein.
33. In Tarlochan Dev Sharma the Apex Court noticed that, one of the requirements of the principles of natural justice, as incorporated in second proviso to Section 22 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, is that the reasons for the proposed removal have to be communicated to the person proceeded against. The purpose of such communication is to enable him to furnish an explanation of his conduct or his act or omission which is likely to be construed as an abuse of powers. It is clear that the facts W.P.(C) Nos.19665, 20168, 20355 & 20429 of 2020 49 constituting gravamen of the charges have to be communicated. It follows as a necessary corollary therefrom that what has not been communicated or not relied on in the show cause notice as a ground providing reason for the proposed removal cannot be relied upon as basis for the order of removal. The person proceeded against under Section 22 of the Act has to be made aware of the precise charge which he is required to meet and therefore he must be apprised of the exact content of the abuse of power attributed to him. The authority taking decision must apply its mind to the explanation furnished by the person proceed against and this must appear from the order passed under Section 22 of the Act.
34. In Tarlochan Dev Sharma, on the facts of the case, the Apex Court noticed that, the show cause notice only alleged that the Municipal Council has purchased a fogging machine for which payment was to be made, but the appellant (as President of the Municipality) instructed the Executive Officer not to make the payment and this resulted in 'the working of the Municipal Council having been obstructed'. The finding arrived at in the impugned order dated 1.10.1999 is different. There is no finding W.P.(C) Nos.19665, 20168, 20355 & 20429 of 2020 50 arrived at that the working of the Municipal Council was in any manner obstructed by the appellant having instructed the Executive Officer not make the payment. The specific stand taken by the appellant in reply was that the machine had certain inherent defects and was not working properly and hence it was on the advice of the Municipal Council that the appellant had desired the payment not be made. The content of abuse of power as stated in the notice dated 19.8.1998 was asking the Executive Officer not to make payment while the order dated 1.10.1999 is founded on a subsequent event that in spite of the Executive officer having prepared and signed the cheque on 20.11.1998, the appellant detained the cheque in his custody for about two months resulting payment being delayed and this amounted to abuse of power. There is no finding recorded in the impugned order that the explanation furnished by the appellant was factually incorrect. Therefore, the Apex Court held that, not only the principles of natural justice were violated by the factum of the impugned orders having been founded on grounds at variance from the one in the show cause notice, of which appellant was not even made aware of, let alone provided an opportunity to offer his W.P.(C) Nos.19665, 20168, 20355 & 20429 of 2020 51 explanation, the allegations made against the appellant did not even prima facie make out a case of abuse of powers of President.
35. In Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore v. Brindavan Beverages (P) Ltd. [(2007) 5 SCC 388], the Apex Court was dealing with a case in which proceedings were initiated, against the respondent M/s. Brindavan Beverages Pvt. Ltd., which was engaged in the manufacture of aerated water in the brand names 'Limca, Thums Up and Gold Spot' of M/s. Parley Exports Ltd. in the brand name 'Cita' of M/s. Limca Flavours and Fragrances Ltd., and carbonated water 'Bisleri Club Soda' of M/s. Acqua Minerale Pvt. Ltd., vide a show cause notice dated 04.05.1995, relating to the exemption claimed under Notification Nos.175/86 and 1/93, for 'Citra' and 'Bisleri Club Soda' bottles, claiming that the brand name owners were registered with the Directorate of Industries as Small Scale Units. Before the Apex Court, the appellant contended that, since these concerns could not have availed the benefits under the aforesaid notifications, they have created dummy concerns to avail the benefits. In the circumstances there was necessity to lift the corporate veil to find out the W.P.(C) Nos.19665, 20168, 20355 & 20429 of 2020 52 true owners. Per contra, the respondents contended that there is no material that the respondents had ever been party to the so called arrangement, even if it is accepted for the sake of arguments, but not conceded, that such arrangement was in reality made. There was no material brought on record to show that the respondents had any role to play in such matters as alleged. Even the show cause notice did not refer to any particular material to come to such a conclusion. Therefore, the Commissioner and the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) were justified in holding that the respondents were entitled to the benefits. The Apex Court found that, in the show cause notice there was nothing specific as to the role of the respondents, if any. The arrangements as alleged have not been shown to be within the knowledge or at the behest or with the connivance of the respondents. Independent arrangements were entered into by the respondents with the franchiser. On a perusal of the show cause notice the stand of the respondents clearly gets established. There is no allegation of the respondents being parties to any arrangement. In any event, no material in that regard was placed on record. The Apex Court held that W.P.(C) Nos.19665, 20168, 20355 & 20429 of 2020 53 the show cause notice is the foundation on which the department has to build up its case. If the allegations in the show cause notice are not specific and are on the contrary vague, lack details and/or unintelligible that is sufficient to hold that the noticee was not given proper opportunity to meet the allegations indicated in the show cause notice. In the instant case, what the appellant has tried to highlight is the alleged connection between the various concerns. That is not sufficient to proceed against the respondents unless it is shown that they were parties to the arrangements, if any. As no sufficient material much less any material has been placed on record to substantiate the stand of the appellant, the Apex Court held that the conclusions of the Commissioner, as affirmed by the CEGAT, cannot be faulted.
36. The petitioner institution in W.P.(C)No.19665 of 2020 was originally granted recognition by the 1st respondent Southern Regional Committee to conduct B.Ed course from the academic session 1960-61 and that for M.Ed programme from the academic session 2005-06. The petitioner institutions in W.P.(C)Nos.20168, 20429 and 20355 of 2020 were originally granted recognition to conduct B.Ed course from the academic session 2004-05. W.P.(C) Nos.19665, 20168, 20355 & 20429 of 2020 54 After the coming into force of the NCTE Regulations, 2014 the petitioner institutions applied for recognition before the Southern Regional Committee of the NCTE. Based on those applications and the affidavit filed by the management for statutory compliance of the NCTE Regulations, 2014, the petitioner institutions were granted recognition for B.Ed course, from the academic session 2015-16, with 1 basic unit of 50 students/2 basic units of 50 students each. In the year 2019, the petitioner institutions were issued with show cause notice under sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the NCTE Act, whereby they were required to produce certain documents. No contravention of the provisions of the NCTE Act or the NCTE Rules, the NCTE Regulations, etc. were pointed out in those show cause notices. The petitioner institutions submitted their reply, along with documents. They were issued with final show case notice pointing out certain deficiency/observation of the Southern Regional Committee and requiring them to submit certain documents. The petitioner institutions were required to produce certain documents relating land and building and also staff list in the prescribed format, approved by the affiliating body. They submitted their reply, along with W.P.(C) Nos.19665, 20168, 20355 & 20429 of 2020 55 documents. Thereafter, the petitioner institutions were issued with the order of withdrawal of recognition under sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the NCTE Act, for the reasons stated in the respective orders, which are impugned in the respective writ petitions. In those orders it is stated among other things that the staff list submitted by the respective institutions is not approved by the affiliating body. In Ext.P10 order in W.P.(C)No.20168 of 2020, Ext.P10 in W.P.(C)No.20355 of 2020 and Ext.P12 order in W.P.(C)No.20429 of 2020, certain deficiencies relating to number of faculties/qualifications, etc. are pointed out in the staff list submitted pursuant to the final show cause notice.
37. Section 17 of the NCTE Act envisages a reasonable opportunity to the institution sought to be de- recognised of making representation against the proposed order. Such an opportunity cannot be reduced to an empty formality. The show cause notice issued to the institution, under the first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 17, is the foundation on which the Regional Committee builds up its case. The allegations in that show cause notice as to contravention of any of the provisions of the NCTE Act or W.P.(C) Nos.19665, 20168, 20355 & 20429 of 2020 56 the NCTE Rules, the NCTE Regulations, 2014, 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, should be specific. The alleged contravention of the provisions of the NCTE Act or the NCTE Rules, the NCTE Regulations, etc. should be specifically pointed out in the show cause notice. If the show cause notice is vague or unintelligible, the only conclusion which can be drawn is that the institution sought to be de-recognised was not given a reasonable opportunity, as contemplated under the first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the NCTE Act, of making representation against the proposed order. Moreover, an order of withdrawal of recognition passed by the Regional Committee, in exercise of its powers under sub-section (1) of Section 17, shall be on any of the contraventions alleged in the show case notice. There will be violation of the principles of natural justice, where the order of withdrawal of recognition was founded on grounds which are at variance from that in the show cause notice issued under the first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section
17. In the order of withdrawal passed after affording a W.P.(C) Nos.19665, 20168, 20355 & 20429 of 2020 57 reasonable opportunity of making representation against the proposed action, the Regional Committee has to record its satisfaction, for reasons to be recorded in writing, that the recognised institution has contravened the provisions of the NCTE Act or the NCTE Rules, the NCTE Regulations, etc. An order of withdrawal of recognition passed by the Regional Committee contrary to the above principles suffers from the vice of violation of the principles of natural justice. Though an appeal is provided under Section 18 of the NCTE Act against the order of withdrawal of recognition, there is no necessity to relegate the matter to the appellate authority, when such an order has been passed by the Regional Committee in violation of the principles of natural justice, and even contrary to the procedure contemplated under the Section 17 of the NCTE Act.
38. In that view of the matter and in the light of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, the decision/order of withdrawal of recognition of the petitioner institutions passed by the Southern Regional Committee of the NCTE, i.e., Ext.P26 order in W.P.(C)No.19655 of 2020, Ext.P10 order in W.P.(C)No.20168 of 2020, Ext.P10 order in W.P.(C)No.20355 of 2020 and Ext.P12 order in W.P. W.P.(C) Nos.19665, 20168, 20355 & 20429 of 2020 58 (C).No.20429 of 2020 and also Ext.P14 appellate order in W.P.(C).No.20429 of 2020 cannot be sustained in law, since the show cause notice and the final show cause notice issued to the respective institutions do not satisfy the requirements for a valid show cause notice under the first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the NCTE Act, in order to sustain the decision/order of withdrawal of recognition issued to the respective institutions, on the grounds stated therein.
39. As already noticed, in the order of withdrawal of recognition issued under sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the NCTE Act, it is stated among other things that the staff list submitted by the respective institutions is not approved by the affiliating body. In Ext.P10 order in W.P.(C)No.20168 of 2020, Ext.P10 order in W.P.(C)No.20355 of 2020 and Ext.P12 order in W.P.(C).No.20429 of 2020, certain deficiencies relating to number of faculties/ qualification, etc. are pointed out in the staff list submitted pursuant to the final show cause notice. In Ext.P26 order in W.P. (C)No.19655 of 2020, it is stated that the staff list is not approved by the affiliating body.
W.P.(C) Nos.19665, 20168, 20355 & 20429 of 2020 59
40. In Shri Morvi Sarvajanik Kelavni Mandal Sanchalit MSKM B.Ed College v. National Council for Teachers' Education [(2012) 2 SCC 16] the Apex Court noticed that, despite repeated pronouncements over the past two decades deprecating the setting up of ill-equipped, under-staffed and un-recognised educational institutions, the mushrooming of the colleges continues all over the country at times in complicity with the statutory authorities, who fail to check this process by effectively enforcing the provisions of the NCTE Act and the Regulations framed thereunder. Paragraph 11 of the said judgment [SCC @ page 21] read thus;
"11. Mushroom growth of ill-equipped, under-staffed and un-recognised educational institutions was noticed by this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale [(1992) 4 SCC 435]. This Court observed that the field of education had become a fertile, perennial and profitable business with the least capital outlay in some States and that societies and individuals were establishing such institutions without complying with the statutory requirements. The unfortunate part is that despite repeated pronouncements of this Court over the past two decades deprecating the setting up of such institutions, the mushrooming of the colleges continues all over the country at times in complicity with the statutory authorities, who fail to check this W.P.(C) Nos.19665, 20168, 20355 & 20429 of 2020 60 process by effectively enforcing the provisions of the NCTE Act and the Regulations framed thereunder."
41. In National Council for Teacher Education v. Vaishnav Institute of Technology and Management [(2012) 5 SCC 139] the Apex Court noticed that NCTE has been established for ensuring planned and co-ordinated development for the teacher education; for proper maintenance of norms and standards for teacher education; and for discharge of diverse functions assigned to it in the NCTE Act. The Regional Committees are empowered to discharge their functions as statutorily provided in Sections 14, 15 and 17 and also such other functions which may be assigned to them by the Council or which may be provided in the regulations. For grant of recognition to an institution, the Regional Committee, on receipt of the application as prescribed, has to consider diverse aspects, particularly it has to be satisfied that such institution has adequate financial resources, accommodation, library, qualified staff, laboratory and that the applicant institution fulfils other conditions necessary for proper functioning for a course or training in teacher education. It is only after the Regional Committee issues recognition to an institution and that is W.P.(C) Nos.19665, 20168, 20355 & 20429 of 2020 61 notified in the Official Gazette, the examining body grants affiliation to such institution. Under Section 15, the Regional Committee is empowered to grant permission for a new course or training to an institution which has already been granted recognition. Section 17 empowers the Regional Committee to take action against recognised institution where it receives a representation from any person or it is suo motu satisfied that a recognised institution has contravened any of the provisions of the NCTE Act, 1993 or the NCTE Rules, 1997, Regulations, orders made or issued thereunder, etc. or the recognised institution has contravened the conditions of recognition. Once recognition has been granted by the Regional Committee to an institution, the Council has to ensure that such recognised institution functions in accordance with the NCTE Act. To achieve that objective, the Council has to get inspection of recognised institution done periodically and, if such institution is found wanting in its functioning as required, then recommend to the institution the remedial action to be taken by it as a result of inspection. If the Council feels that its function of inspection under Section 13 may be performed by the Regional Committees, it can so provide by W.P.(C) Nos.19665, 20168, 20355 & 20429 of 2020 62 invoking sub-section (6) of Section 20 or Section 27, as the case may be.
42. In Vaishnav Institute of Technology and Management the Apex Court noticed that, what is clear from the provisions of the NCTE Act is that post recognition, an institution acquires a different position. On recognition by the Regional Committee under Section 14 and on affiliation being granted by the examining body, once the recognised institution starts functioning, the interest of teachers, employees and the students intervene. In order to ensure that the recognised institutions function in accordance with the NCTE Act, the NCTE Rules, Regulations and the conditions of recognition and, at the same time, functioning of such recognised institutions is not disturbed unnecessarily, the provision for inspection and follow-up action pursuant thereto has been made in Section 13. By Section 13, as a matter of law, it is intended that the Council ascertains whether the recognised institutions are functioning in accordance with the provisions of the NCTE Act or not. For that purpose, it empowers the Council to cause inspection of any such institution to be made by such persons as it may direct, and in such manner as may be W.P.(C) Nos.19665, 20168, 20355 & 20429 of 2020 63 prescribed. The Council may authorise the Regional Committee to carry out its function of inspection. But such inspection has to be made as prescribed in Rule 8 to find out whether such recognised institution is or is not functioning in accordance with the provisions of the NCTE Act. In the NCTE Rules framed by the Central Government, Rule 8 deals with inspection and sub-rule (6) provides that the inspection team shall ascertain as to whether the recognised institution is functioning in accordance with the provisions of the NCTE Act and the rules and regulations made thereunder. On inspection being completed as provided in sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 13 of the 1993 Act read with Rule 8 of the NCTE Rules, the Council is required to communicate to the concerned institution its views with regard to the outcome of the inspection and, if deficiencies are found, to recommend to such institution to make up the deficiencies. The whole idea is that the Council as a parent body keeps an eye over the recognised institutions that they function in accordance with the NCTE Act, the rules and regulations and orders made or issued thereunder and, if any recognised institution is found wanting in its functioning, it is given an opportunity to W.P.(C) Nos.19665, 20168, 20355 & 20429 of 2020 64 rectify the deficiencies. Derecognition or withdrawal of recognition of a recognised institution is a drastic measure. It results in dislocating the students, teachers and the staff. That is why, the Council has been empowered under Section 13 to have a constant vigil on the functioning of a recognised institution. On recommendation of the Council after inspection, if a recognised institution does not rectify the deficiencies and continues to function in contravention of the provisions of the NCTE Act or the Rules or the Regulations, the Regional Committee under Section 17 has full power to proceed for withdrawal of recognition in accordance with the procedure prescribed therein. Section 17 and Section 13 must be harmoniously construed. In exercise of its powers under Section 17, the Regional Committee may feel that inspection of a recognised institution is necessary before it can arrive at the satisfaction as to whether such recognised institution has contravened any of the provisions of the NCTE Act or the Rules or the Regulations or the orders made thereunder or breached the terms of the recognition. In that event, the route of inspection as provided under Section 13 has to be followed. If the Regional Committee has been authorised by W.P.(C) Nos.19665, 20168, 20355 & 20429 of 2020 65 the Council to perform its function of inspection, the Regional Committee may cause the inspection of recognised institution to be made as provided in Section 13 and prescribed in Rule 8. Where, however, the Regional Committee feels that the inspection of a recognised institution is not necessary for the proposed action under Section 17, obviously it can proceed in accordance with the law without following the route of inspection as provided under Section 13.
43. The petitioner institutions were originally granted recognition to conduct B.Ed/M.Ed courses from the academic session 2004-05/2005-06. After the coming into force of the NCTE Regulations, 2014 the petitioner institutions were granted recognition for B.Ed course, from the academic session 2015-16, with 1 basic unit of 50 students/2 basic units of 50 students each, based on the affidavit filed by the respective management for statutory compliance of the NCTE Regulations, 2014. They are bound conduct course or training in teacher education, based on the recognition/permission granted by the NCTE and the affiliation granted by the affiliating body, strictly in terms of the provisions of the NCTE Act, the Rules and Regulations, W.P.(C) Nos.19665, 20168, 20355 & 20429 of 2020 66 the 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. In case a recognised institution is found wanting in its functioning, it has to be given an opportunity by the Regional Committee to rectify the deficiencies. In case the institution does not rectify the deficiencies pointed out and continues to function in contravention of the provisions of the NCTE Act or the Rules or the Regulations, etc. the Regional Committee shall proceed against that institution, after issuing a show cause notice, as contemplated under the first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the NCTE Act, with specific allegations as to contravention of the provisions of the NCTE Act or the Rules or the Regulations or the 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.
44. In the result, these writ petitions are disposed of by setting aside the decision/order of withdrawal of recognition passed by the Southern Regional Committee of the NCTE, i.e., Ext.P26 order in W.P.(C)No.19655 of 2020, W.P.(C) Nos.19665, 20168, 20355 & 20429 of 2020 67 Ext.P10 order in W.P.(C)No.20168 of 2020, Ext.P10 in W.P. (C)No.20355 of 2020 and Ext.P12 order in W.P.(C)No.20429 of 2020 and Ext.P14 appellate order in W.P.(C)No.20429 of 2020, since the show cause notice and the final show cause notice issued to the respective institutions do not satisfy the requirements for a valid show cause notice under the first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the NCTE Act, in order to sustain the decision/order of withdrawal of recognition issued to the respective institutions, on the grounds stated therein; however, without prejudice to the right of the the Southern Regional Committee to proceed against the petitioner institution in the respective writ petitions, afresh, for the deficiencies noticed in those decisions/orders. For that purpose, those decisions/orders shall be treated as a show cause notice issued to the petitioner institution in the respective writ petitions, under the first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the NCTE Act. The petitioner institutions shall submit their reply to the deficiencies pointed out by the Southern Regional Committee, with supporting documents, within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, which shall be considered by the Southern Regional Committee, W.P.(C) Nos.19665, 20168, 20355 & 20429 of 2020 68 after affording the petitioner institution in the respective writ petitions a reasonable opportunity to represent its case, and pass appropriate orders, strictly in accordance with law, taking note of the law laid down as above, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a further period of one month.
The petitioner institution in the respective writ petitions shall submit the list of faculties in the prescribed format, before the affiliating University, within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, if not already submitted. The affiliating University shall permit admission for B.Ed course in the petitioner institutions (also M.Ed course in W.P.(C).No.19665 of 2020), for the academic session year 2020-21, only if the faculties are having the requisite qualification as per the NCTE Regulations, 2014. The faculties appointed after 09.06.2017 shall have the requisite qualification as per the NCTE Regulations, 2014, as amended by the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) (Amendment) Regulation, 2017.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE AV/08/10 W.P.(C) Nos.19665, 20168, 20355 & 20429 of 2020 69 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19665/2020 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 16.12.20008 ISSUED BY THE NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR MINORITY EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
30.10.2014 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
26.8.2005 OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL
FOR TEACHER EDUCATION.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
14.2.2006 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF
NOTIFICATION/REGULATIONS DATED
28.11.2014 ISSUED BY THE N.C.T.E.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
31.12.2014 TO THE PRINCIPAL OF
PETITIONER'S COLLEGE.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATORY NOTE
APPENDEND TO THE EXT.P6.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
28.1.2015 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
13.5.2015 ISSUED BY THE NCTE.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
20.05.2015 ISSUED BY THE NCTE.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
29.6.2015 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE CORRIGENDUM DATED
7.7.2015 ISSUED BY THE NCTE.
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED
22.10.2016 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE
DATED 15.3.2019 ISSUED BY THE NCTE.
W.P.(C) Nos.19665, 20168, 20355 & 20429 of 2020 70 EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DATED 9.4.2019 ISSUED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
30.4.2019 ISSUED BY THE NCTE.
EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DATED
25.5.2019 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL SHOW CAUSE
NOTICE DATED 9.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE
NCTE.
EXHIBIT P19 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DATED
1.1.2020 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P20 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
20.2.2020 ISSUED BY THE NCTE.
EXHIBIT P21 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
20.2.2020 ISSUED BY THE NCTE.
EXHIBIT P22 TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER
DATED 13.3.2020 TO THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P23 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
18.3.2020 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P24 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
19.3.2020 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT .
EXHIBIT P25 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF
THE MINUTES OF 387TH MEETING OF THE
SRC.
EXHIBIT P26 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
7.9.2020 ISSUED BY THE NCTE.
EXHIBIT P25(a): TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF
THE PAGES 77 & 78 MINUTES OF 387TH
MEETING OF THE SRC.
W.P.(C) Nos.19665, 20168, 20355 & 20429 of 2020 71 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20168/2020 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVAL ORDER NO.F. KL/SEC/N/170/SRO/NCTE/2004-2005/754 GRANTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 23.02.2005.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO. 71/2004/ H.EDN. DATED 30.06.2004 WITH ENCLOSURES.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER U.O. NO.
7483/2020/ADMN DATED 14.08.2020 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER F. NO./SRC/NCTE/ APS00751/KL/2015-16 DATED 15.05.2015 PASSED BY N.C.T.E. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE F.NO.
APS00751/2019/-101144 DATED 21.02.2019 ISSUED BY N.C.T.E. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.
FBC/N/NCTE/03/19 DATED 19.03.2019 EXCLUDING ANNEXURES.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO. F. SRO/NCTE/APSOO751/B.ED./383/{KL}/ 2020/14044 DATED 20.01.2020.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.
FBC/NCTE/02/20 DATED 06.02.2020, EXCLUDING ANNEXURES, ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL OF THE PETITIONER'S COLLEGE.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE MINUTES OF THE 388TH MEETING OF THE SOUTHERN REGIONAL COMMITTEE OF NCTE HELD ON 14TH - 15TH SEPTEMBER, 2020.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.F.SRO/NCTE/ APS00751/B.ED/{KL}/2020/118351 DATED 21/09/2020 ISSUED BY THE NCTE.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF WITHDRAWAL ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 21.09.2020 W.P.(C) Nos.19665, 20168, 20355 & 20429 of 2020 72 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20355/2020 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVAL ORDER NO.
F.KL/SEC/N/13/SRO/NCTE/2004-2005/752 DATED 23.02.2005 ISSUED BY NCTE.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS)NO.71/2004/H.Edn DATED 30.06.2004.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE THE ORDER U.O.NO.7778/2020/ADMN DATED 25.08.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF RECOGNITION F.NO/SRC/NCTE/APSOO826/KL/2015-16/64776 DATED 15.05.2015 ISSUED BY THE NCTE.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE FNO.SRO/NCTE/APSO0826/B.Edn/KL/2016/90293 DATED 01.12.2016 ISSUED BY NCTE.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION REF.
NO.BYK/NCTE/2016/12-1 DATED 23.12.2016 EXCLUDING ANNEXURES ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE F.SRO/NCTE/APSO826/B.Ed./KL/2019/12894 DATED 10.12.2019 ISSUED BY NCTE.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMNICATION NO.BYK.B,Ed/NCTE/01/2019 DATED 26.12.2019, EXCLUDING ANNEXURES, ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE MINUTES OF THE 388TH MEETING OF THE SOUTHERN REGIONAL COMMITTEE OF NCTE HELD ON 14TH -15TH SEPTEMBER, 2020.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.F.SRO/NCTE/APS00826/B.ED/ {KL}/2020/118360 DATED 21/09/2020 ISSUED BY THE NCTE.
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE R1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF WITHDRAWAL ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 21/09/2020. W.P.(C) Nos.19665, 20168, 20355 & 20429 of 2020 73 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20429/2020 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.2.2005 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT GRANTING RECOGNITION TO PETITIONER'S COLLEGE.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ON 10.01.2015.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 15.05.2015 GRANTING RECOGNITION TO PETITIONER'S TRAINING COLLEGE ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 22.05.2015 SENT TO 2ND RESPONDENT TO REVISE THE INTAKE TO ONE UNIT.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF FORWARDING LETTER DATED 29.07.2015 FORWARDING THE DOCUMENTS TO 2ND RESPONDENT IN COMPLIANCE OF 2014 REGULATIONS.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF REMINDER DATED 27.08.2017 SENT TO THE RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF LIST CONTAINING THE NUMBER OF STUDENTS ADMITTED IN PETITIONER'S COLLEGE FROM 2015-2016 ACADEMIC YEAR.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 26.03.2019 ISSUED TO PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF FORWARDING LETTER BY PETITIONER DATED 06.05.2019 FORWARDING THE DOCUMENTS.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF FINAL SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 31.10.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF FORWARDING LETTER DATED 23.11.2019 FORWARDING ALL THE DETAILS SOUGHT FOR BY THE RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF WITHDRAWAL ORDER DATED 22.01.2020 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF APPEAL REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER'S COLLEGE BEFORE FIRST RESPONDENT.
W.P.(C) Nos.19665, 20168, 20355 & 20429 of 2020 74 EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 15.09.2020 PASSED BY THE APPEAL COMMITTEE.
EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF LEASE DEED EXECUTED ON 19.08.2004.
EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF BUILDING COMPLETION CERTIFICATE DATED 19.3.2020 ISSUED BY SARIKA.B,CIVIL ENGINEERING CONSULTANT,RV TRAINING COLLEGE,VALAKOM.
EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF BUILDING PLAN. EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF WEBSITE OF THE COLLEGE.