Delhi High Court - Orders
Vivekanand Institute Of Elementary ... vs National Council For Teacher Education ... on 24 April, 2023
Author: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Bench: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 6923/2010 & CM APPL. 13697/2010
VIVEKANAND INSTITUTE OF ELEMENTARY TEACHER
EDUCATION ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Sanjay Sharawat and Mr.Ashok
Kumar, Advocates.
versus
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION AND ORS
..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Rahul Madan, Standing Counsel for
NCTE.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
ORDER
% 24.04.2023
1. The case of the petitioner-institute is that it was granted recognition for B.Ed. course in the year 2007 and for D.Ed. course in the year 2008. The recognition granted to the petitioner-institute for running B.Ed course has been withdrawn by the Northern Regional Committee (NRC) vide order dated 14.06.2010.. The said order has been confirmed vide order dated 24.09.2010 whereby, the Appellate Committee (AC) of National Council For Teacher Education (NCTE) has dismissed the appeal.
2. The AC has recorded four reasons for de-recognition of the petitioner- institute. The same reads as under:-
"This selection Committee was again not duly constituted, as no representative of the Examining Body was associated with the selection process, Also no approval had been obtained to the appointments made. The observation in the show cause notice that all Labs were ill equipped was further confirmed by the institution from its own photographs. The photographs clearly showed that the Labs were not adequately equipped.Signature Not Verified Signed By:PRATIMA Signing Date:29.04.2023 14:08:38 -2-
The institution had no proper Science Lab and only some equipment/apparatus had been displayed on the tables kept in a room, The Labs had no proper furniture. The Council taking all aspects of the matter into consideration came to the conclusion that the appeal did not deserve to be accepted the order of NRC be confirmed."
3. This court while entertaining the instant petition, in terms of order dated 08.10.2010, recorded the prima facie finding in favour of the petitioner-institute and while recording the undertaking of the petitioner- institute, directed for stay of the order of de-recognition till the decision of the instant petition,
4. Paragraph No.5 to 11 of the order dated 08.10.2010, reads as under:-
" 5. In so far as the appointment of the faculty is concerned, it is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that for D.Ed, course there is no requirement of affiliation to any University and the respondent no.3 State Council for Educational Research & Training (SCERT) which is the Examining Body for D.Ed, course makes centralized admission to the D.Ed, course. It is stated that(there are no rules of SCERT regarding appointment of faculty or for approval of faculty; thus the first two grounds aforesaid are not made out.)
6. The counsel for the respondents appearing on advance notice states that under the NCTE Regulations, 2009 the approval of the appointment of the faculty has to be obtained from the affiliating body. He however seeks time to obtain instructions with respect to the contention aforesaid of there being no affiliating body for D.Ed, course.
7. In so far as the labs are concerned, the counsel for the petitioner has handed over the Norms and Standards for Elementary Teacher Education Programme leading to Diploma in Education (D.Ed.) 2007; though Clause 5.2 thereof refers to the labs but there does not appear to be laid down, the equipments which the said labs are required to have. The Appeal Committee has also in the order not mentioned as to what was required to be there and which is lacking.
8. In the circumstances aforesaid, issue notice. Notice is accepted by the counsel for the respondents no. l &2. The petitioner to serve the respondent no.3 by all modes including dasti returnable on 27th October, 2010. Counter affidavit including on the aforesaid aspect be filed before the next date.
9. A prima facie case is found in favour of the petitioner. The loss to the petitioner if unable to make admissions for D.Ed, course in the current academic year is found to be irreparable. The petitioner to, as an interim Signature Not Verified Signed By:PRATIMA Signing Date:29.04.2023 14:08:38 -3- measure continue making admissions for D.Ed, course in the current academic year. However it is deemed expedient to impose a condition on V the petitioner for claiming the said interim order in order to protect the interest of the students who may be admitted to the petitioner Institute pursuant to the interim order and who will suffer if ultimately it is found that the petitioner does not have the required infrastructure. The counsel for the petitioner under instructions from Mr. Sudhir Yadav s/o Sh. Rama Nand, Chairman of the petitioner Institute states that the petitioner is willing for such condition.
10. The petitioner through counsel undertakes to this Court that in the event of the petition failing and/or in the event of it being found that the petitioner does not have the requisite infrastructure for D.Ed, course, the petitioner shall within 30 days of the said decision and subject to further orders in appeal deposit in this Court a sum of Rs.5 lac for disbursement either to the respondents or to the students for reasons attributable to the petitioner. The petitioner further agrees that the petitioner shall pay the said amount without any demur and without requiring any loss to be proved. It is made deal- that Sh. Rama Nand, Chairman as well as other members of the petitioner Society shall be personally liable for breach of this undertaking given to this Court.
11. Accepting the aforesaid undertaking of the petitioner and with which the petitioner is bound, there shall be a stay of the order of de-recognition till the decision of the petition. The counsel for the respondents to also obtain instructions whether the respondents desire to carry out another inspection of the premises of the petitioner at the costs of the petitioner."
5. It is stated at bar that the petitioner-institute is running the concerned course on the basis of the interim order passed by this court and as on date there is no deficiency.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-NCTE, however, opposes the statement and he states that unless there is a fresh inspection, it cannot be inferred that there is no deficiency in the petitioner- institute.
7. In view of the aforesaid, since the interim order has remained in operation for more than 12 years and various subsequent developments have taken place, therefore, this court finds it appropriate to set aside the Signature Not Verified Signed By:PRATIMA Signing Date:29.04.2023 14:08:38 -4- impugned order dated 14.06.2010 passed by NRC and order of affirmation dated 24.09.2010 by the AC, granting liberty to the concerned Regional Committee (RC) to re-inspect the petitioner-institute and to take appropriate action in accordance with law under Section 17 of the NCTE Act, 1993 if so necessitated.
8. With the aforesaid observations, the instant petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above.
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J APRIL 24, 2023/MJ Signature Not Verified Signed By:PRATIMA Signing Date:29.04.2023 14:08:38