Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Arambag Educational Research Welfare ... vs The National Council For Teacher ... on 30 March, 2017
Author: Subrata Talukdar
Bench: Subrata Talukdar
1
30.03.17
32 Ct. No.29
Sws.M
W.P. 6630(W) of 2017
[Arambag Educational Research Welfare Society & Ors.
- vs. - The National Council for Teacher Education &
Ors.]
Mr. Arabinda Chatterjee
Ms. Kakali Dutta
Mr. Arkadipta Sengupta
...for the petitioners
Mr. Sagarmoy Ghosh
....for the Council
Mr. Arabinda Chatterjee, learned counsel appears
for the petitioners.
The grievance of the petitioners in this application
relates to the order of refusal of recognition by the Eastern
Regional Committee of the National Council for Teacher
Education (for short ERC and NCTE respectively) dated 15th
July, 2016. The order refusing recognition, Mr. Chatterjee
submits, is cryptic since it does not take notice of the
documents filed on behalf of the petitioner No.1/Institution
by way of an Affidavit replying to the Show-Cause Notice
(for short SCN).
The order of refusal of recognition dated 15th July,
2016 was carried in appeal by the petitioners following the
2
Regulations of the NCTE and, such appeal was also rejected
by order dated 18th January, 2017.
Both the original order of the ERC, NCTE and the
Appellate Authority (supra), are under challenge in this writ
petition.
The respondents/NCTE are represented by Mr.
Sagarmoy Ghosh, learned counsel who submits that the Visiting Team (for short VT) noticed several deficiencies with regard to the construction at the site particularly in relation to the library space, the buildings as well as the validity of the issuing Authority of the sanctioned plan.
Mr. Ghosh points out that the order of the Appellate Authority dated 13th February, 2017 qua another institution under the NCTE allowing re-inspection on payment of fee has been issued on a different premise since, the Appellate Authority noticed differences with regard to the units of measurement adopted respectively by the Institution and the NCTE Regulations. 3
The re-inspection was directed by the Appellate Authority only for the limited purpose of reconciling the variation in the respective units of measurement adopted by the two bodies (supra).
Having heard the parties and considering the materials placed, the attention of this Court is drawn to the original order of the ERC dated 15th July, 2016 which, inter alia, only records three cryptic points.
The first relates to the queries already raised in the SCN dated 2nd June, 2016. The second records the reply of the petitioner No. 1/Institution that the VT inspected the site at a time when the building was under construction. The third only specifies that under the NCTE Regulations, 2014 there is no provision for a second inspection.
Therefore, the ERC refused recognition to the petitioner No.1/Institution.
However, the attention of this Court is also drawn to the Affidavit of Documents dated 28th April, 2016 submitted 4 by the petitioners annexing the documents by way of answer to the SCN dated 2nd June, 2016.
In the considered view of this Court the annexures to the Affidavit of Documents require to be reconciled with the VT report by the ERC in the light of the NCTE Regulations, 2014 following the due process of law.
Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the ERC is required to issue complete reasons while deciding the reply of the petitioner No.1/ institution to its SCN in accordance with law and communicate such decision to the petitioners. The matter is accordingly remanded to the ERC for consideration as directed above as expeditiously as possible.
Both the original order dated 15th July, 2016 and the Appellate Order dated 18th January, 2017 stand set aside for the reasons as stated above.
W.P. 6630(W) of 2017 stands accordingly disposed of without inviting affidavits.
Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, will be made available to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
(Subrata Talukdar, J.)