Delhi High Court - Orders
Swaminarayan B Ed College vs National Council For Teacher Education ... on 15 April, 2021
Author: Prateek Jalan
Bench: Prateek Jalan
$~A17
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 7662/2020 with CM APPL. 25353/2020
SWAMINARAYAN B ED COLLEGE ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mayank Manish, Advocate
with Mr. Ravi Kant, Advocate
versus
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER
EDUCATION AND ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Keshav Pratap Singh,
Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
ORDER
% 15.04.2021 The proceedings in the matter have been conducted through video conferencing.
This matter was scheduled to be listed on 14.04.2021, however, it is taken up today in view of the notification of this Court dated 12.04.2021.
1. The petitioner assails an order dated 04.03.2020 by which its recognition for conducting the B.Ed. course was withdrawn by the Western Regional Committee ["WRC"] of the National Council for Teacher Education ["NCTE"], and an order dated 15.09.2020 by which the Appellate Committee affirmed the aforesaid order.
2. The petitioner was originally granted recognition for running its B.Ed. course in the year 2007. The recognition was withdrawn on 02.11.2017, pursuant to which the petitioner approached the Appellate Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:16.04.2021 10:19:17 W.P.(C) 7662/2020 Page 1 of 5 Committee of the NCTE under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993. The Appellate Committee remanded the petitioner's application to the WRC by an order dated 12.09.2018. The WRC issued a further show cause notice dated 19.11.2018, to which the petitioner submitted a reply dated 14.12.2018. Ultimately, the WRC issued an order dated 04.03.2020, by which it confirmed the order of withdrawal dated 02.11.2017. The petitioner's appeal against the said order was rejected by the order of the Appellate Committee dated 15.09.2020.
3. Mr. Mayank Manish, learned counsel for the petitioner, limits the relief sought by the petitioner to an order of remand to the Appellate Committee. He submits that the grounds upon which the recognition was withdrawn by the WRC vide order dated 04.03.2020 have not been dealt with in the order of the Appellate Committee, and the order of the WRC has been confirmed on different grounds, without giving the petitioner an opportunity to meet the case made out.
4. Having heard Mr. Manish and Mr. Keshav Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, I am of the view that the petitioner has made out a case for the relief sought. In the order of the WRC dated 04.03.2020, the following grounds had been referred to in support of the withdrawal order: -
"(i) The Principal I/c (Shri Meghani Ashvinbhai Ramesh Bhai) is not having eight years experience of teaching in Secondary Teaching Education Institution. The subject of P.hD. is not mentioned. He does not have adequate percentage of marks in PG as per NCTE Norms.
(ii) The faculty at Sl. No. 2 (Ms. Sheetalben Jagdishchandra Soni), Sl. No. 3 Mr. Paraleeya Bharat Bhai Dhudabhai does not have adequate percentage of marks in Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:16.04.2021 10:19:17 W.P.(C) 7662/2020 Page 2 of 5 PG as per NCTE Norms.
(iii) Staff for Performing Arts, Fine Arts and Health and Physical Education are not appointed."
5. According to Mr. Manish, the defects mentioned above had been rectified prior to filing of the appeal before the Appellate Committee. Mr. Manish relies upon a document dated 24.07.2020, by which the petitioner's affiliating university had approved replacement faculty in place of the faculty mentioned in the withdrawal order. According to Mr. Manish, this was placed before the Appellate Committee, but it was not considered.
6. The relevant parts of the order of the Appellate Committee dated 15.09.2020 are extracted below:
"AND WHEREAS Appeal Committee noted that impugned order of withdrawal dated 04/03/2020 is on the grounds that (i) Principal and two faculty do not possess required qualifications and
(ii) staff for performing Arts, Fine Arts and Health - Physical Education are not appointed.
AND WHEREAS Appeal Committee noted that recognition for conducting B.Ed. programme to the appellant institution continues to be withdrawn since the issue of first withdrawal order dated 02/11/2017. The appellant in the case of its first appeal against the withdrawal order dated 02/11/2017 was given an opportunity by Appellate Authority to submit required documents to WRC on the basis of which case could be revisited.
AND WHEREAS Appeal Committee noted that as per oral statement of appellant made on 29/07/2020, the appellant institution is not conducting B.Ed. course for the last two years which means that first withdrawal order dated 02/11/2017 has been effective and appellant had failed to submit to WRC a consolidated list containing the names of required faculty approved by affiliating body. List of faculty submitted by appellant to WRC by its letter dated 23/03/2019 pertain to 2015 and 2018. It is not a consolidated list from the lists submitted by appellant it is difficult to ascertain whether the faculty Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:16.04.2021 10:19:17 W.P.(C) 7662/2020 Page 3 of 5 selected in 2018 are additional faculty are in replacement of earlier faculty selected in 2015. Appellant has failed to prove (through Bank Account Salary statement) before Appellate Authority that it still retains the required faculty to restart conducting B.Ed. course. Appeal Committee, therefore, decided to confirm the impugned order of withdrawal dated 04/03/2020.
AND WHEREAS after perusal of the Memoranda of Appeal, affidavit, documents on record and oral arguments advanced during the hearing, Appeal Committee concluded to confirm the impugned order of withdrawal dated 04/03/2020.
NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against."
7. It is evident from the order of the Appellate Committee that it has proceeded on the basis that there is a doubt as to whether the petitioner's faculty, as originally approved, continues to be associated with the petitioner's institution, in view of the fact that the withdrawal order had originally been passed on 02.11.2017. According to Mr. Manish, the said faculty is indeed available with the petitioner-institution even today, and the petitioner has filed affidavits in support of this contention (Annexure P-20 to the writ petition). It is also clear that the Appellate Committee has in fact not gone into the contentions of the petitioner with regard to the deficiencies pointed out by the WRC.
8. In the facts and circumstances aforesaid, I am of the view that the appropriate course is to set aside the order of the Appellate Committee dated 15.09.2020, and remand the matter to it for a fresh decision. The petitioner will place the documents which it seeks to rely upon before the Appellate Committee within two weeks from today. The Appellate Committee will then consider the matter afresh in accordance with law and dispose of the petitioner's appeal within eight weeks from today. The Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:16.04.2021 10:19:17 W.P.(C) 7662/2020 Page 4 of 5 Appellate Committee will also bear in mind the judgments and orders of this Court, including inter alia the order dated 03.12.2020 in W.P.(C) 9744/2020 [Asha Devi Mahavidyalaya & Anr. vs. National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.], which require it to consider subsequent developments during the pendency of the appeal.
9. The petition is disposed of in these terms.
PRATEEK JALAN, J APRIL 15, 2021 'j' Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHITU NAGPAL Signing Date:16.04.2021 10:19:17 W.P.(C) 7662/2020 Page 5 of 5