Delhi High Court
Shri Dhaneshwari Manav Vikas Mandal ... vs National Council For Teacher Education ... on 23 March, 2023
Author: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Bench: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
2023:DHC:2396
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 2566/2023 and CM APPL. 9814/2023
Date of Decision: 23.03.2023
IN THE MATTER OF:
SHRI DHANESHWARI MANAV VIKAS MANDAL,
COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
THROUGH SHRI DHANESHWARI MANAV VIKAS
MANDAL [REGD] HATTA TQ, BASMAT, DIST HINGOLI,
MAHARASHTRA
THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL
DR. NANDKUMAR HANMANTRAO KULKARNI
..... PETITIONER
Through: Mr. Sanjay Sharawat, Mr. Ashok
Kumar and Mr. Nadeem Khan,
Advocates.
versus
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION
G- 7, SECTOR-10
DWARKA, NEW DELHI - 110075
THROUGH ITS MEMBER SECRETARY ..... RESPONDENT NO.1
WESTERN REGIONAL COMMITTEE
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION
G- 7, SECTOR- 10
DWARKA, NEW DELHI - 110075
THROUGH ITS REGIONAL DIRECTOR ..... RESPONDENT NO.2
Through: Mr. Jai Sahai Endlaw and Mr.
Subhroday Banerjee, Advocates.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
JUDGMENT
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:11.04.2023
12:05:57
2
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks for quashing of the order dated 11.12.2020 passed by respondent No.2-Western Regional Committee (in short, WRC) whereby, the recognition of the petitioner for B.Ed course has been withdrawn from the Academic Session 2021-2022. The petitioner also challenges the order passed in appeal dated 19.10.2022 whereby, the order passed by respondent No.2-WRC dated 11.12.2020 has been affirmed. The petitioner also challenges the subsequent order dated 09.12.2022 passed by respondent No.2-WRC whereby, once again recognition has been withdrawn.
2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that if the order in original i.e. 11.12.2020 is perused, the same would indicate that the only reason for withdrawal of the recognition of the petitioner is non-shifting of the petitioner-institution to its own premises within a period of three years from the date of issuance of the recognition order. He, therefore, states that the reason for withdrawal of the recognition is against the order of grant of recognition itself and is also in violation of the applicable Regulations known as the NCTE (Form of application for recognition, the time limit of submission of application, determination of norms and standards for recognition of teacher education programmes and permission to start new course or training) Regulations, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as „the Regulations of 2002‟).
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner also states that the petitioner- institution is an educational institution established by a registered society known as "Shri Dhaneshwari Manav Vikas Mandal". One Mr. Rahul Patil is Signature Not Verified Signed By:PRIYA Signing Date:11.04.2023 12:05:57 3 the owner of a certain piece of land. He along with his two brothers, his father and other three relatives formed the said society. Mr. Rahul Patil gave the said land to the society on lease for 99 years vide a registered lease deed. He states that the society constructed a building upon the said land and submitted an application to the respondent No.2-WRC for seeking recognition for B.Ed course with an intake of 100 seats. According to him, respondent No.2-WRC conducted an inspection and upon being satisfied, granted recognition to the petitioner for B.Ed course. He also states that the petitioner, with intent to expand the institution, filed an application for seeking recognition for M.Ed course in the year 2007. Respondent No.2- WRC again conducted inspection and upon being satisfied granted recognition for M.Ed. course in the said premises. According to him, on 31.05.2015, after NCTE Regulations, 2014 were notified, respondent No.2- WRC issued a revised recognition order to the petitioner for B.Ed course for two units each with an intake of 50 seats. Some revised orders appear to have been issued with respect to M.Ed course also on 19.12.2015.
4. On 27.08.2020, respondent No.2-WRC took a decision in its 316th meeting to issue show cause notice to all the institutions falling within its jurisdiction, who were granted recognition in temporary rented premises and had yet not shifted to their own building within three years from the date of grant of recognition. According to him, it appears that on the basis of such a decision, respondent No.2-WRC issued a show cause notice to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted its reply, firstly on 06.11.2020 and thereafter on 02.12.2020. According to him, without considering the reply in correct perspective, respondent No.2-WRC, on 11.12.2020, withdrew the Signature Not Verified Signed By:PRIYA Signing Date:11.04.2023 12:05:57 4 recognition granted to the petitioner on the ground of non-shifting of the institution to its own premises within three years. The petitioner thereafter filed an appeal on 25.09.2021 against the order of withdrawal.
5. Since the appeal was pending, therefore, the petitioner had to file a writ petition before this court seeking permission to admit the students for the Academic Session 2021-2022. The writ petition so filed, was registered as W.P.(C) 13447/2021. On 29.11.2021, this court disposed of the writ petition while granting three months time to the Appellate Committee of the respondent No.1-NCTE to decide the appeal. In the meantime, by virtue of the second proviso to Section 17(1) of the NCTE Act, 1993, the petitioner was permitted to grant admission to students for the Academic Session 2021- 2022.
6. The petitioner again approached this court in W.P.(C) 12546/2022 as the Appellate Committee did not decide the appeal within three months as directed by this court on 29.11.2021. On 31.08.2022, the writ petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of while staying the withdrawal order dated 11.12.2020 passed by respondent No.2 till the disposal of the appeal and the petitioner was again permitted to admit the students for the Academic Session 2022-2023.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, states that up to the Academic Session 2022-2023, the admissions were granted by virtue of various orders passed by this court, however, on 19.10.2022, the Appellate Committee rejected his appeal almost on identical ground without considering the import of regulations applicable to the institution. He, Signature Not Verified Signed By:PRIYA Signing Date:11.04.2023 12:05:57 5 therefore, states that the withdrawal of the recognition of the petitioner institution is based on non-existent grounds.
8. This court directed the respondents to file their reply and the respondents No.2-WRC, NCTE filed their counter-affidavit and stated that the petitioner has suppressed various material facts and based on this ground alone, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. According to the reply filed by the respondents, there is a material suppression on the part of the petitioner-institution.
9. The learned counsel for the respondents, while taking this court through their reply states that the petitioner has wrongly stated that by virtue of the order dated 20.09.2004 (Annexure P-2), the recognition was granted to the petitioner-institution. According to him, the order of recognition, is dated 25.08.2005, which has been placed on record by the respondents in their counter-affidvit as Annexure R-1. He, therefore, states that in recognition, order dated 25.08.2005, condition 3(d) specifically stipulates that the petitioner-institution shall shift to its own premises within three years from the date of recognition in case, the course was started in rental premises. According to him, if the petitioner-institution had any grievance with respect to such a condition, the same should have been challenged in the year 2005 or immediately thereafter. If the respondent No.2-WRC takes a decision on account of non-compliance of the condition which is stipulated in order dated 25.08.2005, the petitioner-institution cannot raise any grievance at a belated stage. He also states that there is no document to indicate that the petitioner-institution is an educational institution established by a registered Signature Not Verified Signed By:PRIYA Signing Date:11.04.2023 12:05:57 6 society, which runs the B.Ed course, and the petitioner-institution is the owner of the said premises.
10. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record.
11. Even assuming that the order of recognition is dated 25.08.2005 and there is a condition 3(d) in the said order, this court is of the view that in terms of the Regulations of 2002, the said condition is applicable only to the institutions which were established at the time of making applications without possessing any land in the name of the management/institution.
12. The applicable Regulations in the year 2005, were the Regulations of 2002. Clause 9 of the Regulations of 2002 reads as under:-
"The Regional committee, before passing an order for grant of recognition/permission under Section 14 or Section 15 of the Act, shall satisfy itself, on the basis of scrutiny and verification of facts as contained in the application for recognition/grant of permission and/ or inspection of the institution, where considered necessary or any other manner deemed fit, that the institution fulfils the Norms and Standards laid down for the relevant teacher education course as given in the Appendices 3 to 14 of these Regulations."
13. If the Norms and Standards as mentioned in Clause 9 of the Regulations of 2002 are perused, the same would indicate that Clause 7 in Appendix-3 titled as Norms and Standards for Secondary Teacher Education Programme, explains infrastructure facilities. The said Clause 7 of the Norms and Standards for Secondary Teacher Education Programme is reproduced as under:-
Signature Not Verified Signed By:PRIYA Signing Date:11.04.2023 12:05:57 7"7. Infrastructure Facilitites
a) There shall be provision for adequate number of classrooms, hall, laboratory space for conducting Instructional activities for approved Intake of 100 students, separate rooms for the principal, faculty members, office for the administrative staff and a store. The size of Instructional spaces shall not be less than 10 sq. ft. per student
b) There shall be a library equipped with text and reference books related to the prescribed courses of study, educational Encyclopedia, year books,electronic publications (CD-ROMs) and journals on teacher education.
c) There shall be games facilities with a playground.
Alternatively, the playground available with the attached school/college may be utilised and where there is scarcity of space as in metropolitan towns/hilly regions, facilities for yoga, indoor games may be provided.
d) To provide these facilities, the Management/Institutions shall, at the time of making application, have in its possession adequate land /land and building on ownership basis free from all encumbrances. Govt. land acquired on long-term lease as per the law of the concerned State / UT will also be considered valid for the purpose. Pending construction of permanent building in the above land, the institution may provide these facilities in suitable temporary premises up to a maximum period of 3 years, before expiry of which the institution should shift to its permanent building."
14. Clause 7(d) of the Norms and Standards for Secondary Teacher Education Programme states that in order to provide infrastructure facilitates, the management/institution shall, at the time of making application, have in its possession adequate land/ land and building on ownership basis, free from all encumbrances. Government land acquired on long-term lease as per the law of the concerned State/UT was also to be considered valid for the said Signature Not Verified Signed By:PRIYA Signing Date:11.04.2023 12:05:57 8 purpose. Pending construction of permanent building in the said land, the institutions were at liberty to provide those facilities in suitable temporary premises for a maximum period of up to three years, before the expiry of which, the institution should shift to their permanent building.
15. It is seen that the Chairman of the society owns sufficient land which has already been leased out in favour of the institution for a period of 99 years. The aforesaid position is not disputed. The reason given by the respondent No.2-WRC which has been affirmed by the Appellate Committee is that the institution did not shift itself to its own premises within a period of three years.
16. When the institution was already having sufficient land in the name of the Chairman of the society, which has been leased out in favour of the institution for 99 years, it cannot be said that the institution concerned is not in possession of sufficient land.
17. The requirement under the Regulations of 2002, nowhere stipulates that the land in question must be owned by the institution itself. What is required under the Regulations of 2002, is the land to be owned by the management/institution concerned. In the instant case, the land is admittedly owned by the management. The aforesaid aspect has not been considered by the Regional Committee or the Appellate Committee as to why the land owned by the Chairman of the society leased out in favour of society can not be considered as sufficient compliance. Thus, the petitioner was not required to shift its location to any other place.
Signature Not Verified Signed By:PRIYA Signing Date:11.04.2023 12:05:57 918. In view of the aforesaid, it is seen that the order dated 11.12.2020 passed by the respondent No.2-WRC withdrawing the recognition on account of the non-shifting of the petitioner-institution is illegal being contrary to plain reading of Clause 7(d) of the Norms and Standards for Secondary Teachers Education Programme. The same is, therefore, set aside. Consequently, the order dated 19.10.2022 passed by the Appellate Committee and the further order dated 09.12.2022 passed by respondent No.2-WRC are also set aside. The petitioner-institution is directed to be treated as a recognized institution.
19. The petition stands allowed and disposed of, accordingly.
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J MARCH 23, 2023 Priya Signature Not Verified Signed By:PRIYA Signing Date:11.04.2023 12:05:57