Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Alipurduar B.Ed. Training College vs National Council For Teachers ... on 30 May, 2019
Author: Protik Prakash Banerjee
Bench: Protik Prakash Banerjee
1
S/L 1
30.05.2019
Ct. No. 37
AB/SD
W.P. 9610 (W) of 2019
Alipurduar B.ED. Training College
Vs.
National Council for Teachers Education & Ors.
Mr. Swarup Paul
Mr. Arun Kumar Chakraborty
... for the Petitioner.
In the Bible we have read that the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away. It does
not appear to me that the ERC-NCTE has achieved divinity. The National Council for
Teachers Education being a statutory body corporate is expected to act reasonably and to
assign reasons for any order which might cause prejudice to a stake-holder.
In the instant case, from the documents annexed to the writ petition, it appears
that there were serious anomalies in the concerned institution being Alipurduar B.Ed.
Training College. There is also a dispute between the present President and certain other
members of the Governing Body. I find from that which has been annexed to the writ
petition as Annexure-P/4 that the concerned University has accepted the deponent in this
writ petition as the President of the Institution.
In order to obtain recognition from the respondent no.1, any institution has to fulfil
certain criteria. One of them is having a built up area in terms of NCTE Regulations, 2014 for intake of students of B.Ed. and Diploma in Education. Admittedly, the institution does not fulfil those criteria. When on the basis, inter alia, of the above, the President of the institution by a letter as at page 70 of the writ petition sought that the course be suspended for the upcoming session as on March 1, 2019, the respondent no.1 withdrew the recognition as appears from the minutes of the proceeding of its 270th Meeting held on March 25-26, 2019. This is Annexure-P/9 to the writ petition. Even though the writ petitioner in that matter had represented administrative problems, control by the outsiders and vacancy of 50% of the faculty, withdrawal was done inter alia on a finding of non-compliance of the total built up area according to the building certificate. The said notice of withdrawal of recognition was purported to have been made on the basis of a notice to show cause issued on February 21, 2019 and a reply dated March 14, 2019. 2 Interestingly, the representation date March 1, 2019 which was said to be an answer to the notice of show cause was not referred to by the respondent no.1. There is another reply also dated March 1, 2019 appearing at page 67 (Annexure-P/8 to the writ petition). These two have not been referred to by the respondent NCTE. Thereafter, purportedly on the basis of a representation made on April 1, 2019 allegedly by the institution the order of withdrawal of recognition was recalled and the said withdrawal was alleged to be rectified and recognition was restored from the academic session of 2019-2020.
No reason has been assigned why there was such a recalling by the meeting held on April 24-25, 2019 being 271st Meeting. The representation of the petitioner on March 1, 2019 whether at page 68 or page 70 was not referred to. In fact, no reason was given why the notice to show cause was considered on the basis of a reply on March 14, 2019 when there were two replies on March 1, 2019 made by the authorized person being the President of the Institution. It is also not explicable how the representation on April 1, 2019 would be held to have been made by the institution, particularly when the President of the institution according to the University's record has come up challenging the authority of the someone else to represent the institution and also avoid that no hearing was given to the petitioner and that the fatal flaw of not meeting the building area criterion was admittedly existing.
In such view of the matter, due to the impugned decision as at Annexure-P/10, students will be admitted to the B.Ed. course in the session 2019-2020 and if ultimately it is found that the recognition could not have been restored then they would be completely undone. Therefore, in the larger public interest and the interest of the students I find that a strong prima facie case has been made out for granting an ad interim stay of the decision taken at 271st Meeting of the respondent no.1 as in Annexure-P/10 and since those in wrongful possession of the administration of the institution which is before me are attempting to admit students from the last week of April 2019 onwards, I find there is great urgency in this matter.
I am told by Mr. Paul that the Delhi Office of the respondent no.1 has received the notice served by his client and affidavit of service showing that service and despatch to other respondents has been filed in court.
3
Be that as it may, if I wait until service is complete, the purpose of seeking injunction will be defeated and hence I dispense with requirement of the Rule 26 of the Appendix-IV of the Appellate Side Rules.
There shall be an interim order of stay of operation of Annexure-P/10 for a period of eight weeks or until further order whichever is earlier.
Service of each of the respondents must be effected within a period of one week after the summer vacation along with a copy of this order.
The matter shall appear before the regular Bench subject to convenience on June 17, 2019.
Passing of the interim order shall not create any equity in favour of Sri Sajal Sarkar who is the President of the writ petitioner apart from what already appears from the University record.
(Protik Prakash Banerjee, J.)