Gujarat High Court
Shree Sharda Primary Teachers Training ... vs State Of Gujarat on 19 June, 2025
Author: Nikhil S. Kariel
Bench: Nikhil S. Kariel
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8128/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8128 of 2025
==========================================================
SHREE SHARDA PRIMARY TEACHERS TRAINING COLLEGE,
AHMEDABAD
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
KOMAL S DAVE(8152) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR MITUL GAUTAM, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
Date : 19/06/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Siddharth Dave for learned advocate Ms. Komal Dave for the petitioner, and learned AGP Mr. Mitual Gautam for the respondent - State.
2. This petition question the decision of the State in directing that the petitioner institution would not be entitled to participate in the admission process for being allotted the students in the course of Diploma in Elementary Education (D.El.Ed.) programme. The petitioner being institution recognized by the NCTE and affiliated to the State Examination Board for conducting Primary Teacher Training Course, was entitled to participate in the admission process by the State for the course of Diploma in Elementary Education. It appears that prior to admission process being initiated, the NCTE had issued public notice 09.09.2024 inter alia calling upon the Teachers Education Institution (TEI) to submit their Performance Appraisal Report (P.A.R.) for the academic year 2020-21 and 2022-
Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by BHUPENDRASINH SONAGRA(HC01082) on Sat Jun 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 23 22:50:49 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8128/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/06/2025 undefined
2023. Vide public notice dated 09.09.2024, the NCTE had fixed the timeline for online submission of PAR from 09.09.2024 to 10.11.2024. It appears that later on, vide public notice dated 10.12.2024, the NCTE had extended the time period for filling up of the PAR till 31.12.2024.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that while they had not submitted the PAR to the NCTE for various reasons, vide order issued on 24.04.2025, the State Government through the Deputy Director of Education, Office of the Director of Primary Education had inter alia informed the institutions that since the institutions concerned had not filled up the Performance Appraisal Report and submitted the same to the NCTE as required vide public notice dated 09.09.2024 etc., therefore, the institution concerned is prohibited from taking part in the admission process for programme of Diploma in Elementary Education. The petitioner being aggrieved by such order, have challenged the same before this Court.
4. Learned advocate for the petitioner would challenge the impugned order by submitting that the public notices issued by the NCTE on 09.09.2024 and 10.12.2024 do not envisage any penal action, which would be taken by the NCTE for non-submission of the PAR. It is submitted that in any case, the State Government prior to ordering that the petitioner would not be able to participate in the admission process in programme of Diploma in Elementary Education, never afforded any opportunity to the petitioner and whereas the petitioner was never put to the notice that non-filling of the PAR as required by the NCTE would result in such stringent consequence at the hands of the State. It is further submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that as such, the State neither Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by BHUPENDRASINH SONAGRA(HC01082) on Sat Jun 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 23 22:50:49 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8128/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/06/2025 undefined under the NCTE Act or Regulations or even under any other Regulations, is empowered to take any such penal action against the petitioner institution and whereas it is submitted that the impugned orders may be set aside by this Court and whereas the petitioner may be permitted to participate in the admission process.
5. Learned advocate for the petitioner would also vehemently submit that while the petitioner having not received any show cause notice as such, the recognition give by the NCTE to the petitioner institution is valid as on date.
6. This petition is vehemently opposed by the learned AGP Mr. Gautam for the respondent State. Learned AGP would state in detail through public notice dated 09.09.2024 and various other documents and would submit that the idea of the NCTE for calling upon the the institutions to submit their Performance Appraisal Report, was to find out as to whether the institutions fulfill the minimum criteria as required for grant of recognization / affiliation by the concerned body. It is submitted by the learned AGP that non-submission of PAR for almost around 9 to 10 months, entitled the State to infer adversely in for as the institutions are concerned as regards their fulfilling criteria for affiliation / recognization. Learned AGP would submit that the NCTE having undertaken the exercise so as to ensure that the minimum standards of teacher education system is maintained throughout the country, the State was only attempting to ensure that such institutions, which do not fulfill the minimum criteria, do not participate in the admission process. To a pointed query by this Court, the learned AGP could not point out as to any provision based upon which the impugned action has been undertaken by the State. Learned AGP would submit that since the Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by BHUPENDRASINH SONAGRA(HC01082) on Sat Jun 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 23 22:50:49 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8128/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/06/2025 undefined public notice clearly reflects the intent of the NCTE and since the State wanted to ensure that the minimum standard of education is maintained throughout the State, the impugned action was taken with a bona fide purpose and whereas it is submitted that this Court may not interfere.
7. Having heard the learned advocate for the petitioner and learned AGP for the respondent State, to this Court, it would appear that the action of the State in prohibiting the petitioner from participating in the admission process in the programme of Diploma in Elementary Education, clearly appears to be an excess of the jurisdiction. It would appear to this Court that for the State to have exercised such powers, two primary requirements were to be fulfilled being;
7.1 Firstly the availability of appropriate powers with the State to undertake such an exercise. To this Court, it would appear that there is no provision either in the NCTE Act or any other statute, which empowers the State to undertake the exercise of prohibiting the institutions from participating in the admission process upon the institutions not filling up of their Performance Appraisal Reports with the NCTE.
7.2 To this Court, it would appear that in absence of any enabling powers, it was not open for the State to have undertaken the exercise of prohibiting the institutions concerned from the admission process. It would also appear to this Court that while the State may have the best of the intention, yet such intention should be backed up by an adequate source of powers and in absence of such powers, to this Court, any action taken by the State, would be Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by BHUPENDRASINH SONAGRA(HC01082) on Sat Jun 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 23 22:50:49 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8128/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/06/2025 undefined a clear excess of jurisdiction, more particularly, when it appears that the powers exercised has almost resulted in the institutions being de-affiliated i.e. when the institutions are not provided with students for a particular year, to this Court, it would appear that the same almost amongst to de-affiliation / de-recognization of the institutions for that particular year.
7.3 The second requirement to this Court would be that even if the State were empowered by a statute, rules and regulations to take such a penal action against any institutions, then also, the State was duty bound to ensure that the principles of natural justice were followed. The State taking the best case of the State that it had the power to prohibit the institutions from participating in the admission process to the programme of Diploma in Elementary Education, in case the institutions did not fill up the PAR and submit the same to the NCTE, then also State could not have done away with the principles of natural justice. The State not having issued any show cause notice to the institutions before passing of the impugned order, therefore also, the action of the State would be bad in law and would be required to be interfered with.
8. Having regard to the observations and discussions hereinabove, to this Court, the following directions would meet with the ends of justice:
(a) The impugned order dated 14.05.2025 is hereby quashed and set aside.
(b) Necessary consequences including the petitioners permitting the petitioners to participate in the admission process, to follow.Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by BHUPENDRASINH SONAGRA(HC01082) on Sat Jun 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 23 22:50:49 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8128/2025 ORDER DATED: 19/06/2025 undefined With the above observations, the present petition stands disposed of as allowed.
(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J) BDSONGARA Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by BHUPENDRASINH SONAGRA(HC01082) on Sat Jun 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 23 22:50:49 IST 2025