Gujarat High Court
Shree Sharda Primary Teachers Training ... vs State Of Gujarat on 23 June, 2025
Author: Nikhil S. Kariel
Bench: Nikhil S. Kariel
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8124/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8124 of 2025
==========================================================
SHREE SHARDA PRIMARY TEACHERS TRAINING COLLEGE
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SIDDHARTH DAVE FOR MS KOMAL S DAVE(8152) for the Petitioner(s)
No. 1
MR ADITYA PATHAK ASSTT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
Date : 23/06/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Siddharth Dave for learned advocate Ms. Komal Dave for the petitioner and learned AGP Mr. Aditya Pathak for the respondent - State.
2. The present petition questions 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 institutions recognized by the NCTE and affiliated to the State Examination Board for conducting Primary Teacher Training Course, were 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 notices on 02.04.2024 and 09.09.2024 inter alia calling upon the Teachers Education Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by Y.N. VYAS(HC00207) on Tue Jun 24 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 24 22:31:16 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8124/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/06/2025 undefined Institution (TEI) to submit their Performance Appraisal Report (P.A.R.) for the academic year 2020-21 and 2022-2023. 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.
4. It further appears that vide public notice dated 02.04.2025, the NCTE had issued another public notice, whereby the TEI were informed that the show cause notices under Section 17(1) of the NCTE Act, 1993, are being issued to institutions, which have not filled up the PAR by the Regional Committee concerned and whereas upon the said show cause notice being received, all the concerned TEI would be required to submit a reply through online mode to the NCTE within a period of 15 days thereafter. It is the case of the petitioners that while they had not submitted the PARs to the NCTE for various reasons, vide orders issued in the month May, 2025 to be specific on 24.04.2025 and 09.05.2025, 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 institutions concerned is prohibited from taking part in the admission process for programme of Diploma in Elementary Education. The petitioners being aggrieved by such orders, have challenged the same before this Court.
5. Learned advocate for the petitioner would challenge the impugned order by submitting that the public notice issued by the Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by Y.N. VYAS(HC00207) on Tue Jun 24 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 24 22:31:16 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8124/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/06/2025 undefined 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 further submitted that while vide the public notice dated 02.04.2025, the NCTE has intimated that those institutions (TEI), which have not submitted the PAR would be issued show cause notice under Section 17(1) of NCTE Act, such show cause notices have also not been received by the present institution. 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 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 order may be set aside by this Court and whereas the petitioner may be permitted to participate in the admission process.
6. 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.
7. This petition is vehemently opposed by the learned AGP Mr. Pathak 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 Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by Y.N. VYAS(HC00207) on Tue Jun 24 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 24 22:31:16 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8124/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/06/2025 undefined upon the the institution 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 institution is concerned as regards its 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 institution, which does not fulfill the minimum criteria, does 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 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.
8. 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;
Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by Y.N. VYAS(HC00207) on Tue Jun 24 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 24 22:31:16 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8124/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/06/2025 undefined 8.1 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.
8.2 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 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.
8.3 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 Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by Y.N. VYAS(HC00207) on Tue Jun 24 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 24 22:31:16 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8124/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/06/2025 undefined 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.
9. 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 quashed and set aside.
(b) Necessary consequences including the petitioner permitting the petitioner to participate in the admission process, to follow.
With the above observations, the present petition stands disposed of as allowed.
(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J) Y.N. VYAS Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by Y.N. VYAS(HC00207) on Tue Jun 24 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jun 24 22:31:16 IST 2025