Basant Lal Memorial College Of ... vs National Council For Teacher ...
2010 Latest Caselaw 3125 Del

          *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+     W.P.(C) 4397/2010 & CM No.8726/2010 (for interim stay)

%                                         Date of decision : 6th July, 2010

      BASANT LAL MEMORIAL COLLEGE OF
      EDUCATION                                                           ..... Petitioner
                         Through: Mr. Sanjay Sharawat, Advocate.

                                Versus

      NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER
      EDUCATION AND ANR                                               ..... Respondents
                         Through: Mr. Vaibhav Kalra, Advocate.

                                    WITH

+     W.P.(C) 4398/2010 & CM No.8727/2010 (for interim stay)

      BASANT LAL MEMORIAL COLLEGE OF
      EDUCATION                                                          ..... Petitioner
                         Through: Mr. Sanjay Sharawat, Advocate.

                                Versus

      NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER
      EDUCATION AND ANR                                               ..... Respondents
                         Through: Mr. Vaibhav Kalra, Advocate.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

1.    Whether reporters of Local papers may
      be allowed to see the judgment?                            No

2.    To be referred to the reporter or not?                     No

3.    Whether the judgment should be reported                    No
      in the Digest?


 WP(C) 4397-98/2010                                                          Page 1 of 9
 RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The petitioner by these two writ petitions seeks stay of the operation

of the orders (contained in the minutes of the 160th meeting held from 18th

May to 20th May, 2010) of the Northern Regional Committee (NRC) of the

National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), derecognizing the B.Ed.

and D.Ed. courses for imparting education in which the petitioner had earlier

been recognized. The petitioner has preferred statutory appeals to the NCTE

(under Section 18 of NCTE Act, 1993) against the orders of the NRC and

which are pending. The counsel for the respondent no.2 who appears on

advance notice states that NCTE, while exercising the appellate jurisdiction

has no power to grant interim relief or to stay the operation of the order

appealed before it. This Court, in several other cases, in this view of the legal

matter has been entertaining writ petitions for stay of operation of orders of

Regional Committees appeals whereagainst are pending before NCTE.

2. The counsel for the petitioner contends that unless such stay of

operation of the orders of the NRC is granted, even if the petitioner succeeds

in the appeals, would not be entitled to conduct the course for the academic

session 2010-11 inasmuch as the prospectus of the University with which the

petitioner is affiliated with respect to the said courses is likely to be published

soon and if the petitioner remains derecognized in terms of the order of the

NRC, the name of the petitioner would not be shown in the prospectus so

published by the University. It is further the contention of the counsel for the

petitioner that even though the appeals were filed in the month of June, 2010

but have not been listed

for hearing as yet.

3. In view of the urgency expressed and not finding any thing requiring

counter affidavit the counsels have been heard fully.

4. The counsel for the petitioner further informs that the prospective

students, at the time of filling up the forms for admission pursuant to the

prospectus are also required to give their preferences of the Institute; that the

counseling of the students normally takes place in the end of

August/September, 2010 and if the appeals of the petitioner are not decided

by then and/or dismissed resulting in the petitioner remaining derecognized,

the students, who may have opted for the Institute of the petitioner will still

have an option to join the Institute of their next preference and would not

suffer any prejudice.

5. The counsel for the petitioner contends that it has a prima facie case for

success in the appeals, for the reason that it has been derecognized for reasons

other than those pointed out in the deficiency notices earlier issued to it. It is

further contended that the deficiencies as pointed out were in any case vague.

6. With respect to the B.Ed. course, the petitioner has been derecognized

for three reasons i.e. (i) The labs of the petitioner being ill equipped (ii) The

multipurpose Hall being small in size, and (iii) the letter of nomination of

experts on the selection committee having not been submitted.

7. As far as first of the aforesaid three reasons is concerned, in the show

cause notice it was only stated that "in the language lab, there are only two

Headphones which are not adequate". No deficiency with respect to the

multipurpose Hall was pointed out in the show cause notice. Similarly, there

was no show cause notice with respect to the letter of nomination of experts.

8. The scheme of the Act and the Regulations framed thereafter envisage

an opportunity to be given to the Institute to remove/explain the

deficiency/deficiencies on which recognition is sought to be denied/revoked.

It is found at least qua the case of B.Ed. course that the grounds on which the

petitioner has been derecognized did not form a part of the show cause notice.

Prima facie, therefore there is a chance for the petitioner succeeding in the

appeal. The petitioner will suffer irreparable loss if inspite of success in the

appeal it is rendered unable to conduct the course in the academic session

2010-11.

9. This Court in Guru Nanak Khalsa College Vs. National Council for

Teacher Education being W.P.(C) No.4218/2010 decided on 2nd July, 2010

has taken a view that deficiencies which do not require any further

investigation, if removed before the decision of the appeal can be considered

and the NCTE in appeal, can take note of subsequent events and act in terms

thereof. Prima facie the grounds on which the petitioner has been

derecognized for B.Ed. course are found to be such which even if correct, are

capable of rectification and may not require any long drawn investigation and

as such it will be open to the petitioner to, without prejudice to its rights and

contentions, remedy the grounds even before the decision of the appeal and

submit the additional documents to the NCTE in appeal in this regard.

10. Accordingly, till the decision of the appeal of the petitioner qua

derecognition of B.Ed. course, the operation of the order of the NRC shall

remain stayed. The NCTE is also directed to decide the appeal of the

petitioner qua the B.Ed. course on or before the first week of August, 2010.

11. Qua the D.Ed. course, the counsel for the respondent has pointed out

that derecognition is inter alia on the ground of the Head of the Department

(HOD) for the said course having not been selected through duly constituted

selection committee. He contends that without the HOD, the petitioner cannot

be permitted to conduct the D.Ed. course. The counsel for the petitioner on

the contrary has urged that the said ground did not form part of the show

cause notice; in the show cause notice it was merely stated that there was no

separate Principal/HOD for D.Ed. course. He thus contends that derecognition

on this ground, is also contrary to the Act and the Regulations.

12. The petitioner in reply to the show cause notice while admitting that

there was no HOD for the D.Ed. course had stated that the senior most

Lecturer who had already worked as HOD, in another Institute, imparting

education in such course, was officiating as the HOD and after the show

cause notice had been appointed as the HOD. It was in view of the said reply

of the petitioner that the ground on which the petitioner has been

derecognized for the D.Ed. course has been changed from that of, no HOD to

that of the HOD appointed having not been selected by the duly constituted

selection committee. It thus cannot be said that there was no show cause

notice with respect to this ground of derecognition.

13. There is merit in the contention of the counsel for the respondent that

the petitioner cannot run D.Ed. course for the academic session 2010-11

without the HOD selected by a duly constituted selection committee. This

Court is of the opinion that when existence of a HOD appointed by a duly

constituted selection committee is a requirement, such deficiency is enough to

refuse/revoke recognition. A Head of Department is necessary to steer and

without him/her the course would be rudderless.

14. The counsel for the petitioner at this stage states that the petitioner

undertakes to this Court to have a duly appointed Head of the Department for

the D.Ed. course and after complying with the requisite formalities before the

academic session 2010-11 commencing in or about September, 2010.

15. In view of the said undertaking of the petitioner and subject to the

consideration of the same by the NCTE in appeal and subject to the petitioner

satisfying the NCTE in appeal either that HOD was appointed by a duly

constituted selection committee or that it has taken steps for appointment of

the HOD and /or that the HOD would be appointed before the commencement

of the academic session and/or before the decision of the appeal, the order of

the NRC derecognizing the petitioner for the D.Ed. course is also stayed till

the decision of the appeal by the NCTE.

16. It may be noticed that the position with respect to the two other grounds

on which also the petitioner has been derecognized for the D.Ed. course is the

same as with respect to the B.Ed. course mentioned hereinabove.

17. The NCTE is however directed to dispose of the appeal of the

petitioner with respect to the D.Ed. course also on or before the first week of

August, 2010.

18. The respondent NCTE to also within three days hereof communicate to

the University with which the petitioner is affiliated of the stay of the order of

derecognition so that the said University can include the name of petitioner in

the prospectus to be published.

19. With the aforesaid directions, the petitions stand disposed of. No order

as to costs.

The order be given Dasti to the counsel for the parties.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) JULY 06, 2010 bs