Shanti College Of Education vs National Council For Teacher ...
2010 Latest Caselaw 3154 Del

              *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                  Date of decision: 8th July, 2010.

+        W.P.(C) 13220/2009 & CM No.14394/2009 (for stay).

         SHANTI COLLEGE OF EDUCATION                ..... Petitioner
                     Through: Mr. Sanjay Sharawat, Advocate.

                                      versus

    NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER
    EDUCATION AND ANR                      .... Respondents
                 Through: Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Advocate for
                           NCTE.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1.       Whether reporters of Local papers may
         be allowed to see the judgment?                 Yes

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?                Yes

3.       Whether the judgment should be reported               Yes
         in the Digest?

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 6th November, 2009 of

the Appeal Committee of the National Council for Teacher Education

(NCTE) refusing recognition to the petitioner for M.Ed. course. The

petitioner has already been recognized for B.Ed. course since the year 2007-

08 and had applied for recognition for M.Ed. course for the year 2008-09.

2. The Northern Regional Committee (NRC) of the NCTE refused

recognition to the petitioner on the following grounds:-

a. The land has not been registered in the name of Institution within

90 days as communicated to the Institution.

b. The Multipurpose Hall is small in size.

c. Twenty computers are not enough for B.Ed. and M.Ed. students.

d. The titles in the library are not as per NCTE norms for M.Ed.

3. The Appeal Committee has in the order impugned, merely re-

produced the reasons aforesaid given by the NRC and without dealing with

the contentions of the petitioner with respect thereto, recorded their

conclusion of finding no ground to accept the appeal.

4. The counsel for the petitioner, with respect to the objection of the land

being not registered in the name of the Institution has contended -

i. that the land has been registered in the name of the Society

which is running the Institute;

ii. the land was so registered at the time of the petitioner seeking

recognition for B.Ed. course also;

iii. the NRC was then satisfied and granted the recognition;

iv. the criteria for ownership of land are the same for B.Ed. and

M.Ed. course;

v. the M.Ed. course was also sought to be imparted from the same

land by making additions thereto;

vi. that though the NCTE vide its letter dated 13th March, 2009 to

the various Regional Committees had prescribed that the land

should be in the name of the Institute and not in the name of the

Society/Trust but the same would not be applicable to the

petitioner in as much as the application of the petitioner for

recognition for M.Ed. course was already pending on that date;

vii. that the requirement of having title of the land in the name of

the Institute is bad- the Institute is merely a name in which the

Society is imparting education - Institute is not a legal entity -

it is the Society which is a legal entity capable of owning land;

viii. that in any case, the petitioner, after the order of NRC and

during the pendency of appeal had got a sale deed of the land

executed and registered from name of Society to name of

Institute and the Appeal Committee has failed to take note of

the same.

5. With respect to the objection of the multipurpose hall being small,

attention is invited to the Visiting Team Report (VTR) which has reported

that the petitioner has a multipurpose hall of 125.10 sq. mtr. (equivalent to

1346.5 sq. ft.) for the B.Ed. students and of the same size for the M.Ed.

students. Attention is also invited to the Norms and Standards for Master of

Education Programme leading to Master of Education (M.Ed.) degree

provided for in the NCTE (Recognition Norms & Procedure) Regulations,

2007 wherein the prescribed requirement for space in each instructional

room is of 10 sq. ft. per student only; it is contended that since recognition

for M.Ed. course was sought for 25 seats only, the multipurpose hall ad-

measuring 125.10 sq. mtr. was more than sufficient. It is further contended

that neither the NRC nor the Appeal Committee have in their orders differed

nor stated reasons to so differ from the VTR and had no other material

before them to reach the conclusion that the multipurpose hall is small.

6. With respect to the objection of the 20 computers being not enough

for B.Ed. as well as M.Ed. students, attention is invited to the conclusion in

the VTR to the effect that the petitioner has the infrastructure for both the

courses and which would include the computers.

7. With respect to the objection as to the titles in the library being not as

per the NCTE norms for M.Ed., attention is again invited to the VTR as to

the number of books and the additions made for the M.Ed. course. It is

further contended that as per the prescribed norms 3000 books for B.Ed. and

2000 for M.Ed. are prescribed; as per the VTR a total of 5000 books existed

in the library of the petitioner.

8. The counsel for the petitioner on the basis of the aforesaid has

contended that this Court in these proceedings itself, while setting aside the

order of the Appeal Committee ought to grant recognition to the petitioner.

9. Per contra, the counsel for the respondents has contended that the

letter dated 13th March, 2009 (supra) of the NCTE to various Regional

Committees was merely reiterating the Regulations of 2007 requiring the

land to be in the name of the Institute. It is further contended that even

though the petitioner before the Appeal Committee had produced a Sale

Deed of the land from the Society in the name of the petitioner Institute but

the same was of a date subsequent to the decision of the NRC and thus of

no avail. It is further contended that the NRC was not bound by the VTR

and nothing prevented the NRC from disagreeing with the VTR and refusing

recognition.

10. This Court has already in Guru Nanak Khalsa College Vs. National

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

July, 2010 held that the Appeal Committee of NCTE while dealing with the

appeals against the orders of the Regional Committees is to take into

consideration the subsequent events, if any, and to allow or refuse the appeal

taking note of the subsequent events if undisputed and if the subsequent

events pleaded are such which require any further investigation which can

be carried out only by the Regional Committees, then to remand the matter

to the Regional Committees to consider afresh in light of the subsequent

events.

11. In the present case, notwithstanding the contention of the counsel for

the petitioner that the requirement of the land being in the name of the

Institute is bad, the fact remains that the Sale Deed of the land has since

been executed in the name of the Institute. The Appeal Committee has

however failed to take note of the said subsequent event. Prima facie the

said subsequent event does not appear to be such which would require any

further investigation by the NRC. Thus the order of the Appeal Committee

with respect to the said objection cannot be sustained and is liable to be set

aside.

12. A disturbing feature is found in most of the orders of the Regional

Committee and the Appeal Committee of NCTE. They do not give reasons

for accepting or rejecting the contentions of the applicants or for disagreeing

with or rejecting the Visiting Team Reports or on other aspects. The

decisions, particularly of Regional Committees are in bullet points. Though

the said decisions are not expected to be in the form of decisions of the

courts but nevertheless being subject to appeal or judicial review of the court

ought to convey to persons affected therefrom the reasons which prevailed

for the outcome. Section 18(4), NCTE Act provides that before disallowing

an appeal, the appellant shall be given a reasonable opportunity to represent

it case. The principle of natural justice of giving an opportunity of being

heard is not to be an empty or abstract exercise. Giving of an opportunity of

hearing has a corresponding obligation to deal with the representations and

to give reasons for the decision. An opportunity of hearing/representation

would be meaningless and its purpose would be frustrated, if the authority

giving the hearing does not consider the representations of the concerned or

does not give any reasons for agreeing or disagreeing with the same.

13. A decision does not necessarily mean the conclusion, it embraces

within its fold the reasons which form the basis for arriving at the

conclusion. (See Mukhtiar Singh Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1995 SC 686)

14. NRC prior to considering the case of the petitioner for recognition had

appointed a visiting team and the report whereof was before the NRC.

Though in the minutes of the 148th meeting held from 28th to 30th August,

2009 in which the decision was taken, it is recorded that the report has been

considered but NRC has not recorded any reasons whatsoever for

disagreeing with the report of the visiting team. The visiting team in the

present case had in its report given the factum of the existence of

multipurpose hall as well as its size. It is not understandable as to why the

NRC as well as the Appeal Committee of the NCTE have held the

multipurpose hall to be small. Similarly, though it has been said that the 20

computers are not enough for B.Ed. and M.Ed. students but neither any

norm/regulation as to the requirement in this regard is shown nor any reason

has been stated in the orders as to why the same are not enough particularly,

when the report of the visiting team is otherwise. Similarly, when the

prescribed number of books was found existing in the library by the visiting

team, it is not understandable why the same formed a reason for refusal. It

may be noticed that the reason given is of the titles in the library being not

as per NCTE norms but save for the number of books, there does not appear

to be any mention in the report of the titles also. There does not appear to be

any basis in the orders for the NRC and the Appeal Committee to disagree

with the visiting team's report.

15. The orders thus cannot be sustained.

16. I am however, not in agreement with the counsel for the petitioner

that in the circumstances aforesaid, this Court should grant recognition. May

be in a particular case where the reasons are stated and are found to be

erroneous and capable of interference, this Court can interfere. However in

the case of the present nature where there are no reasons and it is not known

as to what prevailed with the minds of the experts in denying recognition, it

is best to remand the matter to the said experts for considering the matter

afresh and for decision with reasons.

17. The counsel for the petitioner has expressed apprehension and has

stated that the Appeal Committee may remand the matter to the Regional

Committees and which would further delay his application for recognition

already pending for the last three academic sessions and the petitioner is

suffering because having prepared the infrastructure, is being denied means

to utilize the same. Though prima facie in view of what is noted

hereinabove, it does not appear that a remand may be necessary by the

Appeal Committee but nevertheless no restrictions can be placed on the

exercise of powers by the Appeal Committee. However even if the Appeal

Committee is of the opinion that the matter is required to be remanded to the

NRC, it would be required to give reasons as to why in the face of the

aforesaid records/facts any further inquiry by NRC is required.

18. In these circumstances, the petition is allowed. The order of the

Appeal Committee of NCTE is set aside. NCTE is directed to decide the

appeal in accordance with the directions hereinabove on or about 31 st

August, 2010.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) 8h July, 2010 pp (Corrected & Released on 26th July, 2010)