Arul Educational Trust vs The Member Secretary, National ...
2010 Latest Caselaw 3227 Del

             *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                Date of decision: 13th July, 2010.

         +                         W.P.(C) 4563/2010

         %

         ARUL EDUCATIONAL TRUST                                    ..... Petitioner
                            Through:      Mr. S. Nanda Kumar, Advocate with Mr.
                                          Achin Goel, Mr. Satish Kumar & Ms. Anjali
                                          Chauhan, Advocates

                                       Versus

         THE MEMBER SECRETARY, NATIONAL COUNCIL
         FOR TEACHER EDUCATION & ANR.       ..... Respondents
                            Through:      Mr. Ayushya Kumar & Mr. Vaibhav Kalra,
                                          Advocates


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?

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The petitioner by this writ petition impugns the order dated 5th May,

2010 of the Appeal Committee of the National Council for Teacher

Education (NCTE) rejecting the appeal of the petitioner against the order

dated 2nd March, 2010 of the Southern Regional Committee (SRC) denying

recognition to the petitioner to conduct B.Ed. course.

2. The SRC had rejected the application of the petitioner for recognition

for the reason that as against the required built up space of 27,000 sq.ft., the

petitioner had available with it only 25,000 sq.ft. and the balance 2,000 sq.ft.

was yet to be completed. The SRC had in fact imputed an admission on the

petitioner as to the deficiency of 2,000 sq.ft. space.

3. The Appeal Committee has noticed that the Visiting Team in its

Report of September 2009 had reported that the B.Ed. course for which

recognition was sought and the D.Ed. course for which the petitioner already

has recognition were intended to be conducted from a "main building and an

adjacent small one story building"; a portion of the main building was still

under construction and the available built space was only 25,000 sq. ft.

instead of requirement of about 27,000 sq. fit.

4. Considering the nature of controversy, with the consent of counsel for

respondents who appears on advance notice, the counsels have been finally

heard.

5. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner

has duly sanctioned built up space of 27,200 sq.ft. as per the Building

Completion Certificate issued by the concerned agency; that though some

work of construction was going on at the time of inspection by Visiting

Team in September 2009 and is still going on but the same is for further

expansion and not for the purposes of the B.Ed. & D.Ed. courses. The

petitioner has placed before this Court, the Building Completion Certificate

with respect to 27,200 sq.ft. space. The counsel for the petitioner has also

drawn attention to the letter dated 24th December, 2009 in which admission

of paucity of 2,000 sq.ft. space is attributed to the petitioner. From a reading

thereof, it is contended that no such paucity is admitted therein.

6. Though the petitioner along with the paper book has not filed the copy

of appeal preferred before the Appeal Committee but has handed over a

copy of the same in the Court. It is the contention of the petitioner in the

memorandum of said appeal also that it was in possession of completely

constructed of 27,200 sq.ft. space as per the Completion Certificate issued to

it.

7. The counsel for the respondents has attempted to show discrepancy in

the Completion Certificate and in the representations from the petitioner

from time to time to contend that notwithstanding the said Completion

Certificate, the built up space of 27,200 sq.ft. does not exist. However,

unfortunately the order of the Appeal Committee does not deal with the

same. The Appeal Committee has not given the said reason of discrepancy

in the order dismissing the appeal. This Court cannot contemplate what

prevailed with the Appeal Committee in rejecting the documents showing

completed built up space of 27,200 sq.ft. The order of the Appeal

Committee cannot be sought to be justified on grounds which do not appear

from the order itself. I have already in Shanti College of Education Vs.

NCTE, W.P.(C) No.13220/2009 decided on 8th July, 2010 held that the

Regional Committees as well as the Appeal Committee are required to deal

with the contentions raised before them and give reasons for their orders. It

is only then that either the Appeal Committee or this Court in the exercise of

the power of judicial review would be able to understand as to what

prevailed in the minds of the decision making authorities in deciding either

way. The Appeal Committee in the order impugned in this petition has

relied on the visiting team report (VTR) only. However, notwithstanding the

said VTR, the petitioner had in the appeal, relying on the Completion

Certificate, contended that the area does exist. The Appeals Committee

ought to have dealt with the said Completion Certificate and if not agreeable

with the same given reasons therefor. The counsel for the petitioner also

relies on the judgment dated 14th September, 2009 of another Single Judge

of this Court in Rajalakshmi Educational Trust Vs. Member Secretary,

NCTE MANU/DE/2402/209 being WP(C) No.8290/2008 laying down that

reasons are required to be given.

8. However, this Court does not deem it appropriate to, in the exercise of

power under Article 226 of the Constitution go into the question of whether

the petitioner is entitled to recognition or not. More so, when the Appeal

Committee on perusal of VTR has also found the petitioner lacking/deficient

in other respects also, viz the books available in library being unrelated to

teaching education and infrastructure and instructional resources are grossly

insufficient and suffer from short comings. Even though the same did not

form part of the reasons given by SRC for refusing recognition but the

Appeal Committee was fully entitled to satisfy itself in all respects.

However, before the Appeal Committee bases its decision on

factors/grounds other than those given by SRC, the AC is required to give an

opportunity to the petitioner to place its case qua such other factors/grounds.

The same does not appear to have been done. The matter is as such required

to be remanded to the Appeal Committee for decision afresh after hearing

the petitioner.

9. A perusal of the Memorandum of Appeal also shows that the

petitioner has not stated the facts and not urged the grounds therein as

succinctly as before this Court. To enable the Appeal Committee to

properly adjudicate the matter the petitioner is also granted an opportunity to

make a further representation to the Appeal Committee not only to show

existence of 27,200 sq.ft. available space but also as to why the VTR on

other aspects is incorrect.

10. I may notice that I have in Guru Nanak Khalsa College Vs. NCTE,

W.P.(C) No.4218/2010 decided on 2nd July, 2010 also held that the

subsequent events are to be taken into consideration. In view of the said

judgment, even if the space of 27,200 sq.ft. did not exist on the date of the

order of the SRC or on the date of the order of the Appeal Committee but if

the petitioner succeeds in now showing that the said space of 27,200 sq.ft. as

required exists, the Appeal Committee shall take that into consideration.

Similarly, it shall be open to the petitioner to show that other deficiencies

mentioned in VTR and noticed by AC in order dated 5th May, 2010 have

since been removed. The counsel for the respondents has suggested that the

petitioner be directed to apply afresh for recognition. However, considering

investments done on building the infrastructure and further considering the

gestation time in processing the application for recognition, the alternative

course suggested of directing the petitioner to prefer a fresh application for

recognition is not found expedient.

11. The petition is allowed in aforesaid terms. The parties to appear

before the Appeal Committee of NCTE which will decide the appeal afresh

in accordance with law. It will be open to the Appeal Committee to, before

deciding the appeal, satisfy itself on all aspects including of inspection of

the existence of the infrastructure and other facilities as per the norms. No

order as to costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J JULY 13, 2010 gsr