Rao O.P.M. College Of Education vs National Council For Teacher ...
2010 Latest Caselaw 4154 Del

             *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                        Date of decision: 8th September, 2010.

+             W.P.(C) No.14116/2009 & CM No.16262/2009 (for stay)

%

RAO O.P.M. COLLEGE OF EDUCATION                  ..... Petitioner
                 Through: Mr. Sanjay Sharawat, Advocate.

                                      Versus

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION . 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?             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 had applied to the Northern Regional Committee

(NRC) of the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) for

recognition for starting D.Ed. course with effect from the academic session

2008-2009. The NRC rejected the said application of the petitioner vide its

order dated 23rd April, 2009. The petitioner preferred a statutory appeal to

the Appeal Committee of the NCTE and which appeal was disposed of vide

order dated 26th November, 2009. The contention of the petitioner is that the

NRC had rejected the application only on two grounds i.e. (i) CLU is not

issued by the competent authority on the prescribed format and (ii) the State

Government recommendation is negative. It is contended that the Appeal

Committee was satisfied that the CLU produced by the petitioner was by the

appropriate authority; the Appeal Committee has also observed that if the

recommendation of the State Government was negative, the NRC should not

have carried out the inspection of the Institution of the petitioner. It is thus

urged that the Appeal Committee having upset both the reasons on which

NRC had rejected the application, ought to have granted recognition to the

petitioner for D.Ed. course; instead the Appeal Committee has remanded the

matter to NRC for re-consideration accepting the CLU and also taking into

account the Visiting Team Report (VTR).

2. The Appeal Committee has in the order dated 26th November, 2009

given reasons for remanding the matter to the NRC. The Appeal Committee

noted that the VTR dated 8th October, 2008 had reported:

"The multipurpose hall is under construction, construction work done is just half of what is needed that's why management did not give blue print map of the building and tampered with C.D."

3. The Appeal Committee observed that the glaring deficiency aforesaid

pointed out by the Visiting Team did not form a part of the deficiency show

cause notice issued by the NRC to the petitioner and further observed that

recognition ought to have been refused on this ground alone. It was for this

reason that the Appeal Committee remanded the matter to the NRC for re-

examination in the light of aforesaid Visiting Team Report observation.

4. The counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Appeal Committee

could not have extended the scope of the inquiry. It is contended that as per

Section 18(5) of the NCTE Act, 1993 the Appeal Committee is entitled to

either confirm or reverse the order of the NRC and the Appeal Committee is

not entitled to go into the other aspects which did not form the basis of the

order of the NRC. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment dated

22nd October, 2009 of this Court in W.P.(C) No.12154/2009 titled Lord

Krishna College of Education Vs. NCTE. It is contended that the matter

relating to the other deficiencies even if any with respect whereto no show

cause notice was issued by the NRC and which did not form the ground for

rejection of application by the NRC could not have been opened by the

Appeal Committee. The petitioner thus seeks the relief from this Court of

setting aside the part of the order of the Appeal Committee which remands

the matter to the NRC and of granting recognition to the petitioner.

5. I am unable to accept the aforesaid contention of the counsel for the

petitioner. The petitioner cannot be permitted to brush under the carpet in the

manner aforesaid the serious deficiencies if any in its infrastructure, than as

per the norms prescribed in the NCTE Act and the Regulations framed

thereunder. The NCTE Act and the Regulations framed thereunder are

aimed at setting up a Regulatory Body without whose recognition none can

impart education/training in the field of teacher education. The same are to

eliminate Institutes/Colleges not equipped to impart such education and

prevent them from profiteering at the expense of gullible students. The

NCTE and its Regional Committees are to safeguard the interest of the

students seeking education/training in the field of teacher education. The Act

has provided double layered machinery in this regard. The applications for

recognition are required to be considered by the Regional Committees and

appeals against their orders are provided to the Appeal Committee. Such

double check cannot be allowed to be defeated. It cannot be argued that the

Appeal Committee of the NCTE which as aforesaid, essentially is a

Regulatory Body, even if during the course of hearing of an appeal finds that

an applicant Institute is not equipped to conduct the course for which

recognition is sought, is bound to grant such recognition merely because

such ground was not noticed by the NRC. If such interpretation is to be

adopted, it would lead to the ill-equipped Institutes which do not meet the

prescribed norms admitting students and playing with their future and career.

Such an interpretation cannot be accepted by this Court. I therefore do not

find any error in the order of the Appeal Committee remanding the matter to

the NRC owing to the reasons pointed out in the order.

6. This Court in Lord Krishna College of Education (supra) set aside

order of the Appeal Committee remanding the matter to the NRC for the

reason of the same being a bald direction and bereft of any reason at all for

such remand and/or as to why a fresh inspection was necessary. However the

same is not the position in the present case. The Appeal Committee has

given reasons arising from the Visiting Team Report for remanding the

matter to the NRC. Thus the said judgment is not apposite to the facts of the

case.

7. The counsel for the petitioner has also urged that the petitioner

apprehends that the NRC on such remand would commence a de novo

inquiry for fulfillment by the petitioner of all norms for conducting the

D.Ed. course and with respect where to NRC was earlier satisfied. It is

contended that the same would prejudice the petitioner and ought not to be

allowed. Some directions are sought for limiting the scope of inquiry by the

NRC on such remand, only to the deficiencies pointed out in the order of the

Appeal Committee.

8. I am not inclined to issue any such direction also. The inspection

earlier conducted by the NRC was for the previous academic year. One year

has elapsed since then. NRC is found to have committed at least one mistake

in overlooking the Visiting Team Report to the extent pointed out by the

Appeal Committee. I hesitate from restraining NRC from examining the

matter again. It is quite possible that the Appeal Committee finding one

deficiency in the Visiting Team Report not considered by the NRC and

finding the same sufficient to remand the matter stopped from any further

inquiry. It is possible that there may be other deficiencies which were also

overlooked by the NRC. NRC cannot be stopped from looking into the

matter in entirety and then taking a decision on remand. Similarly it is quite

possible that some norms may have changed in the last one year or there

may be several infrastructural requirements which may require a fresh

inspection as to continuance thereof. All that can be said is that the remand

should not be used to harass the petitioner.

9. The counsel for the petitioner has also made arguments with respect to

the State Government recommendation being negative. Reliance is placed on

State of Maharashtra Vs. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra

Mahavidyalaya (2006) 9 SCC 1 and on the judgments of the Bombay High

Court in W.P.(C) No.1279/2010 titled Jay Bajrang Pratishthan Vs.

National Council for Teacher Education; W.P.(C) No.1282/2010 titled

Siddhivinayak Shaikshanik & Samajik Sanstha Vs. National Council for

Teacher Education; W.P.(C) No.1961/2010 titled Saraswati Shikshan

Prasarak Mandal Vs. National Council for Teacher Education; W.P.(C)

No.3062/2010 titled Triveni Educational & Social Charitable Trust,

Kolhapur Vs. National Council for Teacher Education; W.P.(C)

No.3721/2010 titled Man Vidya Prasarak Mandal Vs. National Council for

Teacher Education; W.P.(C) No.3479/2010 titled Kansa Khora Shikshan

Prasarak Mandal Vs. National Council for Teacher Education; W.P.(C)

No.3429/2010 titled Jyotiba Bhakt Mandal Society Vs. National Council

for Teacher Education; W.P.(C) No.3455/2010 titled Sitarama Roma Kale

Shikshan Sanstha Vs. . National Council for Teacher Education; W.P.(C)

No.3702/2010 Vishwabharati Shikshan Prasarka Mandal Bapumiya

Deshmukh Adyapak Vidyalay Vs. National Council for Teacher

Education; W.P.(C) No.3703/2010 titled Shivchaleshwar Devesthan Trust

Vs. . National Council for Teacher Education to contend that the same

could not have been the basis. Per contra the counsel for the respondent

relies on the judgment dated 13th August, 2009 of the Rajasthan High Court

in W.P.(C) No.5913/2009 titled Sampat STC Mahavidhayalaya (BSTC) Vs.

The State of Rajasthan through the Secretary (School Education), Govt.

Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur (Rajasthan) and has also filed a copy of the

letter dated 31st July, 2008 of the State Government requesting the NRC to

refuse permission to the petitioner. It is contended that NRC on the basis of

the said recommendation of the State Government can take a decision to

refuse recognition. The judgment aforesaid of the Rajasthan High Court is

relied on in this regard.

10. The counsel for the petitioner has rejoined by contending that since

neither NRC nor the Appeal Committee has accepted the said

recommendation, the NRC is now precluded from considering the same.

11. Since I am upholding the remand to the NRC, it is not deemed

expedient to return any finding on the said aspect. The parties would be free

to make their representation/submissions on this aspect before the NRC and

the NRC would on remand decide the matter in accordance with law.

12. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is dismissed. No order as

to costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) 8th September, 2010 pp