Delhi High Court

Rao Udmi Ram Memorial College Of ... vs National Council For Teacher ... on 16 December, 2011

Author: Hima Kohli

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                       W.P.(C) 7925/2011

                               Date of Decision: 16th December, 2011.


      IN THE MATTER OF:-

      RAO UDMI RAM MEMORIAL COLLEGE OF EDUCATIION
                                             ..... Petitioner
                    Through: Mr. Sanjay Sharawat, Adv.

                   versus

      NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER THROUGH CHAIRMAN
      EDUCATIION AND ANR                     ..... Respondents
                    Through: Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Adv.


      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI


:     HIMA KOHLI, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the Order dated 28.10.2011

passed by the Appellate Authority, i.e., respondent No.1/NCTE as also

the decision taken by respondent No.2/NRC in its 160th meeting held

from 18th to 20th May, 2010 whereby the recognition of the

petitioner/College for conducting the D.Ed. Course was withdrawn.

2. Counsel for the petitioner states that while passing the impugned

order dated 18th-20th May, 2010, respondent No.2/NRC has mixed up

the cases and documents of the petitioner college with that of another

college, which has the same name as was the petitioner‟s erstwhile

name. He further submits that a perusal of the aforesaid order shows

that it is unclear whether the withdrawal of recognition pertains to the

B.Ed. course or the D.Ed. course. To fortify the aforesaid submission,

he relies on the show cause notice dated 11.08.2009 issued by

respondent No.2/NRC addressed to the petitioner/College, wherein

mention was made at the top, under the heading, "Sub.: The

application of the petitioner for seeking grant of recognition for B.Ed.

Course". Similarly, even in the body of the said notice to show cause,

in para-3 thereof, mention had been made of the proposal for

withdrawal of recognition of "B.Ed. Course" being run by the petitioner

on account of deficiencies indicated therein.

3. Learned counsel goes on to point out the minutes of the 160th

meeting of respondent No.2/NRC held from 18th-20th May, 2010, a

perusal of which shows that against serial No.108, which relates to the

petitioner/College, the course mentioned is "B.Ed." instead of "D.Ed.".

He further submits that in the 5th Column of the aforesaid minutes of

meeting, the relevant file is shown as "HR 730" which relates to the

B.Ed Course. However, it is stated that subsequently, respondent

No.2/NRC in its 162nd Meeting held on 24th-27th June, 2010 issued a

clarification that "HR 730- B.Ed." may be read as "HR 730 - D.Ed." and

hence the decision in HR-730 - D.Ed. was to be kept in abeyance.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that after all the aforesaid confusion

at the end of the respondents, eventually, the impugned order dated

28.10.2011, which came to be passed by respondent No.1/NCTE, is for

withdrawal of recognition for the D.Ed. course in the

petitioner/College.

4. It is relevant to note that the aforesaid directions of respondent

No.2/NRC to keep HR-730 in abeyance was on account of certain Court

proceedings initiated by the petitioner and pending in the High Court,

subject matter of W.P.(C) No.9741/2009 which petition was finally

decided on 28.02.2011 and which decision was challenged by the

petitioner in an intra-court appeal decided by the Division Bench on

20.04.2011.

5. The second ground urged by counsel for the petitioner for

seeking quashing of the impugned order is that the aforesaid show

cause notice issued by the respondents sets out 17 deficiencies stated

to have been noticed in the college whereas, in the order dated 18th-

20th May, 2010 passed by respondent No.2/NRC recommending

withdrawal of B.Ed. recognition, it is quite obvious that respondent

No.2 did not consider the reply submitted by the petitioner to the show

cause notice and instead, proceeded to withdraw the recognition of the

petitioner college on entirely different grounds. It is submitted that

only a passing reference was made in the order that deficiencies

indicated to the petitioner on 11.08.2009 still existed.

6. Furthermore, it is contended that even the Appellate Authority

i.e. respondent No.1/NCTE, before which the petitioner had filed an

appeal, instead of considering the deficiencies pointed out in the show

cause notice dated 11.08.2009, passed the impugned order dated

28.10.2011 by proceeding on completely new grounds and finally

decided to withdraw recognition granted to the petitioner. In other

words, it is the submission of the counsel for the petitioner that the

grounds taken as deficiencies by the respondents in their show cause

notice, which should have been considered before any decision on

withdrawal of recognition was taken, were not dealt with at all either

by respondent No.2/NRC in its decision dated 18th-20th May, 2010, nor

by the Appellate Authority in the impugned order dated 28.10.2011.

He submits that in rejecting the appeal of the petitioner, the Appellate

Authority has only dealt with those grounds, which were introduced for

the first time by respondent No.2/NRC. He seeks to elucidate the

aforesaid submission by referring to the grounds of rejection of the

appeal filed by the petitioner, as set out in the impugned decision

which is on following four counts:-

"AND WHEREAS the Council noted that

a) the "patta deed" dt. 06/02/2007 is in the name of Smt. Sunil Kumari and the land was for school purpose. The same pattadar "Smt. Sunil Kumari" gifted the land to the college on 12/08/2009. It is observed that the same land piece is meant for school purpose by way of patta deed and for college purpose by way of gift deed which can not be acceptable ;

b) the building plan is for both school and college. The plan mentioned 1096.74 sq.mt. of built up area for school and 3513 sq.mt of built up area for college;

c) building completion certificate dated nil issued by Sarpanch do not mention the Khasra No., built up area and land/plot area details and also purpose of the building. Hence, building completion certificate is not a valid document. From all these three documents it is clear that the same premises are used for school as well as college.

d) The committee further noted from inspection report dt. 22/06/2009 that it was a school building. There is no separate block/building for D.Ed and B.Ed courses. In one acre of land Sardar Patel School, D.Ed and B.Ed courses and technical college were being run. Even the staff was same and they were teaching in school as well, salary register showed only one page and that also for June 2009 only and the figures were tempered. The team was denied access to many of the original documents. In view of the above the Council came to conclusion that there is no justification in accepting appeal and hence it should be rejected.

AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, VT report, affidavit and after considering oral arguments advanced during hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was no ground to accept the appeal and hence it should be rejected. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected and NRC‟s order dated 21/06/2010 is confirmed.

NOW THEREFORE, the Council hereby confirms the Order appealed against."

7. Lastly, counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner/College has inducted 50 students to the D.Ed. course for the

academic years 2011-13, whose academic future would be jeopardized

if the impugned order of respondent No.1/NCTE is upheld and

recognition of the petitioner/college for conducting D.Ed. course is

withdrawn.

8. Counsel for the respondents refutes the aforesaid submissions

made by the petitioner and states that the basis of issuance of the

notice to show cause dated 11.8.2009 was an inspection of the

petitioner/College conducted on 22.6.2009, and vide notice dated

19.06.2009 addressed by the respondent No.1/NCTE, the petitioner

had been duly intimated that an inspection would be conducted for the

D.Ed. Course. It is further submitted that the confusion, if any,

between the B.Ed. course and the D.Ed. course that has been pointed

out in the notice to show cause issued to the petitioner as also in the

order passed by the respondent No.2/NRC in its 160th meeting, was

subsequently clarified by the NRC in its 162nd Meeting as admitted by

the petitioner and subsequently, the impugned order passed by the

Appellate Authority also specifically dealt with the D.Ed. Course, hence

the same cannot be treated as an infirmity in the impugned order. It

is argued that the inspection notice of 19.06.2009 was within the

knowledge of the petitioner and the petitioner was well aware of the

fact that the visiting team would ask for relevant documents during

the inspection, which would be required to be made available by the

petitioner at that time. He lays emphasis on the fact that the findings

returned by the visiting team are findings of fact, which have

concurrently been upheld by two forums and if disputed questions of

facts are to be raised by the petitioner, the same cannot be examined

in writ proceedings. In support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance is

placed on the following judgments:

i. The University of Mysore & Anr. Vs. C.D. Govinda Rao & Anr. (1964) 4 SCR 575

ii. Medical Council of India Vs. Sarang & Ors.(2001) 8 SCC

iii. P.M. Bhargava & Ors. Vs. University Grants Commission & Anr. (2004) 5 Scale 551

iv. All India Council for Technical Education Vs. Surinder Kumar Dhawan & Ors. (2009) 11 SCC 726

9. It is further canvassed by the counsel for the respondents that

on 22.06.2009, two sets of inspections were conducted, one for B.Ed.

Course and the other for D.Ed. Course and that a perusal of the

records reveals that the petitioner had tried to take advantage of the

existing facilities and infrastructure shown for conducting the B.Ed

course, by using the same facilities and infrastructure for the

subsequent D.Ed course as well. He states that as for the grievance of

the petitioner that it was not served with a copy of the inspection

report submitted by the visiting team for it to respond effectively

thereto, the proviso to Section 17(i) of NCTE Act itself states that the

recognized institution shall be given "a reasonable opportunity of

making representation against the „proposed order‟..." and, therefore,

it is submitted that once the proposed order was conveyed to the

petitioner, there was no requirement for respondent No.2/NRC to have

served the petitioner separately with a copy of the inspection report. It

is also sought to be urged on behalf of the respondents that the

respondents are technical bodies and aspects, like, notice prior to

conducting an inspection are merely technical objections and once

such a body has pointed out certain deficiencies to a particular

Institution/College, it is for the Institution/College to satisfy the NRC

or in turn, the Appellate Authority that it meets the NCTE norms and

standards in that regard. However, in the absence of necessary

compliances and in the event of failure on the part of the

Institution/College to prove the existence of the declared facilities

including infrastructure, the respondents are under an obligation to

withdraw the recognition granted to such an Institution.

10. Thus, the impugned order is sought to be justified on the ground

that it is within the domain of the respondents to satisfy themselves as

to the availability of adequate facilities and infrastructure for imparting

education in all the existing courses being run by the Institute, instead

of any one particular course run by an Institution/College as in the

present case, wherein the D.Ed course run by the petitioner was found

to be woefully lacking in infrastructure and facilities. In this regard,

reference is made to the notice to show cause, which as per learned

counsel for the respondent, points out all the deficiencies in the

infrastructure and facilities in the petitioner/College, as regards which

the petitioner had been unable to satisfy both, the NRC and the

Appellate Authority.

11. The sheet anchor of the arguments addressed by the counsel for

the petitioner is that an ambiguous and poorly articulated show cause

notice was issued by respondent No.2/NRC, wherein deficiencies in

respect of the petitioner/College were set out, and although, in its

reply to the show cause notice, the petitioner had duly responded to

all the 17 deficiencies as pointed out, respondent No.2/NRC had

ignored all the submissions made by the petitioner in its reply and had

not only reiterated the earlier deficiencies pointed out in the show

cause notice dated 11.08.2009, but on top of that, also added 6 other

deficiencies in the decision taken in its 160th Meeting, which

deficiencies were never a part of the show cause notice and further,

that the Appellate Authority did not deal with the grounds of appeal

urged by the petitioner and instead predicated the impugned rejection

order dated 28.10.2011 on four grounds noted in its order, which had

also not formed a part of the notice to show cause, for the petitioner

to have met them in the reply submitted by it or in the grounds taken

by it in the appeal, as set out from (a) to (f) in the impugned order.

12. There is no gainsaying the fact that when the report submitted

the visiting team, which conducted the inspection of the

petitioner/College on 22.06.2009, is perused in juxtaposition to the

show cause notice dated 11.08.2009, it does appear that the drafting

of the notice to show cause and the manner in which the deficiencies

in the petitioner/College have been set down therein, leaves much to

be desired, both in terms of the language used which is quite inchoate

and unclear and in terms of the descriptions of the

facilities/infrastructure available or lacking therein. Similarly, the

decision taken by respondent No.2/NRC in its 160th Meeting does not

appear to have been set out and structured in a proper format. It

does not give any reasons for rejecting the submissions made by the

petitioner in its reply. In the appeal proceedings, even though the

grounds articulated by the petitioner in its appeal have been duly set

out in the impugned order, yet the decision taken is largely confined to

the aspect of the land on which the institution is situated, besides

stressing lack of adequate infrastructure and facilities within the

petitioner/College.

13. In view of the ambiguous and poorly drafted show cause notice

dated 11.08.2009, which is woefully lacking in articulation and

considering the inadequate manner in which respondent No.2/NRC has

dealt with the submissions made by the petitioner in its reply to the

show cause and further in view of the assertion of the counsel for the

petitioner that even though it had in its possession the relevant

documents in respect of the land on which the petitioner/College was

constructed as also the documents to establish that there was

sufficient infrastructure and facilities available with the petitioner to

run the subject Course, i.e., D.Ed Course, the same could not be

placed before the Appellate Authority, due to the poor articulation of

reasons for withdrawal of recognition by respondent No.2/NRC in the

decision taken in the 160th Meeting, which has resulted in grave

injustice being caused to the petitioner, it is deemed appropriate to

quash and set aside the impugned order dated 28.10.2011 and

remand the matter back to respondent No.1/NCTE, with the following

directions:-

i. In view of the fact that the counsel for the petitioner submits that all relevant documents with regard to the land in question as also the infrastructure available with the petitioner/College were submitted by the petitioner along with the grounds of appeal filed by it before respondent No.1/NCTE, the said documents along with the inspection report of the visiting team as also the photographs taken, if any shall be taken into consideration by respondent No.1/NCTE.

ii. After taking into consideration the aforesaid documents/submissions made in the grounds of appeal by the petitioner, respondent No.1 shall pass a reasoned order in the very next meeting of the Appellate Authority.

14. It may be noted that the Court has deemed it expedient to

remand the matter back to the Appellate Authority instead of the NRC,

which is the next below authority so as to ensure that the future of the

50 students, who are stated to have been inducted by the

petitioner/College to the D.Ed. Court for the academic years 2011-13,

is not jeopardized due to any delay taken in the decision making

process. It is further clarified that the Court has not made any

observations with regard to the induction of the aforesaid students by

the petitioner/College, in the teeth of the impugned order dated

28.10.2011 passed by respondent No.1/NCTE, withdrawing recognition

in respect of the said Course. As a result, the decision taken on

remand by the Appellate Authority shall govern the fate of these