Shyam College Of Education vs National Council For Teacher ...
2012 Latest Caselaw 1827 Del

*          IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                           Date of decision: 16th March, 2012

+                            LPA No.543/2011

%          SHYAM COLLEGE OF EDUCATION                 ....Appellant
                      Through: Mr. Sanjay Sharawat, Adv.

                                      Versus

    NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER
    EDUCATION & ANR                        ..... Respondents
                  Through: Mr. Amitesh Kumar & Mr. Mayank
                           Manish, Advs.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW



RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. This intra court appeal impugns the order dated 20th May, 2011 of the

Learned Single Judge dismissing W.P.(C) No.6719/2010 preferred by the

appellant. The said writ petition was preferred by the appellant impugning

the order dated 27th September, 2010 of the respondent no.1 National

Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) dismissing the appeal preferred by

the appellant against the order contained in the Minutes of 163rd Meeting

held from 29th to 31st July, 2010 of the respondent no.2 Northern Regional

Committee (NRC) withdrawing recognition earlier granted to the appellant

for imparting education in B.Ed. course.

2. The appellant was granted recognition for conducting B.Ed. course

with effect from the Academic Year 2007-08. The appellant claims to have

commenced the said classes from premises taken on rent in village Panhera

Kalan, Tehsil Ballabgarh, Faridabad, Haryana. The appellant further claims

that since upon coming into force of the NCTE Regulations, 2007, the

appellant was required to have its own premises, it acquired land in village

Panhera Khurd, Tehsil Ballabgarh, Faridabad and raised construction

thereon and was on 10th July, 2008 granted permission to shift and shifted to

the new premises in October, 2008 and commenced Academic Session

2008-09 therefrom. However since the said new premises had not been

approved, the appellant continued to represent therefor. An inspection of the

new premises was conducted and a notice dated 5 th February, 2010 was

issued by the NRC pointing out deficiencies therein and asking the appellant

to show cause as to why the recognition granted to it be not revoked. The

NRC vide its decision dated 29th to 31st July, 2010 (supra), withdrew the

recognition of the appellant for B.Ed. course from the year 2010-11

onwards.

3. The appeal filed by the appellant was also dismissed by the NCTE on

27th September, 2010 as aforesaid.

4. When the writ petition from which this appeal arises came up before

the learned Single Judge on 1st October, 2010, the application of the

appellant for interim relief, to allow the appellant to admit students in

academic year 2010-2011, was dismissed. Intra-Court appeal being LPA

No. 732/2010 preferred thereagainst was also dismissed.

5. The Learned Single Judge has while dismissing the writ petition

observed that it had transpired during the pendency of the writ petition that

the land at village Panhera Khurd on which the college building of the

appellant is situated, was mortgaged to the Syndicate Bank; that the

Regulations do not permit grant of recognition/approval to any college or

institute running from a land under mortgage or lien; thus the question of

going into any of the other reasons for dismissal of the appeal and for

withdrawal of recognition did not arise. Accordingly the writ petition was

dismissed granting liberty to the appellant to approach afresh for recognition

after encumbrance was cleared.

6. Notice of this appeal was issued. The appellant has filed an additional

affidavit enclosing therewith a letter dated 29th August, 2011 of the

Syndicate Bank, Ballabgarh, Faridabad certifying that M/s. Om Shanti

Educational Society i.e. the appellant has cleared the liabilities and the

mortgaged land is now free from all encumbrances.

7. Though the Learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition

solely on the ground that the appellant, in the face of its land being

mortaged was not entitled to recognition but we may notice that NCTE had

dismissed the appeal of the appellant (impugning which order the writ

petition was filed) for several other reasons viz.

(i) that the land was even otherwise disputed and a suit with respect thereto had been pending in the Civil Court;

(ii) that the appellant had shifted from the place with respect whereto recognition was granted to it in the year 2007 without the requisite permission and information;

(iii) that the claim made by the appellant in its appeal was found to be far from truth and misleading;

(iv) that the Visiting Team in the inspection carried out by it did not find the appellant located at the place recorded i.e. with respect to which it had been granted recognition and another institution namely Sai Shyam College of Education which had applied for new recognition was found to be functioning therefrom;

(v) that the appellant upon the 2007 Regulations coming into

force was not required to shift its institution and the argument of compulsion for shifting was misleading;

(vi) that the appellant had produced false documents for obtaining initial recognition in the year 2007.

(vii) that the Building Completion Certificate of the new site was not submitted;

(viii) that there were number of deficiencies in the new premises of the appellant at Panhera Khurd viz. multipurpose hall could accommodate 100 students only but not 150; Science lab did not have multiple set of apparatus; there was no provision for teaching work experience, music, art and playground was yet to be developed etc;

8. The counsel for the appellant has argued that the Learned Single

Judge has in the judgment impugned in this appeal not dealt with the

explanation given in the writ petition of all the aforesaid reasons and has

erred in deciding the writ petition only on the ground of the land being

mortgaged, which deficiency has now been cured. He has sought to find

error in all the aforesaid reasons given by the NCTE for dismissal of the

appeal and has thus argued that the order of the NCTE and of the NRC

withdrawing recognition is liable to be set aside/quashed and the recognition

earlier granted to the appellant for conducting B.Ed. course restored.

9. The counsel for the respondent NCTE besides controverting the

aforesaid has relied on Shri Morvi Sarvajanik Kelavni Mandal Sanchalit

MSKM B.Ed. College v. National Council for Teachers' Education (2012)

2 SCC 16 and Adarsh Shiksha Mahavidyalaya v. Subhash Rahangdale

(2012) 1 SCC 213. The Supreme Court in the former of the aforesaid

judgments commented on the mushroom growth of ill-equipped, under

staffed and unrecognized educational institutions. Similarly in the latter

judgment the Supreme Court has commented on deficient implementation of

the NCTE Act, 1993 and the Regulations thereunder and given directions

for the same.

10. Though undoubtedly the issues raised in the writ petition have not

been dealt with by the Learned Single Judge but we are of the view that, (i)

once the withdrawal of recognition earlier granted to the appellant can be

justified for the reason of the appellant admittedly no longer functioning in

the premises qua which recognition was granted; (ii) the premises qua which

recognition was granted being no longer available to the appellant and the

appellant also being no longer interested in revival of recognition with

respect thereto; (iii) the land underneath the new premises at the relevant

time being admittedly mortgaged; (iv) the claim of the appellant now being

for recognition at the new premises; and (v) the appellant having never been

granted recognition qua the new premises, the same was sufficient to sustain

the orders impugning which the writ petition was filed and there was no

need for the Learned Single Judge to render findings on the other

deficiencies cited for withdrawal of recognition . Now that the appellant

claims to have remedied the deficiency of mortgage, it will be open to the

appellant to while seeking fresh recognition satisfy the respondents qua the

other deficiencies also. We do not deem it proper to render findings on other

deficiencies, also for the reason that more than two years have elapsed and

there may be substantial change in position necessitating a fresh look before

recognition can be granted to the appellant.

11. The appeal therefore fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

MARCH 16th, 2012 'pp'