Delhi High Court
Star Computer Educational ... vs National Council For Teacher ... on 25 September, 2019
$~75
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 10438/2019 & CM No.43104/2019
Date of decision: 25 September 2019
STAR COMPUTER EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY& ANR.
Petitioners
Through: Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Adv.
versus
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER
EDUCATION AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Arunima Dwivedi with Mrs.
Preeti Kumar Nanda, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL):
1. Issue notice.
2. Mr. Arunima Dwivedi accepts notice for the respondents.
3. Ms. Dwivedi says that she would argue the matter on the basis of
record presently available with the Court.
3.1 Given this position, with the consent of counsel for parties, matter is
taken up for final disposal.
4. In this petition, challenge is laid to the decision taken by the Western
Regional Committee (in short "WRC") of the National Council for Teacher
Education (in short "NCTE") in its 310th Meeting held between 19th to 21st
August, 2019.
5. By virtue of the impugned decision, the recognition given to the
petitioner No.2 institute to conduct the B.Ed. course stands withdrawn. The
reason given in the impugned order for withdrawing the recognition is two
folds:
W.P. (C) 10438/2019 Page 1 of 3
(i) First, that the petitioner No.2 institute had not furnished their
reply to the show cause notice (SCN) dated 21.12.2016 within the
stipulated timeframe i.e. 30 days.
(ii) Second, that the staff profile for approved intake was not
submitted and that the Building Completion Certificate, CLU and
building plan were also not submitted.
6. The record shows that the reply to the aforementioned SCN was
received by the WRC on 31.1.2017. As a matter of fact, only 21 days were
given to the petitioners to file a reply and not 30 days as is mentioned in the
impugned proceedings. Notably, in the SCN, reference is only made to the
fact that the petitioners were required to furnish in original the staff profile
for approved intake of (1-Principal/HOD+15-Faculties) for the academic
session 2015-16 duly approved by the affiliating body. In other words, there
was no SCN with regard to the other documents, which are referred to in the
impugned order.
7. It is the case of the petitioners that the other documents i.e. Building
Completion Certificate, building plan, LUC were furnished to the WRC
along with communication dated 31.1.2017. The communication is
appended at Pg.132 of the paper book.
8. Given these circumstances, in my view, best way forward would be to
set aside the impugned decision.
9. The WRC will reexamine the matter and give a fresh personal hearing
to the authorized representatives of the petitioners in the matter.
10. The petitioners will furnish in original not only the documents referred
to in the show cause notice i.e. approved staff profile, but also will furnish
the original the documents referred to in the impugned order. Besides this,
the WRC will have liberty to seek other documents, if necessary, by serving
upon the petitioners a communication in writing in that behalf. The
communication will also indicate as to whether or not the additional
W.P. (C) 10438/2019 Page 2 of 3
documents sought for are to be furnished in original.
11. Clearly, as would be evident from the facts recorded hereinabove, the
impugned decision adverted to documents which did not form part of the
show cause notice.
12. Therefore, I am constrained to issue the directions which are adverted
to hereinabove.
13. The WRC will pass a speaking order. A copy of the same will be
furnished to the petitioners. In case the decision taken by the WRC is
adverse to the interest of the petitioners, they will have liberty to assail the
same as per law.
14. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforementioned terms.
15. Consequently, pending interlocutory application shall stand closed.
.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
SEPTEMBER 25, 2019
pmc
