Gauhati High Court
WA/346/2023 on 18 September, 2023
Page No.# 1/7
GAHC010172432023
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/346/2023
1. National Council for Teacher Education,
Represented by its Member Secretary, G7,
Sector 10, Dwarka, Land Mark near Metro
Station, New Delhi- 110075
2. Member Secretary, National Council for
Teacher Education, G7, Sector 10, Dwarka,
Land Mark near Metro Station, New Delhi-
110075
3. Regional Director, Eastern Regional
Committee, G7, Sector 10, Dwarka, Land
Mark near Metro Station,
New Delhi- 110075
......Appellant
-Versus-
1. Kamala Bezbaruah Memorial College of
Teacher Education, Bohotla Gaon, 71,
College Path, West Jorhat Circle, Jorhat,
Jorhat- 785001, Assam represented by its
Principal-Cum-Member Secretary Sri
Lambodar Saikia, Aged about 62 years,
S/o- Late Bhola Saikia, Resident of Sonali
Jayanti Nagar, Bye Lane-8, P.S. Jorhat,
district Jorhat, Assam.
Page No.# 2/7
2. Union of India, represented by Secretary,
Department of School education and
Literacy, Ministry of Human Resource
Development. Government of India, Shastri
Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
3. The State of Assam represented by its
Commissioner and Secretary to the
Government of Assam, Education
(Elementary) Department, Dispur,
Guwahati-6, Assam
4. The Director SCERT, Assam,
Kahilipara, Guwahati-19
5. The Registrar, Dibrugarh University,
Assam-786004
...... Respondents
-BEFORE-
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND
For the appellants : Mr. I. Alam, Advocate
For the respondents : Mr. T.J. Mahanta, Senior Advocate
Assisted by Ms. P. Sarma, Advocate
For respondent No.1,
Ms. K. Das, Standing Counsel,
Elementary Education
For respondent No.3
Mr. B. Choudhury, Advocate
For respondent No.4
Date of hearing & judgment: 18-09-2023
Page No.# 3/7
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
S. Mehta, C.J.
Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material
placed on record.
2. The instant intra-Court writ appeal is preferred by the National Council for
Teacher Education (NCTE for short) being aggrieved by the judgment dated
27.06.2023 whereby the writ petition, being, WP(C) 986/2020 preferred by the
respondent No.1 herein was accepted. The aforesaid writ petition came to be
instituted by the respondent No.1 herein aggrieved of the order dated
28.08.2019 passed by the Eastern Regional Committee (ERC), NCTE by which,
the recognition of the petitioner college (respondent No.1 herein) was
withdrawn. The respondent No.1/writ petitioner also laid challenge to the order
dated 05.12.2019 whereby the statutory appeal preferred by the respondent
No.1/writ petitioner was rejected. It may be further mentioned that during the
pendency of the writ petition, the matter was reconsidered in the 306 th meeting
of the ERC held on 14/15 September, 2022 wherein the above decision was
affirmed. The learned Single Judge recorded this fact and interfered with the
same.
3. The short issue which arises for consideration of this Court in this writ
appeal is whether the respondent college was having insufficient built up area in
terms of the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and
Page No.# 4/7
Procedure) Regulations, 2014 so as to make it liable to lose its recognition by
the NCTE. The ERC cancelled the recognition by taking recourse to Clause 8(7)
of the NCT Regulations, 2014 wherein it was stipulated that the temporary
structure or asbestos roofing shall not be allowed in institution even if it is in
addition to the prescribed built up area, i.e. 1500 sq.m. since the top storey of
the college building was under a CI sheet roofing, it was held that the said area
could not be counted as a permanent structure and was extended from built up
area. The appellate authority went on to hold that if the area under the CI sheet
roofing of the institution's building was excluded, the built-up area with RCC
roofing was not adequate for B.Ed. course, as per the NCTE norms which should
be minimum 1500 sq.m. The respondent/writ petitioner highlighted before the
learned Single Bench the amendment of the Rules dated 04.05.2022, wherein in
the Clause pertaining to exclusion of temporary structures, the words "CI sheet
roofing" were deleted. The appellant NCTE opposed the said submission on the
ground that the roofing on the third floor was comprised of CI sheet and hence,
it was undeniably a temporary structure.
4. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the arguments advanced by the
learned counsel appearing for the parties and considering the definition of
'building' as appearing in Rule 2(14) of the Assam Notified Urban Areas (other
than Guwahati) Building Rules, 2014, held that merely because the roofing of
the institution's building was comprised of CI sheet, it could not be taken out of
the purview of a permanent structure and accordingly, it was held that the
building was having built-up area of more than 1500 sq.m. and thus, the same
was compliant of the NCTE Regulations 2014 as amended in the year 2022. The
judgment dated 27.06.2023 rendered by the learned Single Judge accepting the
writ petition and reversing the decision to derecognize the respondent college is
Page No.# 5/7
assailed in this intra-Court writ appeal at the instance of the NCTE.
5. Mr. I. Alam, learned counsel representing the appellant NCTE vehemently
and fervently urged that the built-up area of the respondent college having RCC
roofing was only 9806.250 sq. ft. out of total built-up area of 16840.225 sq. ft.
The area under CI sheet roofing would have to be treated as a temporary
structure and hence, the same was in violation of Clause 8(7) of the NCTE
Regulations 2014. On these grounds, he implored the Court to accept the writ
appeal and reverse the impugned judgment.
6. Per contra, Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned senior counsel representing the
respondent No.1 urged that the college is the oldest institution in Assam
imparting B.Ed. Degree course and is functional since last 33 years. The building
was constructed in the year 2003 and recognition was granted by the NCTE in
the year 2015 after extensive inspection, etc. He further urged that in the State
of Assam, it is an age old practice to construct the buildings with CI sheet
roofings in order to make the building insusceptible to the heavy rain fall, which
continues for almost six months during the monsoon period. He pointed out that
there are a large number of iconic buildings in the State of Assam which are
having CI sheet roofing and are proudly referred to as 'Assam Type' buildings.
Mr. Mahanta further urged that in view of the exclusion of the word "CI sheet"
in Clause 8(7) by virtue of the amended Regulations, 2022, there is no
justification behind the decision of the NCTE in withdrawing the recognition of
the respondent college. He thus implored the Court to affirm the judgment of
the learned Single Judge and dismiss the writ appeal.
7. We have thoughtfully considered the submissions advanced at Bar and
have perused the impugned judgment and the material placed on record. We
have gone through the amendment of 2022 brought in Clause 8(7) of the
Page No.# 6/7
National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure)
Regulations, 2014, whereby categorisation of a CI sheet roofing to be a
temporary structure, as it existed earlier, has been deleted. It is thus manifest
that a building with CI sheet roofing cannot now be treated to be a temporary
structure. We also have to remain cognizant of the ground realities in the State
of Assam and the adjoining Northeast States which are prone to long spells of
heavy rains in extended monsoon periods. Thus, it becomes imperative to
construct the buildings with slanting roofs so as to facilitate the flow of the rain
water to the ground. It is an established practice in the State of Assam to
construct the buildings with CI Sheet roofings which are referred to as Assam
Type buildings.
8. Many iconic structures and heritage buildings in Assam with tin sheet/CI
Sheet roofings continue to stand with pride having withstood the wrath of
elements for decades. In this very category, we may refer to the Chief Justice
residence, which is an Assam type structure constructed more than 110 years
ago, which has been declared a "living heritage building". The District Court
building of Kamrup (Metro) is also an Assam Type structure and was constructed
decades ago and is fully functional and operational even as on date. Thus, the
reservation expressed by the NCTE on treating the buildings having CI sheet
roofing to be temporary structures is absolutely unwarranted, more so, when
the words "CI sheet roofing" have been deleted in the amendment of 2022,
referred to supra.
9. Thus, merely because the roofing of the respondent college's building is
comprised of CI sheet, the same cannot be considered to be a temporary
structure. The area under the CI sheet would definitely form a part of the built-
up area and cannot be excluded when the total built-up area is being counted
Page No.# 7/7
for. There is no dispute that the total built-up area of the college, including the
area under the CI sheet roofing, is more than 1500 sq. mtrs. which is compliant
of the norms of the NCTE Regulations.
10. In this background, we are of the firm opinion that the view taken by the
learned Single Judge in accepting the writ petition and quashing the order of
the appellant NCTE by which the recognition of the college was withdrawn and
the appeal was rejected, does not suffer from any infirmity warranting
interference of this Court in this writ appeal and thus, the writ appeal fails and is
dismissed.
No order as to cost.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
