Gujarat High Court
Lokniketan Sikshan Mahavidyalay ... vs Hemchandracharya North Gujarat ... on 18 June, 2025
Author: Nikhil S. Kariel
Bench: Nikhil S. Kariel
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7720/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7720 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
========================================================
LOKNIKETAN SIKSHAN MAHAVIDYALAY THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR
DINESHCHANDRA VAGHAJIBHAI VASIYANI
Versus
HEMCHANDRACHARYA NORTH GUJARAT UNIVERSITY & ORS.
========================================================
Appearance:
MR GAUTAM JOSHI SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR. MEHUL A
SHARMA(16314) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR ADITYA PATHAK ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 4
MR ANUJ K TRIVEDI(6251) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MS HETAL G PATEL(11032) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
Date : 18/06/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Gautam Joshi with learned
Advocate Mr. Mehul Sharma on behalf of the petitioner, learned Advocate
Mr. Anuj Trivedi on behalf of respondent no.1- University, learned
Advocate Ms. Hetal G. Patel on behalf of respondents no. 2 and 3 and
learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Aditya Pathak on behalf of
respondent- State.
2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Assistant Government Pleader
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7720/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/06/2025
undefined
and learned Advocates waive service of rule on behalf of the respective
respondent.
3. With consent of the parties and considering the urgency in the mater
the same is taken up for hearing.
4. By way of this petition the petitioner challenges order dated
18.03.2025 passed by the Western Regional Committee ( hereinafter referred
to as the 'WRC' for short) of the National Council for Teachers Education (
hereinafter referred to as "NCTE"), as confirmed vide order dated
02.06.2025 by the Appellate Authority of the NCTE.
5. The short facts leading to filing of the writ petition is that the
petitioner being an Institution established in the year 2005-2006 for
conducting B.Ed courses, was duly recognized by the NCTE under the
provisions of NCTE Act, 1993. It appears that the recognition of the
petitioner had been withdrawn by the NCTE upon inspection carried out by
the WRC. The withdrawal of recognition vide order dated 07.08.2017, had
been challenged by the petitioner before the NCTE under Section 18 of the
NCTE Act, 1993 and whereas, the appeal had been allowed by the NCTE
Appellate Authority vide order dated 13.02.2018 and whereas the question
of recognition was directed to be decided afresh by the WRC more
particularly order dated 07.08.2017 had been kept in abeyance by the
appellate committee. It appears that the WRC had thereafter issued a show
cause notice to the petitioner on 07.08.2018 calling upon the petitioner to
show cause as to why recognition should not be withdrawn and whereas, the
said show cause notice had been replied to by the petitioner authority vide
reply dated 30.05. 2018 and 11.08.2018. The petitioner had also questioned
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7720/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/06/2025
undefined
non inclusion in list of colleges eligible for education, in the academic year
2018-19 and whereas since the present petition is not concerned with the
said proceedings, the same are not being referred herein.
6. Suffice it to state that the High Court vide an order dated 22.06.2018
had granted interim relief to the petitioner in the nature of directing the
petitioner institution name being included in the list of colleges to which
students could seek admission. It appears that while things stood as such,
vide a letter dated 12.04.2019 the WRC of the NCTE, had inter alia called
upon the petitioner to submit reply in response to letter dated 05.06.2017
and whereas it would also appear that the institution vide the said
communication was directed to submit list of compliance within a period of
30 days from date of the said letter for processing, failing which the WRC
would take decision as per the NCTE Regulation 2014. It would appear
that the institution replied vide its communication dated 09.05.2019, inter
alia informing that all lacunas as pointed out have been taken care of. It
would appear that while things stood as such, approximately after six years,
the WRC had issued order dated 18.03.2025 withdrawing recognition of the
institution in question. The petitioner had challenged the same before the
Appellate Authority of the NCTE and whereas vide order dated 02.06.2025,
the Appellate Authority of the NCTE, had confirmed the order passed by
the WRC. The petitioner aggrieved by both the orders, has approached this
Court by way of the present writ petition.
7. While learned Senior Advocate Mr. Joshi for the petitioner as well as
learned Advocate Ms. Patel for respondents- WRC and NCTE and learned
Advocate Mr. Trivedi for the respondent- University have made submissions
on various aspects including the aspect of non providing of an appropriate
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7720/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/06/2025
undefined
opportunity and on merits to this Court it would appear that at the first
instance, the arguments on merits, are not required to be dealt with or
decided by this Court more particularly since the Court is of a very clear
opinion that the orders impugned, suffer from the vice of non providing of
adequate opportunity which as a natural corollary thereto, would require
appropriate interference.
8. As noted above, the chronology would clearly reveal that the
recognition of the petitioner had been revoked by the WRC and whereas
the Appellate Authority vide its order dated 13.02.2018 had set aside the
order passed by the WRC and had directed the WRC to take decision
afresh. It would also appear that the proceedings had been treated as
continuous proceedings inasmuch as the show cause notice, which had been
issued prior to the order which had been set aside by the High Court i.e
order dated 07.08.2017 had not been followed by a fresh show cause notice.
As a matter of fact, the notice/communication dated 12.04.2019 states as
much. On the other had it would appear that communication 12.04.2019
masquerades as a mere communication, yet, a deeper perusal of the order
clearly reveals that the same is in the nature of a show cause notice cum a
final direction to the petitioner institution to take remedial steps within a
particular period of time failing which the WRC would take decision as per
the NCTE guidelines. Perusal of the said communication also inter alia
reveals that the aspect of grant/ refusal of the recognition had been
clubbed with three deficiencies which have been mentioned in the
communication itself and whereas, the petitioner had been called upon to
ensure that the shortcomings deficiencies, are taken care of within a period
of 30 days from date of the letter. It would appear that while things stood
as such, impugned order dated 18.03.2025 had been passed by the WRC and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7720/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/06/2025
undefined
whereas the WRC had more or less relied upon the show cause notice issued
to the petitioner on 24.08.2016/letter dated 12.04.2019 and whereas to this
Court it would appear that the WRC had completely missed the point i.e.
the WRC ought to have first of all issued a show cause notice calling upon
the petitioner to explain as to whether the lacunas which were very at the
stage of the inspection were still in place or the petitioner had taken
adequate care and there did not remain any lacuna whatsoever. To this Court
it would appear that passing an order in the year 2025 by keeping the
allegations levelled in show cause notice dated 24.08.2016/letter dated
12.04.2019 without verifying as to whether the deficiencies have been
removed by the petitioner or not, is setting down a very bad and a very
wrong precedent. The last communication before order dated 18.03.2025
had been issued by the WRC i.e. communication dated 12.04.2019, clearly
set out the deficiencies that were existing on that date i.e. after the show
cause notice dated 24.08.2016. To this Court it would appear that since
around 6 years had elapsed from the last communication, the WRC was
under an obligation to have called upon the petitioner to explain as to
whether the deficiencies, for which communication dated 12.04.2019 had
been issued, had been remedied by the petitioner or they remain as such
only after such an opportunity had been provided to the petitioner should
the WRC have undertaken the exercise of cancelling the recognition granted
to the petitioner. To this Court it would appear that the WRC having passed
the final order dated 18.03.2025, even without affording adequate
opportunity to the petitioner more particularly since considerable time had
elapsed after last communication by the NCTE, therefore, it could be clearly
discerned that principles of natural justice had not been followed rather the
entire exercise was in breach of the principles of natural justice. The same
analogy, would also apply in case of the order passed by the Appellate
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7720/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/06/2025
undefined
Authority of the NCTE dated 02.06.2025, inasmuch as, it would clearly
appear that the Appellate Authority, inspite of being informed of the
position that a fresh show cause notice had not been issued after 12.04.2019,
without appreciating that adequate opportunity had not been provided to
the petitioner, had confirmed the order passed by the WRC.
9. Having regard to the above observations, discussions and findings, to
this Court it would appear that only on the short issue of the order of WRC
as well as the NCTE suffering from the vice of non affording of
appropriate opportunity to the petitioner as on the vice of not adhering to
the principles of natural justice, are required to be interfered with.
10. Furthermore, it would also appear that the petitioner has challenged
order dated 03.05.2025 passed by respondent no.1- University and whereas
considering the contention of learned Senior Advocate and having perused
the said order, it would clearly appear to this Court that the said order is
consequent to the order passed by the WRC as well as the Appellate
Authority. A perusal of the order clearly reveals that recognition granted to
the petitioner by the NCTE had been withdrawn vide the impugned orders,
therefore, the petitioner would not be allotted any students in the academic
year 2025-2026.
11. To this Court it would appear that since order dated 18.03.2025 and
order dated 02.06.2025 passed by the WRC of the NCTE as well as the
Appellate Authority of NCTE having been quashed and set aside
consequently order dated 03.05.2025 passed by the respondent no. 1-
University also requires to be interfered with.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7720/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/06/2025
undefined
12. Furthermore at the request of learned Advocate Ms. Patel for the
NCTE, it also requires to be clarified that it would be open for the NCTE
to issue fresh show cause notice to the present petitioner and take
appropriate action based upon the reply which would be filed by the
petitioner albeit strictly in accordance with law.
13. Having regard to the above discussions, following directions to this
Court would meet with the ends of justice:
[1] Order dated 18.03.2025 passed by the WRC, NCTE is hereby
quashed and set aside.
[2] Order dated 02.06.2025 passed by the Appellate Authority of
the NCTE is also quashed and set aside.
[3] Consequent to orders dated 18.03.2025 and order dated
02.06.2025 being set aside, order of the respondent University dated
03.05.2025 is also set aside.
[4] Liberty is reserved in favour of the WRC of the NCTE to
initiate fresh proceedings against the present petitioner if so desire,
albeit after affording appropriate opportunity to present petitioner.
14. With the above observations the present petition stands disposed of
as allowed. Direct service is permitted.
(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J)
NIRU
