Kerala High Court
Indu Memorial Teachers Training ... vs National Council For Teacher ... on 30 July, 2021
WP(C) NO. 12142 OF 2021 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 8TH SRAVANA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 12142 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:
1 INDU MEMORIAL TEACHERS TRAINING CENTRE,
(GUARDS B.ED COLLEGE), KUZHALMANNAM P.O., PALAKKAD
DISTRICT-678702, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, K.O.
RAPPAL, S/O. OUSEPH, KALLARAKKAL HOUSE, MISSION
QUARTERS, MUNDUPALAM P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT-
680001.
2 THE PRINCIPAL,
INDU MEMORIAL TEACHERS TRAINING CENTRE, (GUARDS
B.ED COLLEGE), KUZHALMANNAM P.O., PALAKKAD
DISTRICT-678702.
BY ADVS.
SAJITH KUMAR V.
VIVEK A.V.
GODWIN JOSEPH
RESPONDENT/S:
1 NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION,
G-7, SECTOR-10, (NEAR SECTOR-10 METRO STATION)
DWARKA, NEW DELHI-110075, REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER
SECRETARY.
2 THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR,
SOUTHERN REGIONAL COMMITTEE, NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR
TEACHER EDUCATION, G-7, SECTOR-10, (NEAR SECTOR 10
METRO STATION), DWARKA, NEW DELHI-110075.
3 THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT,
THENJIPALAM P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673635,
REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR.
BY ADVS.
DR.ABRAHAM P.MEACHINKARA,SC,NCTE
SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, CALICUT UNIVERSITY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 30.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT "CR"
Indu Memorial Teachers Training Centre, the 1st petitioner herein, is
an Institution recognized by the National Council for Teacher Education to
conduct B.Ed Course at Nemmeni, Palakkad. The 2nd petitioner herein is the
Principal of the College. They have approached this Court being aggrieved by
Ext.P9 order passed by the respondents withdrawing the recognition granted
to the petitioner for conducting B.Ed Course for two years duration with
effect from the next academic session. Though the aforesaid order was
challenged by the petitioners by preferring an appeal under Section 18 of the
National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (NCTE) ('the Act' for the
sake of brevity), the same stands dismissed by Ext.P1 order. The aforesaid
order is also under challenge.
2. A thumbnail sketch of the facts are as follows:
The 1st petitioner Institute was granted recognition by the NCTE to
commence B.Ed courses at Nemmeni, Palakkad by Ext.P2 order dated
15.07.2006. As per the said order, recognition was granted to commence
and conduct Secondary (B.Ed) Course of 1-year duration from the academic
session 2006-2007. In the said order, it was mentioned that the institution
has made arrangements for conducting the course in rented premises and
that they have acquired the land for setting up the Teacher Education
Institution. Recognition was accordingly granted by imposing a condition
that the 1st petitioner shall shift to its own premises/building within three
years from the date of recognition.
3. According to the petitioner, though the Southern Regional
Committee, the 2nd respondent herein, had recognized the courses for the
academic year 2006-2007, the 1st petitioner was not in a position to
commence the course as they were yet to receive affiliation from the 3rd
respondent University. The Syndicate of the University in its meeting held on
05.11.2007 considered the question of granting affiliation and decided to
grant provisional affiliation to the 1st petitioner for the year 2007-2008 with
an intake of 100 students. The management was required to abide by the
Rules, Regulations and Orders issued by the NCTE/Govt./University from
time to time. Since W.P.(C) No.11019/2007 was pending before this Court,
the provisional affiliation was granted subject to the result of the writ
petition. Ext.P3 is the order issued by the 3rd respondent as per which
provisional affiliation was granted.
4. The petitioners contend that by the time, inspection was
conducted by the 3rd respondent University, the petitioners' Institute had
completed the construction of its permanent premises/buildings at
Kuzhalmannam, Palakkad District, and had shifted the premises from
Nemmeni. They were under the impression that the condition as regards the
shifting of the premises to the permanent building as stipulated in Ext.P2
stood complied as the courses had only commenced from the new premises.
However, it is admitted that the petitioner had not remitted the requisite
fees with the NCTE and neither had submitted a formal request for change
from the rented premises to their own permanent building.
5. In the year 2014, the NCTE came out with the National Council
for Teacher Education (Recognition, Norms and Procedure), 2014 in
supersession of 2009 Regulations and the Institute was required to follow
the revised norms. Ext.P4 order was issued to the petitioner on 15.05.2015,
pointing out that the requirement to shift the premises to its own
building/property as required under the formal recognition order has not
been complied with by the 1st petitioner. It was also stated in the order
that the NCTE has decided to permit the Institution to have two basic units
of 50 students each, subject to production of all documents relating to land,
building, encumbrance certificate, land use certificate, building plan,
approved staff lists and documents pertaining to shifting to own premises
before the Southern Regional Committee (SRC) by 31.07.2015, and they
were also cautioned that failure to comply with the same would entail
withdrawal of recognition. The petitioners were informed that the Regional
Committee shall inspect the proposed premises during August - September -
October 2015 and that if on inspection it is found that the Institution does
not fulfil the required norms of infrastructure, the recognition will be
withdrawn. The petitioners were also asked to create additional facilities
that include (a) additional built-up area, (b) additional infrastructure, (c)
additional funds and (d) additional staff as per Regulation, 2014. The
Regional Committees were required to arrange for verification of documents,
inspection of the premises and check adherence to the above conditions by
20.02.2016. If it was found that the Institution had failed to comply with
the requirements, they were ordered not to permit students for the
academic year 2016-2017.
6. According to the petitioner, though they had complied with all
the requirements as pointed out in Ext.P4, insofar as the shifting of premises
was concerned, they took the stand that since the course was started in the
permanent building at Kuzhalmannam in respect of which affiliation was
granted by the University by Ext.P3 order, there did not arise the question of
shifting of premises.
7. Nothing transpired thereafter till 17.07.2019, on which day
Ext.P5 show cause notice was issued to the 1st petitioner by the 2nd
respondent. By the said notice, the petitioners were asked to comply with
more conditions if they wanted to retain the recognition granted by NCTE.
The petitioners were directed to produce the relevant records which include
certified copy of the land documents issued by the revenue authorities, copy
of land use certificate, encumbrance certificate, site plan, building
completion certificate and also the staff lists duly approved by the Registrar
of the Affiliating body, in addition to remitting a total sum of Rs.12 lakhs
towards Endowment Fund and Reserve Fund. According to the petitioner,
on receipt of Ext.P5, they submitted Ext.P6 letter stating that their Institute
had neither submitted any affidavit nor had they applied for two units of 50
students each in the Institution. It was also stated that the 1st petitioner
had the resources and facilities which are required for 50 students (1 unit)
as the college is functioning with only one unit.
8. The petitioners contend that Ext.P12 application was filed as early
as on 02.11.2015 as per which the petitioners had informed the 2nd
respondent that though the institution was sanctioned with two units of 50
students each in the academic year 2015-2017, due to unavailability of
students, they were able to admit only one unit of students in the academic
year 2015-2017. The 2nd respondent was also requested therein to make
necessary changes in the order and to issue a revised order granting
sanction for one unit comprising 50 students. The petitioners contend that
the letter was received by the 2nd respondent on 2.11.2015 as can be seen
from the endorsement in Ext.P12.
9. It is contended that immediately thereafter, Ext.P7 final show
cause notice was issued to the petitioners on 07.09.2020 asking the
petitioners to show cause the reasons for non-compliance of conditions for
shifting of Institution from rented to permanent premises and also to reply
to Ext.P5 show-cause notice. The petitioners were also asked to make
available the documents relating to the land as requested earlier. They
were also informed that in case of change of land and building or the
management at the time of recognition and thereafter, the Institution is
required to specify the reasons thereof with the approval of the SRC,
NCTE.
10. In response to Ext.P7 final show cause notice, Ext.P8 letter was
issued wherein it was stated that the College has been functioning in the
building owned by the Society at Kuzhalmannam (Alathur Taluk) from the
inception itself. It was also mentioned that the NCTE - SRC peer team had
inspected the institution at Kuzhalmannam in the year 2006 and recognition
was granted to commence the Institution in the building and campus where
it is now functioning. It was also mentioned that a reply to the show cause
notice had been issued and the documents which had to be submitted had
been uploaded.
11. Immediately thereafter, Ext.P9 final order dated 23.12.2020 was
issued withdrawing the recognition granted to the 1st petitioner for
conducting B.Ed Course with effect from the next academic session invoking
clause 17(1) of the NCTE Act, 1993.
12. The petitioners contend that in view of the extreme step of
withdrawal initiated by the NCTE, the petitioners submitted Ext.P10
application seeking for shifting of the premises and also appended all the
records which were called for by the NCTE. The shifting fee of Rs.1.5 lakhs
was also forwarded. It was followed up with Ext.P11 appeal reiterating that
all the defects pointed out have been cleared and sought for reconsidering
the decision of withdrawal of recognition. Their appeal was however
dismissed by Ext.P1 order.
13. The petitioner contends that in Ext.P1 order, the only reason
stated is that the recognition for conducting B.Ed Course was granted to the
Institution in the year 2006 after an inspection in a leased premise, subject
to the condition that the institution shall shift to its own premises within a
period of 3 years. The NCTE has now taken the view that the management
has not shifted its institution to its own permanent building which is in
violation of the NCTE Regulations, 2002.
14. The petitioners contend that Exts.P1 and P9 orders issued by
the respondents withdrawing the recognition of the petitioners' college
merely on technicalities and after the petitioners had already complied with
all the requirements pointed out in the show cause notice cannot be
sustained. It is submitted that the NCTE was aware that the affiliation was
granted by the University to conduct the institution from the permanent
building. The withdrawal of the recognition after about 15 years from the
date of grant of recognition for the reasons stated in Ext.P1 order cannot be
justified is the contention. It is further submitted that the directions in Ext.P7
were all met and the petitioners had also remitted a sum of Rs.1.5 lakhs for
the purpose of granting permission to conduct the Institution from the
permanent building. It is on these contentions that this writ petition is filed
seeking the following reliefs:
1. To issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ ,
order or direction quashing Exhibit P1 and Exhibit P9 .
2. To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ,
order or direction commanding the 1st respondent to
extend the recognition to the Petitioner Institute in view of
the compliance of all the requirements including the
prescribed application with fees for shifting of the building
as expeditiously as possible.
3. To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ,
order or direction commanding the 2nd respondent to
conduct Inspection in terms of the NCTE Regulations at
their Kuzhalmannam campus as expeditiously as possible.
4. To grant such other reliefs as this Court may deem fit to
grant ; and
5. To award cost of this writ petition.
15. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have filed a counter contending that
recognition was granted to the 1st petitioner institution for conducting B.Ed
course of one year duration from the academic session 2006-2007 onwards.
The intake was to be of 100 students and it was subject to the conditions
mentioned in Ext.P1. Later, the University granted provisional affiliation for
the academic year 2007-2008 with an intake of 100 students. While so, on
20.03.2015, the Institution filed Ext.R2(B) affidavit consenting to come
under the Regulations, 2014 and sought for two basic units in B.Ed. which
required additional facilities. The 2nd respondent, after the coming into
force of the 2014 regulations, issued revised recognition as per Ext.P4 order
dated 15.05.2015 for conducting B.Ed course of two years duration with an
annual intake of 100 students by way of two basic units of 50 students each.
It was also specifically mentioned that the revised recognition was for Indu
Memorial Teacher Training Centre, Nemmeni. The SRC in its 369th meeting
held on 28.01.2019 took a decision to ascertain as to whether the 1st
petitioner Institution had complied with the conditions mentioned in the
revised recognition order. It was in the said circumstances that Ext.P5 show
cause notice dated 17.07.2019 was issued to the petitioners. It is
contended that the response of the petitioners to Ext.P5 notice was vague
and scant.
16. The petitioners took a stand in Ext.P6 reply notice that they had
not submitted an affidavit nor had they applied for two units of 50 students
each. This is clearly contrary to Ext.R2(b) affidavit submitted by the
petitioners. It is in the above circumstances that Ext.P7 final show cause
notice was issued. It is contended that it is clearly evident on a reading of
Exts.P2, P3 and R2(A) that provisional affiliation was granted by the 3rd
respondent for B.Ed course in six optional subjects during the academic year
2007-2008 with an intake of 100 students at Kuzhalmannam. In response to
Ext.P7 final show-cause notice, the 1st petitioner submitted Ext.P8 letter
reiterating that the NCTE - SRC team had inspected the College while it was
functioning at Kuzhalmannam, which assertion is clearly false and contrary
to what is stated in Ext.P2 and Annexure-R2(A). As the explanation offered
was thoroughly dissatisfactory and the deficiencies pointed out were not
cleared, the recognition granted was withdrawn. According to respondents 1
and 2, the 1st petitioner Institution contravened the provisions of the NCTE
Act, 1993 and the Rules framed thereunder. Though enough opportunities
were granted, the petitioners have not cleared the deficiencies pointed out.
No formal application was filed for shifting the institution prior to Ext.P9
withdrawal order. The petitioners had even failed to produce the approved
faculty list. The failure to properly respond to the first and final show-cause
notices is by itself a sufficient enough reason to order withdrawal of
recognition is the contention.
17. A statement has been filed by the 3rd respondent wherein it is
stated that the provisional affiliation for starting B.Ed course was granted
during the academic year 2007-2008 by the University on 16.11.2007. The
affiliation was granted based on recognition granted by the NCTE. On
19.01.2006, a letter was issued by the NCTE informing the University that
for renewal of affiliation for subsequent years no specific order of the NCTE
is necessary unless the recognition already granted is withdrawn. It is
further stated that several complaints were received from the students
alleging that the Institution lacks infrastructural facilities for conducting the
course and the complaint was enquired into by the District Level Inspection
Committee. The 1st petitioner was asked to rectify the defects and
strengthen the infrastructural facilities. Later, the Principal of the College
submitted an affidavit undertaking that the infrastructural and institutional
facilities have been provided with. It is further contended that on
23.12.2020, an order was issued by the NCTE withdrawing the recognition
granted to the College for conducting B.Ed course from the next academic
year for various reasons. On withdrawal of the recognition by the NCTE, the
College was issued with a letter and they were informed that unless
recognition is obtained, they will not be included in the common admission
process for the next academic year. It is contended that the College is duty-
bound to maintain the standards, both infrastructural and institutional, for
the conduct of B.Ed Course.
18. I have heard Sri. V Sajith Kumar, the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner, Dr. Abraham Meachinkara, the learned counsel appearing
for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri P.C. Sasidharan, the learned
counsel appearing for the University.
19. It was with a view to achieve the object of planned and
coordinated development of the teacher education system throughout the
country and for regulation and proper maintenance of norms and standards
in the teacher education system and for matters connected therewith, that
the Parliament had enacted the 1993 Act. The 1993 Act provides for the
establishment of a Council to be called the National Council for Teacher
Education with multifarious functions, powers and duties.
20. Section 2(c) of the Act defines the term "Council" to mean a
Council established under sub-section (1) of Section 3. Section 2(i) defines
the term "recognised institution" to mean an institution recognised under
Section 14. Section 2(j) defines the term "Regional Committee" to mean a
committee established under Section 20.
21. Section 12 of the Act enumerates the functions of the Council
and the same reads as follows:
"12. Functions of the Council .--It shall be the duty of the Council to take all
such steps as it may think fit for ensuring planned and coordinated
development of teacher education and for the determination and
maintenance of standards for teacher education and for the purposes of
performing its functions under this Act, the Council may--
(a) undertake surveys and studies relating to various aspects of teacher
education and publish the result thereof;
(b) make recommendations to the Central and State Governments, Universities,
University Grants Commission and recognised institutions in the matter
of preparation of suitable plans and programmes in the field of teacher
education;
(c) coordinate and monitor teacher education and its development in the
country;
(d) lay down guidelines in respect of minimum qualifications for a person to be
employed as a teacher in recognised institutions;
(e) lay down norms for any specified category of courses or trainings in teacher
education, including the minimum eligibility criteria for admission
thereof, and the method of selection of candidates, duration of the
course, course contents and mode of curriculum;
(f) lay down guidelines for compliance by recognised institutions, for starting
new courses or training, and for providing physical and instructional
facilities, staffing pattern and staff qualifications;
(g) lay down standards in respect of examinations leading to teacher education
qualifications, criteria for admission to such examinations and schemes
of courses or training;
(h) lay down guidelines regarding tuition fees and other fees chargeable by
recognised institutions;
(i) promote and conduct innovation and research in various areas of teacher
education and disseminate the results thereof;
(j) examine and review periodically the implementation of the norms, guidelines
and standards laid down by the Council, and to suitably advise the
recognised institutions;
(k) evolve suitable performance appraisal system, norms and mechanisms for
enforcing accountability on recognised institutions;
(l) formulate schemes for various levels of teacher education and identify
recognised institutions and set up new institutions for teacher
development programmes;
(m) take all necessary steps to prevent commercialisation of teacher education;
and
(n) perform such other functions as may be entrusted to it by the Central
Government.
22. Section 13 provides for the procedure for inspection of a
recognised institution for the purpose of ascertaining whether the same is
functioning in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The said provision
reads as follows :-
13. Inspection.--(1) For the purposes of ascertaining whether the
recognised institutions are functioning in accordance with the
provisions of this Act, the Council may cause inspection of any such
institution, to be made by such persons as it may direct, and in such
manner as may be prescribed.
(2) The Council shall communicate to the institution the date on
which inspection under sub-section (1) is to be made and the
institution shall be entitled to be associated with the inspection in
such manner as may be prescribed.
(3) The Council shall communicate to the said institution, its views in
regard to the results of any such inspection and may, after
ascertaining the opinion of that institution, recommend to that
institution the action to be taken as a result of such inspection.
(4) All communications to the institution under this section shall be
made to the executive authority thereof, and the executive authority
of the institution shall report to the Council the action, if any, which
is proposed to be taken for the purposes of implementing any such
recommendation as is referred to in sub-section (3)."
23. Section 14 insists that every institution which is offering or is
intending to offer a course of training should secure recognition under the
Act for which purpose they are to apply to the Regional Committee. The
procedure is prescribed under Section 14 of the Act.
14. Recognition of institutions offering course of training in teacher
education.--(1) Every institution offering or intending to offer a course
or training in teacher education on or after the appointed day, may, for
grant of recognition under this Act, make an application to the Regional
Committee concerned in such form and in such manner as may be
determined by regulations:
Provided that an institution offering a course or training in
teacher education immediately before the appointed day, shall be
entitled to continue such course or training for a period of six
months, if it has made an application for recognition within the
said period and until the disposal of the application by the
Regional Committee.
(2) The fee to be paid along with the application under sub-section (1) shall be
such as may be prescribed.
(3) On receipt of an application by the Regional Committee from any institution
under sub-section (1), and after obtaining from the institution concerned
such other particulars as it may consider necessary, it shall--
(a) if it is satisfied that such institution has adequate financial
resources, accommodation, library, qualified staff, laboratory and
that it fulfils such other conditions required for proper functioning
of the institution for a course or training in teacher education, as
may be determined by regulations, pass an order granting
recognition to such institution, subject to such conditions as may
be determined by regulations; or
(b) if it is of the opinion that such institution does not fulfil the
requirements laid down in sub-clause (a), pass an order refusing
recognition to such institution for reasons to be recorded in
writing:
Provided that before passing an order under sub-clause ( b), the
Regional Committee shall provide a reasonable opportunity to the
concerned institution for making a written representation.
(4) Every order granting or refusing recognition to an institution for a course or
training in teacher education under sub-section (3) shall be published in
the Official Gazette and communicated in writing for appropriate action
to such institution and to the concerned examining body, the local
authority or the State Government and the Central Government.
(5) Every institution, in respect of which recognition has been refused shall
discontinue the course or training in teacher education from the end of
the academic session next following the date of receipt of the order
refusing recognition passed under clause (b) of sub-section (3).
(6) Every examining body shall, on receipt of the order under sub-section (4)--
(a) grant affiliation to the institution, where recognition has been
granted; or
(b) cancel the affiliation of the institution, where recognition has
been refused.
24. Section 16 of the Act provides that the examining body shall not
grant affiliation or hold the examination, whether provisional or otherwise,
unless the institution concerned has obtained recognition from the Regional
Committee. Section 16 reads as follows:-
16. Affiliating body to grant affiliation after recognition or permission
by the Council.--Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law
for the time being in force, no examining body shall, on or after the
appointed day--
(a) grant affiliation, whether provisional or otherwise, to any
institution; or
(b) hold examination, whether provisional or otherwise, for a
course or training conducted by a recognised institution,
unless the institution concerned has obtained recognition from
the Regional Committee concerned, under Section 14 or
permission for a course or training under Section 15.
25. Section 17 of the Act deals with the procedure to be followed if
the recognised institution contravenes any of the provisions of the Act, the
Rules, the regulations and orders issued by the Regional Committee. Section
17 reads thus:
17. Contravention of provisions of the Act and consequences thereof .--
(1) Where the Regional Committee is, on its own motion or on any
representation received from any person, satisfied that a recognised
institution has contravened any of the provisions of this Act, or the rules,
regulations, orders made or issued thereunder, or any condition subject
to which recognition under sub-section (3) of Section 14 or permission
under sub-section (3) of Section 15 was granted, it may withdraw
recognition of such recognised institution, for reasons to be recorded in
writing:
Provided that no such order against the recognised institution
shall be passed unless a reasonable opportunity of making
representation against the proposed order has been given to such
recognised institution:
Provided further that the order withdrawing or refusing
recognition passed by the Regional Committee shall come into
force only with effect from the end of the academic session next
following the date of communication of such order.
(2) A copy of every order passed by the Regional Committee under sub-section
(1)--
(a) shall be communicated to the recognised institution
concerned and a copy thereof shall also be forwarded
simultaneously to the University or the examining body to which
such institution was affiliated for cancelling affiliation; and
(b) shall be published in the Official Gazette for general
information.
(3) Once the recognition of a recognised institution is withdrawn under sub-
section (1), such institution shall discontinue the course or training in
teacher education, and the concerned University or the examining body
shall cancel affiliation of the institution in accordance with the order
passed under sub-section (1), with effect from the end of the academic
session next following the date of communication of the said order.
(4) If an institution offers any course or training in teacher education after the
coming into force of the order withdrawing recognition under sub-section
(1), or where an institution offering a course or training in teacher
education immediately before the appointed day fails or neglects to
obtain recognition or permission under this Act, the qualification in
teacher education obtained pursuant to such course or training or after
undertaking a course or training in such institution, shall not be treated
as a valid qualification for purposes of employment under the Central
Government, any State Government or University, or in any school,
college or other educational body aided by the Central Government or
any State Government.
17-A. No admission without recognition .--No institution shall admit any student
to a course or training in teacher education, unless the institution
concerned has obtained recognition under Section 14 or permission
under Section 15, as the case may be.
26. A close analysis of the provisions of Section 17 would show that
where the Regional Committee, on its own motion or on any representation
received from any person, is satisfied that a recognised institution has
contravened any of the provisions of the Act or the rules, regulations, orders
made or issued thereunder, or any condition subject to which recognition
under sub-section (3) of Section 14 or permission under sub-section (3) of
Section 15 was granted, it may withdraw recognition of such recognised
institution, for reasons to be recorded in writing. As per the first proviso to
sub-section (1), no such order against the recognised institution shall be
passed unless a reasonable opportunity of making representation against the
proposed order has been given to such recognised institution. As per the
second proviso to sub-section (1), the order withdrawing or refusing
recognition passed by the Regional Committee shall come into force only with
effect from the end of the academic session next following the date of
communication of such order. In view of the provisions under sub-section (3)
of Section 17, once the recognition of a recognised institution is withdrawn
under sub-section (1), such institution shall discontinue the course or training
in teacher education, and the concerned University or the examining body
shall cancel affiliation of the institution in accordance with the order passed
under sub-section (1), with effect from the end of the academic session next
following the date of communication of the said order.
27. It is in exercise of the power vested in it under Section 32 that
the National Council for Teacher Education has, from time to time, framed
the regulations. Initially, NCTE framed "the National Council for Teacher
Education (Application for Recognition, the Manner for Submission,
Determination of Conditions for Recognition of Institutions and Permissions to
Start New Course or Training) Regulations, 1995". In 2002, the NCTE framed
"the National Council for Teacher Education (Form of Application for
Recognition, the Time-Limit of Submission of Application, Determination of
Norms and Standards for Recognition of Teacher Education Programmes and
Permission to Start New Course or Training) Regulations, 2002". Between
2003 and 2005, six amendments were made in the 2002 Regulations, which
were finally repealed with the enactment of "the National Council for Teacher
Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2005 (for short
"the 2005 Regulations"). Finally, by notification dated 28.11.2014, in
exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 32 of the
National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993, (73 of 1993) and in
supersession of the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition
Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2009, the National Council for Teacher
Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2014 was was
brought into force. Regulations 7 and 8 are of some relevance.
7. Processing of applications.- (1) In case an application is not
complete, or requisite documents are not attached with the
application, the application shall be treated : incomplete and
rejected, and application fees paid shall be forfeited.
(2) The application shall be summarily rejected under one or more of the
following circumstances-
(a) failure to furnish the application fee, as prescribed under rule
9 of the National Council for Teacher Education Rules, 1997 on
or before the date of submission of online application;
(b) failure to submit print out of the applications made online
along with the land documents as required under sub-regulation
(4) of Regulation 5 within fifteen days of the submission of the
online application.
(3) Furnishing any false information or concealment of facts in the
application, which may have bearing on the decision making
process or the decision pertaining grant of recognition, shall result
in refusal of recognition of the institution besides other legal action
against its management. The order of refusal of recognition shall be
passed after giving reasonable opportunity through a show cause
notice to the institution.
(4) a written communication alongwith a copy of the application form
submitted by the institution shall be sent by the office of Regional
Committee to the State Government or the Union territory
administration and the affiliating body concerned within thirty days
from the receipt of application, in chronological order of the receipt
of the original application in the Regional Committee.
(5) On receipt of the communication, the State Government or the Union
Territory administration concerned shall furnish its
recommendations or comments to the Regional Committee
concerned within forty five days from the date of issue of the letter
to the State Government or Union Territory, as the case may be. In
case, the State Government or Union Territory Administration is not
in favour of recognition, it shall provide detailed reasons or grounds
thereof with necessary statistics, which shall be taken into
consideration by the Regional Committee concerned while disposing
of the application.
(6) If the recommendation of the State Government is not received within
aforesaid period, the Regional Committee concerned shall send a
reminder to the State Government providing further time of thirty
days to furnish their comments on the proposal. In case no reply is
received, a second reminder shall be given for furnishing
recommendation within fifteen days from the issue of such second
reminder. In case no reply is received from the State Government
within aforesaid period the Regional Committee shall process and
decide the case on merits and placing the application before the
Regional Committee shall not be deferred on account of non-receipt
of comments or recommendation of the State Government.
(7) After consideration of the recommendation of the State Government or
on its own merits, the Regional Committee concerned shall decide
that institution shall be inspected by a team of experts called
visiting team with a view to assess the level of preparedness of the
institution to commence the course. In case of open and distance
learning programmes, sampled study centres shall be inspected.
Inspection shall not be subject to the consent of the institution,
rather the decision of the Regional Committee to cause the
inspection shall be communicated to the institution with the
direction that the inspection shall be caused on any day after ten
days from the date of communication by the Regional Office. The
Regional Committee shall ensure that inspection is conducted
ordinarily within thirty days from the date of its communication to
the institution. The institution shall be required to provide details
about the infrastructure and other preparedness on the specified
proforma available on the website of the Council to the visiting
team at the time of inspection along with building completion
certificate issued by the competent civil authority, if not submitted
earlier :
Provided that the Regional Committee shall organise such
inspections strictly in chronological order of the receipt of
application for the cases to be approved by it :
Provided further that the members of the visiting team for
inspection shall be decided by the Regional Committee out of
the panel of experts approved by the Council and in accordance
with the visiting team policy of the Council.
(8) At the time of the visit of the team of experts to an institution, the
inspection concerned shall arrange for the inspection to be
videographed in a manner that all important infrastructural and
instructional facilities are videographed along with interaction with
the management and the faculty, if available at the time of such
visit. The visiting teams, as far as possible, shall finalise and courier
their report along with the video recordings on the same day :
Provide that the videography should clearly establish the outer
view of the building, its surroundings, access road and important
infrastructure including classrooms, labs, resource rooms,
multipurpose hall, library and others. The visiting team shall
ensure that the videography is done in a continuous manner, the
final unedited copy of the videography is handed over to them
immediately after its recording and its conversion to a CD should
be done in the presence of visiting team members :
Provided further that at the time of inspection for new courses
or enhancement of intake of the existing course, the visiting
team shall verify the facilities for existing recognized teacher
education courses and ascertain the fulfillment and maintenance
of regulations and norms and standards for the existing courses
as well.
(9) The application and the report along with the video recordings or CDs
of the visiting team shall be placed before the Regional Committee
concerned for consideration and appropriate decision.
(10) The Regional Committee shall decide grant of recognition or
permission to an institution only after satisfying itself that the
institution fulfills all the conditions prescribed by the National
Council under the Act, rules or regulations, including, the norms
and standards laid down for the relevant teacher education
programmes.
(11) In the matter of grant of recognition, the Regional Committee shall
strictly act within the ambit of the Act, the regulations made
thereunder including the norms and standards for various teacher
education programmes, and shall not make any relaxation thereto.
(12) The Regional Director, who is the convener of the Regional
Committee, while putting up the proposals to the Regional
Committee, shall ensure that the correct provisions in the Act, rules
or regulations including norms and standards for various teacher
education programmes are brought to the notice of the Regional
Committee so as to enable the Committee to take appropriate
decisions.
(13) The institution concerned shall be informed, through a letter of
intent, regarding the decision for grant of recognition or permission
subject to appointment of qualified faculty members before the
commencement of the academic session. The letter of intent issued
under this clause shall not be notified in the Gazette but would be
sent to the institution and the affiliating body with the request that
the process of appointment of qualified staff as per policy of State
Government or University Grants Commission or University may be
initiated and the institution be provided all assistance to ensure
that the staff or faculty is appointed as per the norms of the
Council within two months. The institution shall submit the list of
the faculty, as approved by the affiliating body, to the Regional
Committee.
(14) (i) All the applicant institutions shall launch their own website with
hyperlink to the Council and corresponding Regional Office
websites soon after the receipt of the letter of intent from the
Regional Committee, covering, inter alia, the details of the
institution, its location, name of the programme applied for with
intake; availability of physical infrastructure, such as land, building,
office, classrooms, and other facilities or amenities; instructional
facilities, such as laboratory and library and the particulars of their
proposed teaching faculty and nonteaching staff with photographs,
for information of all concerned. The information with regard to the
following shall also be made available on the website, namely:-
(a) sanctioned programmes along with annual intake in the institution;
(b) name of faculty and staff in full as mentioned in school certificate
along with their qualifications, scale of pay and photograph;
(c) name of faculty members who left or joined during the last
quarter;
(d) names of students admitted during the current session along with
qualification, percentage of marks in the qualifying examination
and in the entrance test, if any, date of admission and such
other information;
(e) fee charged from students;
(f) available infrastructural facilities;
(g) facilities added during the last quarter;
(h) number of books in the library, refereed journals subscribed to,
and additions, if any, in the last quarter.
(ii) The institution shall be free to post additional relevant information, if it
so desires.
(iii) Any false or incomplete information on its website shall render the
institution liable for withdrawal of recognition.
(15) The institution concerned, after appointing the requisite faculty or
staff as per the provisions of norms and standard of respective
programmes, and after fulfilling the conditions under regulation 8,
shall formally inform about such appointments to the Regional
Committee concerned.
(16) The letter granting approval for the selection or appointment of
faculty shall also be provided by the institution to the Regional
Committee with the document establishing that the Fixed Deposit
Receipts of Endowment Fund and Reserve Fund have been
converted into a joint account and after receipt of the said details,
the Regional Committee concerned shall be notified as provided
under the Act.
(17) In cases, where the Regional Committee, after consideration of the
report of the visiting team and other facts on record, is of the
opinion that the institution does not fulfill the requirements for
starting or conducting the course or for enhancement of intake,
after giving an opportunity of being heard to the institution pass an
order refusing to allow any further opportunity for removal of
deficiencies or inspection for reasons to be recorded in writing:
providing that against the order passed by the Regional Committee,
an appeal to the Council may be preferred as provided under
section 18 of the Act.
(18) The reports of inspection of the institutions along with the names of
the visiting team experts shall be made available on the official
website of the Regional Committee concerned after the same have
been considered by the Regional Committee.
(19) The Regional Committee shall process the application for closure in
the manner prescribed for the processing of applications for new
programmes or additional programmes or additional intake.
8. Conditions for grant of recognition .--(1) New Teacher Education
Institutions shall be located in composite institutions and the existing
teacher education institutions shall continue to function as stand-alone
institutions; and gradually move towards becoming composite
institutions.
(2) An institution shall fulfill all the conditions pertaining to norms and
standards for conducting the programme or training in teacher
education. These norms, inter alia, provide conditions relating to
financial resources, accommodation, library, laboratory, other
physical infrastructure, qualified staff including teaching and non-
teaching personnel.
(3) An institution which has been recognised by the Council shall obtain
accreditation from an accrediting agency approved by Council within
five years of such recognition.
(4) (i) No institution shall be granted recognition under these regulations
unless the institution or society sponsoring the institution is in
possession of required land on the date of application. The land
free from all encumbrances could be either on ownership basis or
on lease from Government or Government Institutions for a period
of not less than 30 years. In cases where under relevant State or
Union territory laws the maximum permissible lease period is less
than thirty years, the State Government or Union territory
administration law shall prevail and in any case no building shall be
taken on lease for running any teacher training programme.
(ii) The society sponsoring the institution shall have to ensure
that proposed teacher education institution has a well
demarcated land area as specified by the norms.
(iii) The society sponsoring the institution shall be required to
transfer and vest the title of the land and building in the name of
the institution within a period of six months from the date of
issue of formal recognition order under sub-regulation (16) of
regulation 7. However, in case, the society fails to do so due to
local laws or rules or bye-laws, it shall intimate in writing with
documentary evidence of its inability to do so. The Regional
Office shall keep this information on record and place it before
the Regional Committee for its approval.
(5) The institution or society shall furnish an affidavit on Rs.100 stamp
paper duly attested, by Oath Commissioner or Notary Public stating
the precise location of the land (Khasra number, village, district,
state, etc.), the total area in possession and the permission of the
competent authority to use the land for educational purposes and
mode of possession, i.e., ownership or lease. In case of
Government institutions, the said affidavit shall be furnished by the
Principal or the Head of the Institutions or any other higher
authority. The affidavit shall be accompanied with the certified copy
of land ownership or lease documents issued by the registering
authority or civil authority, permission of the competent authority to
use the land for educational purposes (and approved building plan
as per provision contained in sub-regulation (4) of the Regulation 5.
(6) The copy of the affidavit shall be displayed by the institution on its
official website. In case, the contents of the affidavit are found to
be incorrect or false, the society or trust or the institution concerned
shall be liable for withdrawal of recognition by the Regional
Committee concerned.
(7) At the time of inspection, the building of the institution shall be
complete in the form of a permanent structure on the land
possessed by the institution, equipped with all necessary amenities
and fulfilling all such requirements as prescribed in the norms and
standards. The applicant institution shall produce the original
completion certificate issued by the competent Authority, approved
building plan in proof of the completion of building and built up area
and other documents to the visiting team for verification. No
temporary structure or asbestos roofing shall be allowed in the
institution, even if it is in addition to the prescribed built up area.
(8) At the time of inspection for new programme or enhancement of
intake, visiting team shall also verify the facilities for existing
teacher education programmes already accorded recognition by the
Council and ascertain the fulfilment and maintenance of regulations
and norms and standards for the existing programmes as well.
(9) In case of change of premises, prior approval of the Regional
Committee concerned shall be necessary, which may be accorded
after due inspection of the institution at the new site. Application for
change of premises, in the specified format alongwith the
processing fee and other relevant documents shall be submitted by
the institution online to the Regional Officer for prior approval of
change of premises. The change may be permitted to a site which,
if applied initially, would have qualified for establishment of an
institution as per specified norms of Council. The change shall be
displayed on website thereafter.
(10) The University or examining body shall grant affiliation only after
issue of the formal recognition order under sub regulation (16) of
regulation 7 and admissions by the institution shall be made only
after affiliation by the University or affiliating body.
(11) Whenever there are changes in the norms and standards for a
programme in teacher education, the institution shall comply with
the requirements laid down in the revised norms and standards
immediately. However, the revised land area related norms shall
not be applicable to the existing institutions, but the required built
up area shall have to be increased by existing institutions to
conform to the revised norms and the institutions not having land
area as per the revised norms, shall not be allowed to expand by
way of additional programmes or additional intake.
(12) The institution shall make the information or documents available to
the Council or its authorised representatives as and when required
by them and failure to produce or show any of the required
documents, shall be treated as a breach of the conditions of
recognition.
(13) The institution shall maintain records, registers or other documents,
which are essential for running an educational institution especially
those prescribed under the relevant rules or regulation and norms
and standards and guidelines or instructions of the Central or State
or Union territory administrations, affiliating or examining bodies.
(14) The institution shall adhere to the mandatory disclosure in the
prescribed format and display up-to-date information on its
official website.
28. The 2nd proviso to Regulation 7 sub-clause (8) says that at the
time of inspection for new courses or enhancement of intake of the existing
course, the visiting team shall verify the facilities for existing recognized
teacher education courses and ascertain the fulfilment and maintenance of
regulations and norms and standards for the existing courses as well.
subclause (17) says that in cases, where the Regional Committee, after
consideration of the report of the visiting team and other facts on record, is
of the opinion that the institution does not fulfil the requirements for starting
or conducting the course or for enhancement of intake, after giving an
opportunity of being heard to the institution, pass an order refusing to allow
any further opportunity for removal of deficiencies or inspection for reasons
to be recorded in writing. As per sub-clause (18), the reports of inspection
of the institutions along with the names of the visiting team experts is
required to be made available on the official website of the Regional
Committee concerned after the same has been considered by the Regional
Committee. The Regulations further says that at the time of inspection, the
building of the institution shall be complete in the form of a permanent
structure on the land possessed by the institution, equipped with all
necessary amenities and fulfilling all such requirements as prescribed in the
norms and standards. The relevant land records are also to be produced
before the visiting team for verification. Regulation 8 deals with conditions
for grant of recognition and sub-clause (8) states that at the time of
inspection for new programme or enhancement of intake, visiting team shall
also verify the facilities for existing teacher education programmes already
accorded recognition by the Council and ascertain the fulfilment and
maintenance of regulations and norms and standards for the existing
programmes as well. In case of change of premises, prior approval of the
Regional Committee concerned is necessary and the same can be accorded
after due inspection of the institution at the new site. Application for change
of premises, in the specified format alongwith the processing fee and other
relevant documents is required to be submitted by the institution online to
the Regional Officer for prior approval of change of premises. The change
may be permitted to a site which, if applied initially, would have qualified for
establishment of an institution as per specified norms of Council.
29. In National Council for Teacher Education and Ors. v.
Vaishnav Institute of Technology and Management [(2012) 5 SCC
139] the question before the Apex Court was whether the inspection under
Section 13 of the NCTE Act, 1993 and giving of opportunity of corrective
measures contemplated therein is mandatory prior to taking of drastic action
of withdrawal of recognition under Section 17 of the Act. The Madhya
Pradesh High Court took the view that Section 17 action could not be taken
without following the section 13 procedure. The Delhi High Court took the
view that section 13 procedure is not imperative for following the procedure
under Section 17. The Apex Court went on to hold that once recognition has
been granted by the Regional Committee to an institution, NCTE has to
ensure that such recognised institution functions in accordance with the
1993 Act. It was further held that since derecognition or withdrawal of
recognition is a drastic measure, Section 17 and 13 must be harmoniously
construed. If satisfaction under Section 17 can be arrived at without
inspection of a recognised institution, the Regional Committee is not
required to follow the route of section 13. However, where the Regional
Committee forms an opinion that for its proper satisfaction as to whether a
recognised institution has contravened the provisions of the 1993 Act or the
Rules or the Regulations or the Orders made or issued thereunder or the
conditions of recognition, an inspection is necessary, then necessarily the
inspection and follow up action under Section 13 has to be followed.
Paragraph 18 to 31 are extremely illuminative, which reads as follows:
18. From the survey of the above provisions, it would be seen that the
Council has been established for ensuring planned and coordinated
development for the teacher education; for proper maintenance of
norms and standards for teacher education and for discharge of
diverse functions assigned to it in the 1993 Act. The Regional
Committees are empowered to discharge their functions as statutorily
provided in Sections 14, 15 and 17 and also such other functions which
may be assigned to them by the Council or which may be provided in
the Regulations.
19. For grant of recognition to an institution, the Regional Committee,
on receipt of the application as prescribed, has to consider diverse
aspects, particularly it has to be satisfied that such institution has
adequate financial resources, accommodation, library, qualified staff,
laboratory and that the applicant institution fulfils other conditions
necessary for proper functioning for a course or training in teacher
education. It is only after the Regional Committee issues recognition to
an institution and that is notified in the Official Gazette, the examining
body grants affiliation to such institution.
20. Under Section 15, the Regional Committee is empowered to grant
permission for a new course or training to an institution which has
already been granted recognition.
21. Section 17 empowers the Regional Committee to take action
against recognised institution where it receives a representation from
any person or it is suo motu satisfied that a recognised institution has
contravened any of the provisions of the 1993 Act or the 1997 Rules,
Regulations, orders made or issued thereunder, etc. or the recognised
institution has contravened the conditions of recognition.
22. Once recognition has been granted by the Regional Committee to
an institution, the Council has to ensure that such recognised
institution functions in accordance with the 1993 Act. To achieve that
objective, the Council has to get inspection of recognised institution
done periodically and, if such institution is found wanting in its
functioning as required, then recommend to the institution the
remedial action to be taken by it as a result of the inspection.
23. In view of the above statutory scheme, it is hard to appreciate the
litigious approach of the Council and the present controversy. If the
Council feels that its function of inspection under Section 13 may be
performed by the Regional Committees, it can so provide by invoking
Section 20(6) or Section 27, as the case may be.
24. What is clear from the provisions of the 1993 Act is that post-
recognition, an institution acquires a different position. On recognition
by the Regional Committee under Section 14 and on affiliation being
granted by the examining body, once the recognised institution starts
functioning, the interest of teachers, employees and the students
intervene. In order to ensure that the recognised institutions function
in accordance with the 1993 Act, the 1997 Rules, Regulations and the
conditions of recognition and, at the same time, the functioning of
such recognised institutions is not disturbed unnecessarily, the
provision for inspection and follow-up action pursuant thereto has been
made in Section 13.
25. By Section 13, as a matter of law, it is intended that the Council
ascertains whether the recognised institutions are functioning in
accordance with the provisions of the 1993 Act or not. For that
purpose, it empowers the Council to cause inspection of any such
institution to be made by such persons as it may direct, and in such
manner as may be prescribed. The Council may authorise the Regional
Committee to carry out its function of inspection. But such inspection
has to be made as prescribed in Rule 8 to find out whether such
recognised institution is or is not functioning in accordance with the
provisions of the 1993 Act.
26. In the 1997 Rules framed by the Central Government, Rule 8 deals
with the inspection and sub-rule (6) provides that the inspection team
shall ascertain as to whether the recognised institution is functioning in
accordance with the provisions of the 1993 Act and the Rules and
Regulations made thereunder.
27. On the inspection being completed as provided in sub-sections (1)
and (2) of Section 13 of the 1993 Act read with Rule 8 of the 1997
Rules, the Council is required to communicate to the institution
concerned its views with regard to the outcome of the inspection and,
if deficiencies are found, to recommend to such institution to make up
the deficiencies. The whole idea is that the Council as a parent body
keeps an eye over the recognised institutions that they function in
accordance with the 1993 Act and the Rules and the Regulations and
Orders made or issued thereunder and, if any recognised institution is
found wanting in its functioning, it is given an opportunity to rectify the
deficiencies.
28. Derecognition or withdrawal of recognition of a recognised
institution is a drastic measure. It results in dislocating the students,
teachers and the staff. That is why, the Council has been empowered
under Section 13 to have a constant vigil on the functioning of a
recognised institution. On the recommendation of the Council after
inspection, if a recognised institution does not rectify the deficiencies
and continues to function in contravention of the provisions of the
1993 Act or the Rules or the Regulations, the Regional Committee
under Section 17 has full power to proceed for withdrawal of
recognition in accordance with the procedure prescribed therein.
29. Sections 17 and 13 must be harmoniously construed. In exercise of
its powers under Section 17, the Regional Committee may feel that
inspection of a recognised institution is necessary before it can arrive
at the satisfaction as to whether such a recognised institution has
contravened any of the provisions of the 1993 Act or the Rules or the
Regulations or the Orders made thereunder or breached the terms of
the recognition. In that event, the route of inspection as provided
under Section 13 has to be followed. If the Regional Committee has
been authorised by the Council to perform its function of inspection,
the Regional Committee may cause the inspection of recognised
institution to be made as provided in Section 13 and prescribed in Rule
8. Where, however, the Regional Committee feels that the inspection
of a recognised institution is not necessary for the proposed action
under Section 17, obviously it can proceed in accordance with the law
without following the route of inspection as provided under Section 13.
30. Mr Amitesh Kumar, learned counsel for NCTE, submitted that for
an action under Section 17, inspection of the recognised institutions
would be necessary in most of the situations and, if the route of
inspection under Section 13 was followed, it would result in delay and
might affect right of appeal given to an aggrieved institution under
Section 18 against the order of the Regional Committee passed under
Section 17. The submission does not appeal to us.
31. It is hard to accept that unnecessary delay would occasion if
inspection of a recognised institution is carried out in terms of Section
13 and as prescribed by Rule 8. Rather the inspection in that manner
would bring objectivity and fairness. The guidelines for expeditious
completion of such inspection can always be framed by the Council.
The efficacy of right of appeal under Section 18 is not at all affected if
the inspection of a recognised institution is done in the manner
indicated above.
32. In view of the above, the view of the Delhi High Court does not
commend us and we set aside the judgment [ Saheed Capt. D.K.
Khosla College of Education v. National Council for Teacher Education ,
(2011) 180 DLT 656] of the Delhi High Court. The view of the Madhya
Pradesh High Court to the extent it runs contrary to what we have
noted above does not hold good. In other words, the view of the
Madhya Pradesh High Court that before proceeding under Section 17
of the 1993 Act, the course of inspection provided in Section 13 has to
be necessarily followed in all situations is set aside. If satisfaction
under Section 17 can be arrived at without inspection of a recognition
institution, the Regional Committee is not required to follow the route
of Section 13. However, where the Regional Committee forms an
opinion that for its proper satisfaction as to whether a recognised
institution has contravened the provisions of the 1993 Act or the Rules
or the Regulations or the Orders made or issued thereunder or the
conditions of recognition, an inspection is necessary, then necessarily
the inspection and follow-up action under Section 13 has to be
followed. We answer the question accordingly.
30. As held by the Apex Court, derecognition or withdrawal of
recognition of a recognised institution is a drastic measure as it results in
dislocating the students, teachers and the staff. It is for the said reason that
the Council has been empowered under Section 13 to have a constant vigil
on the functioning of a recognised institution. On the recommendation of the
Council after inspection, if a recognised institution does not rectify the
deficiencies and continues to function in contravention of the provisions of
the 1993 Act or the Rules or the Regulations, the Regional Committee under
Section 17 has full power to proceed for withdrawal of recognition in
accordance with the procedure prescribed therein. For grant of recognition to
an institution, the Regional Committee, on receipt of the application as
prescribed, has to consider diverse aspects, including that the institution has
adequate financial resources, accommodation, library, qualified staff,
laboratory and that the applicant institution fulfils other conditions necessary
for proper functioning for a course or training in teacher education. It is only
after the Regional Committee issues recognition to an institution and that is
notified in the Official Gazette, the examining body grants affiliation to such
institution. On recognition by the Regional Committee under Section 14 and
on affiliation being granted by the examining body, once the recognised
institution starts functioning, the interest of teachers, employees and the
students intervene. Once recognition has been granted by the Regional
Committee to an institution, there cannot be any doubt that the Council has
to ensure that such recognised institution functions in accordance with the
1993 Act. For that purpose, the Council will have to get recognised
institutions inspected periodically and, if such institution is found wanting in
its functioning as required, then recommend to the institution the remedial
action to be taken by it as a result of the inspection.
31. The Apex Court has held in Vaishnav (supra) that Sections 17
and 13 must be harmoniously construed. If in the exercise of its powers
under Section 17, the Regional Committee feels that inspection of a
recognised institution is necessary before it can arrive at the satisfaction as
to whether such a recognised institution has contravened any of the
provisions of the 1993 Act or the Rules or the Regulations or the Orders
made thereunder or breached the terms of the recognition. In that event, the
route of inspection as provided under Section 13 has to be followed. If the
Regional Committee has been authorised by the Council to perform its
function of inspection, the Regional Committee may cause the inspection of
recognised institutions to be made as provided in Section 13 and prescribed
in Rule 8. Where, however, the Regional Committee feels that the inspection
of a recognised institution is not necessary for the proposed action under
Section 17, obviously it can proceed in accordance with the law without
following the route of inspection as provided under Section 13. The Apex
Court has also deprecated the contention that unnecessary delay would be
occasioned if inspection of a recognised institution is carried out in terms of
Section 13 and as prescribed by Rule 8. Rather the inspection in that manner
would bring objectivity and fairness. The Council was ordered to frame
guidelines for expeditious completion of such inspection.
32. In the light of the provisions of the Act and the Rules and
Regulations and taking note of the principles laid down by the Apex Court, I
have carefully gone through the sequence of events. It was on the strength
of Annexure R2(A) order that recognition was granted to the Indu Memorial
Teacher Training Centre, P O Nenmeni, Kollemkode, Palakkad for Secondary
(B.Ed) course of one-year duration from the academic session 2006-2007
with an annual intake of 100 students. It is stated therein that the Institution
has made arrangements for running the institution in rented premises and
they have already acquired land for setting up the teacher education centre.
The examining body has issued Ext.P3 provisional affiliation to Indu Memorial
Teacher Training Centre, Kuzhalmannam, Palakkad for conducting B.Ed
course in six optional subjects in the College for 2007-2008 academic year
with an intake of 100 students. What is immediately discernible is that
recognition was granted for running the institution at Nemmeni and by the
time, provisional affiliation was granted in the next year, the institution had
shifted to Kuzhalmannam. This is where the confusion has arisen. While
the NCTE asserts that the petitioner is still conducting courses in the rented
premises at Nemmeni, the petitioner contends that provisional affiliation was
granted after shifting of the premises to Kuzhalmannam.
33. At this juncture, it would be relevant to note that in the first
show-cause notice dated 17.7.2019, the violations attributed to the petitioner
was the non-production of certain documents such as the certified copies of
land documents, attested/notarized copies of the land dues certificates,
attested/notarized copy of the non-encumbrance certificate,
attested/notarized copy of the building plan, attested/notarized copy of the
site plan/continuity certificate, attested/notarized copy of the building
completion certificate, the staff list duly approved by the Registrar of the
affiliating body and a Form A issued by the bank for a total sum of Rs. 12
lakhs towards Endowment and Reserve Fund. Thereafter, since the
explanation offered by the petitioner was found unsatisfactory, the final show
cause notice under Section 17 was issued on 7.9.2020 wherein in addition to
the matters mentioned in the first show-cause notice, the institution was
asked to explain the reasons for non-compliance of conditions for shifting of
the institution from rented to permanent premises and also to submit a reply
to the show-cause notice. It would be relevant to note that the non-shifting
of the premises comes up only in the second show-cause notice. The
petitioners issued Ext.P8 response contending that they have already
uploaded the records sought. They also stated that they have been running
the B.Ed course in the building owned by the Society at Kuzhalmannam and
they have been functioning in the said location from the inception itself.
Dissatisfied by the response of the petitioners, the final withdrawal order was
issued on 23.12.2020. It is stated as follows in the order.
"......... And whereas the matter was further considered by the SRC in its
392th meeting held on 15 - 16th December, 2020 and the committee decided as
follows:
"1. The institution in its representation dt. 24.09.2020 mentioning that the
college is functioning on the same land and building where the initial
recognition was accorded in 2006. The SRC on perusal of VT report dt.
27.02.2006 that the institution was functioning in Rented Premises which
belies the statement of the institution. The institution had also submitted
a LEASE DEED dt. NIL having stamp of Sub-Treasury on 23.02.2006 for a
period of 11 months which also confirms that the institution was granted
recognition on rented premises with the condition to shift to its
permanent building within a period of 3 years. Now, it is evident that the
management has not shifted its institution to its own permanent building
which is in violation of the NCTE Regulations, 2002, 3(C).
2. The institution has submitted land use certificate but land in the name
which Society not mentioned.
3. The institution has submitted photocopy of NEC in Regional Language.
Encumbrance Certificate is unsigned not approved by the Competent
Authority.
4. The institution has submitted photocopy of Building Plan approved by
the competent authority in Building plan, College name not mentioned
in the documents.
5. The size of the Class rooms are less than 500 Sq. ft. which is not
adequate as per NCTE norms and Multipurpose hall is not shown in
the Building Plan. However, the seminar hall has mentioned in
Building Plan but, the size of same is not mentioned.
6. The Institution has not submitted BCC in proper Prescribed format.
7. The Institution has submitted photocopy of Staff list.
Hence, the committee decided to withdraw the recognition
granted to Indu Memorial teacher Training Center, P.O. Nenmeni,
Kollemcode, Palakkad District, Pin 678506, Kerala for conducting
B.Ed Course w.e.f the next academic session under clause 17(1) of
the NCTE Act, 1993 on the grounds mentioned above"
34. The above are the reasons given by the respondents for
withdrawing the recognition.
35. Immediately thereafter, the petitioners are stated to have filed
an application for shifting of premises by remitting the inspection fee of
Rs.1,50,000/- appending the documents sought for and also preferred an
appeal under Section 18 of the Act. The appeal was considered and the order
was confirmed. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows:
"AND WHEREAS from the submissions made online by the
appellant, Appeal Committee observed that recognition for
conducting B.Ed. programme was granted to the appellant
institution in the 2006. Inspection conducted was, of
infrastructure, available in a building which was on rental basis
and the recognition granted on 15.7.2006 was subject to the
condition that the institution shall shift to its own premises within
3 years. Appeal Committee noted that revised recognition order
dated 15.5.2015 was issued mentioning the address where
recognition order dated 15.7.2006 was issued.
AND WHEREAS Appeal Committee observed that appellant
institution by its letter dated 24.9.2020, submitted in reply to the
final S.C.N dated 7.9.2020, informed SRC that inspection of the
College conducted in 2006 was at the same address where
institution is functioning at present.
AND WHEREAS Appeal Committee on perusal of the Inspection
Report dated 24.5.2006 observed that Visiting Team at several
columns of the inspection report remarked that building proposed
for conducting the course is on rental basis. There is no other
inspection report subsequent to the inspection conducted by
NCTE appointed Visiting Team. The appellant also did not make
any formal application for shifting. Appeal Committee, therefore
decided to confirm the impugned order of withdrawal dated
23.12.2020."
36. From Ext.P1 order, it is apparent that the only infringement
noted is regarding the non-shifting of premises and the failure of the
petitioners to prefer a formal application for shifting. It is apparent that the
appellate committee was under the impression that the petitioner was still
functioning its institution at Nemmeni and that they had failed to shift to its
own premises within a period of three years.
37. It is discernible from Ext.P1 order that after the initial grant of
recognition in the year 2006, pursuant to an inspection carried out by the
team under Section 13 r/w. Rule 8 of the Regulations, no subsequent
inspection has been carried out till now. Since the entire controversy is with
regard to the withdrawal of recognition for non-shifting of premises, before
withdrawal, the route of inspection as provided under Section 13 had to be
followed. I say this because the entire confusion revolves around whether
the petitioners have shifted or not. The case of the petitioner is that since the
institution started functioning from their own premises after obtaining
provisional affiliation from the University, they were under the impression
that it was not a case of shifting of premises. Of course, in the response
given by the petitioners to the NCTE they have stated that inspection was
carried out in the premises at Kuzhalmannam.
38. The entire controversy could have been avoided if the
respondents had inspected the premises at least pursuant to the coming into
force of the regulations of 2014. As held by the Apex Court, the NCTE is to
have a constant vigil on the functioning of the recognition. In order to ensure
that the recognised institutions function in accordance with the 1993 Act and
the 1994 Regulations, the NCTE ought to have been more proactive and
ought to have conducted regular inspections. In the case on hand, after
2006, no inspection has been carried out in the institution. As the de-
recognition or withdrawal of recognition of a recognised institution is a
drastic measure as it would result in dislocating the students, teachers and
staff, the said measure will have to be taken with great circumspection. In
the case on hand, I am of the opinion that withdrawal without carrying out
an inspection as to whether the petitioner had shifted the institution cannot
be sustained. I find that the petitioner has already filed an application for
shifting of the premises, appending all the relevant documents and the
inspection fee.
Resultantly, Exts.P1 and P9 will stand quashed. There will be a
direction to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to process Ext.P10 application after
conducting an inspection in terms of the provisions of the NCTE Act, 1993
and the Regulations of 2014 to ascertain as to whether the institution
conforms to the Act, Rules and Regulations. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 shall
take steps to conduct the inspection within a period of one month from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment in strict adherence to the Laws
and Regulations.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
JUDGE
ps
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12142/2021
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS:
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER
F.NO.89-92/E-178920/2021 APPEAL/12TH MTG-
2021/28TH MAY 2021 DATED 02/06/2021
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
F.SRO/NCTE/B.ED./2006-2007/6807 DATED
15/07/2006 ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. GAI/D4/8644/07
DATED 16/11/2007 ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE
3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
F.SRO/NCTE/APS01072/B.ED./KL/2015-
16/64814 DATED 15/05/2015 ISSUED ON
BEHALF OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE
ISSUED AS PER
F.SRC/NCTE/APS01072/B.ED./KL/2018-
19/107016 DATED 17/07/2019 ON BEHALF OF
THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF REPLY LETTER NO. TMT
377/2016 DATED 30/07/2019 SUBMITTED BY
THE 2ND PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL SHOW CAUSE
NOTICE ISSUED AS PER F. NO.
SRO/NCTE/APS001072/B.ED./KL/2020/117767
DATED 07/09/2020 ON BEHALF OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION NO. IMT
403/2020 DATED 24/09/2020 SUBMITTED BY
THE PRINCIPAL OF THE INSTITUTE TO THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
F.SRO/NCTE/APSO1072/B.ED./392TH/
{KL}/2020/121690 DATED 23/12/2020 ISSUED
ON BEHALF OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION ALONG WITH
APPLICATION FOR SHIFTING OF PREMISES IN
THE PRESCRIBED FORMAT AND THE DEMAND
DRAFT OF RS.1,50,000 (RS.ONE LAKH FIFTY
THOUSAND) DATED 20.02.2021 SUBMITTED BY
PETITIONERS TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P11 A TRUE COPY OF APPEAL MEMO DATED
22/02/2021 ALONG WITH REQUEST DATED
26/02/2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS
BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST NO.IMT-
286/2015 DATED 02.11.2015 SUBMITTED BY
THE 2ND PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE R2(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.07.2006
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE R2(B) A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT
DT.20.03.2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITONER
INSTITUTION BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE R2(C) A TRUE COPY OF THE STAFF LIST SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER INSTITUTION.
