Madras High Court
The Secretary vs The National Council For Teacher on 24 February, 2025
W.P.(MD).No.28024 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 17.12.2024
Pronounced on : 24.02.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI
W.P.(MD).No.28024 of 2024
and
W.M.P.(MD)Nos.23772 and 23773 of 2024
The Secretary,
St. Justin's College of Education,
No.161, Kamaraj Salai,
Madurai District-625 009. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The National Council for Teacher
Education,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Hans Bhawan, Wing II,
Bahadur Shahzafar Marg,
New Delhi-110 002.
2.The Regional Director,
Southern Regional Committee (SRC),
National Council for Teacher Education,
G-&, Sector-10 (Near Sector-10 Metro
Station)
Dwarka, New Delhi-110 075.
3.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Department of Higher Education,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009.
1/57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.28024 of 2024
4.Tamilnadu Teacher Education University,
Rep. by its Registrar,
Gangaiamman Koil Street,
Karapakkam, Chennai-600 005. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the
records relating to the impugned minutes of the 444th SRC meeting held on
15th - 16th October 2024 in so far as Serial No.62 File No.AOSO0442,
APSO6134, quash the same in so far as denying the recognition for
petitioner's college for conducting B.Ed., programme (2 basic units) and
M.Ed., programme w.e.f., the academic year 2025-2026 and further direct
the respondents 1 and 2 to issue continuation of recognition for petitioner's
college for conducting for B.Ed., programme (2 basic units) and M.Ed.,
programme from the academic year 2024-2025 onwards based on the
detailed proposal submitted by the college on 25.10.2024.
For Petitioner : Sr.A.Amala
For R-1 & R-2 : Mr.Gowri Shankar,
Standing counsel
For R-3 : Mr.T.Amjad Khan,
Government Advocate
For R-4 : Mr.F.Deepak,
Standing counsel
2/57
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.28024 of 2024
ORDER
This writ petition is filed to call for the records relating to the
impugned minutes of the 444th SRC meeting held on 15th - 16th October
2024 in so far as Serial No.62 File No.AOSO0442, APSO6134, quash the
same in so far as denying the recognition for petitioner's college for
conducting B.Ed., programme (2 basic units) and M.Ed., programme w.e.f.,
the academic year 2025-2026 and further direct the respondents 1 and 2 to
issue continuation of recognition for the petitioner college for conducting for
B.Ed., programme (2 basic units) and M.Ed., programme from the academic
year 2024-2025 onwards based on the detailed proposal submitted by the
college on 25.10.2024.
2.The Petitioner Institution is a recognized minority educational
institution established in the year 1968 and duly recognized by the first
respondent, namely, the National Council for Teacher Education (hereinafter
to be referred as NCTE). The petitioner institution is running B.Ed., and
M.Ed., degree courses both under the aided and under the self-financing
scheme. The first respondent / NCTE is responsible for maintaining norms
and standards for teacher education across the country. The second
respondent, Southern Regional Committee (hereinafter to be referred as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SRC) is responsible for the grant of recognition to teacher education
institutes in the State of Tamil Nadu. The petitioner institution applied
before the second respondent for grant of recognition to conduct the B.Ed.,
course. After processing the application of the petitioner institution, the
second respondent issued a certificate of recognition order on 03.09.1996 to
the petitioner institution for running the B.Ed., course of one year duration
with an annual intake of 100 seats.
3.While being so, the NCTE in exercise of its powers conferred under
Section 32 of the NCTE Act, 1993, framed NCTE (recognition norms and
procedure) regulations, 2007, which came into force with effect from
16.12.2007, which provides for the manner of making an application by a
teacher training institute and processing thereof by the regional committee
concerned. Following which the petitioner college applied before the SRC /
second respondent for grant of recognition to conduct the M.Ed., course.
After processing the application of the petitioner institution, the second
respondent issued a certificate of recognition order on 09.08.2007 to the
petitioner institution for running the M.Ed., course with a duration one year
with an annual intake of 25 seats at the first instance. Thereafter, the
petitioner institution further made an application for grant of recognition to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
conduct the B.Ed., course, that is, the second basic unit before the second
respondent. After processing the application of the petitioner institution, the
second respondent issued a recognition order dated 28.04.2009 granting
recognition to the petitioner institution for running the second basic unit of
B.Ed., course with an annual intake of 100 seats.
4.Thus, the recognition order dated 28.04.2009 made the petitioner
college eligible for a total intake of 100 seats, that is one basic unit under
the aided scheme and an additional 100 seats under the self-financing
scheme as a second basic unit. As per the general letter dated 30.07.2010
the intake of the petitioner institution as far as M.Ed., course is concerned,
the seats were enhanced from 25 seats to 35 seats. While being so, the
NCTE in exercise of its power conferred under Section 32 of the NCTE Act,
1993 framed the NCTE (recognition norms and procedure) regulations,
2014, which came into force with effect from 01.12.2014. In terms of the
new NCTE regulations, the duration of both the B.Ed., and M.Ed., courses
was increased from one year to two years. Following which, in terms of the
new NCTE regulations, 2014, all the regional committees of NCTE were
required to issue revised orders of recognition to the already recognized
institution in respect of each recognized course.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5.Accordingly, before issuing revised recognition orders, the second
respondent sought consent / willingness from each institution in respect of
the number of units desired to be run by the institution. Since the duration
of the course was increased from one to two years, the existing
infrastructure and instructional facilities available with the petitioner
institution were with respect to 50 seats (one unit) only for the M.Ed.,
course of two years duration and 100 seats (two units) only, that is, 50 seats
in the aided stream and 50 seats in the self-financing stream, for the B.Ed.,
course of two years duration, respectively. The second respondent, after
receiving the affidavit expressing the willingness of the petitioner institution,
issued a revised recognition order dated 13.05.2015 and 25.05.2015 to the
petitioner institution for conducting the B.Ed., (two basic units) course with
an intake of 100 students and the M.Ed., course with an annual intake of
50 students from the academic session 2015-16, respectively, with the
direction to submit compliance to the conditions contained in the revised
recognition order in respect of the new NCTE regulations, 2014. The second
respondent issued a revised recognition order dated 03.07.2015 to the
petitioner institution for conducting B.Ed., course of two years duration with
an annual intake of 50 plus 50 students each for the two basic units from
the academic session 2015-2016 under the aided and self-financing stream,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
respectively, with a direction to submit compliance to the conditions
contained in the revised recognition order regarding enhancement of
additional faculty and infrastructural facilities.
6.However, to the shock and surprise of the petitioner institution, the
second respondent in its 405th meeting held on 13-14th December 2021, SRC
vide proceedings in F.SRO / NCTE / APS 08882 / B.Ed., - AI / (TN) /
2021 / 29599 and F.SRO / NCTE / APS 06134 / M.Ed., / (TN) / 2021 /
29598 dated 27.12.2021, withdrew the recognition of the petitioner's
institution in respect of both the B.Ed., (additional intake) course and the
M.Ed., course, respectively. The petitioner institution by letter dated
04.01.2022, requested the second respondent to grant recognition for
conducting the B.Ed., course with a basic intake of 100 students and the
M.Ed., course with a basic intake of 50 students. However, in the absence of
any positive response from the second respondent, the college wrote a
detailed letter on 08.02.2022 appraising the position of the college
requesting to restore the recognition to the petitioner institution for running
the second basic unit of the B.Ed., and the M.Ed., course. Simultaneously,
the petitioner institution preferred an online statutory appeal before the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
appeal committee of NCTE on 15.03.2022 challenging the withdrawal of
recognition order dated 27.12.2021.
7.However, the appeal committee, vide consequential order dated
12.07.2022, rejected the appeal of the college. Challenging the same, the
petitioner college filed two writ petitions in WP(C).15153 of 2022 and WP(C)
15155 of 2022 before the Honourable Delhi High Court. Pursuant to the
same, the petitioner institution was enabled to participate in the counselling
and admission for the academic year 2022-2023 by the interim order passed
by the Delhi High Court dated 02.11.2022 in the aforesaid writ petitions and
the same was permitted by the second respondent vide order in file
No.SRO / NCTE /APSO6134 / M.Ed., / TN /2022 dated 09.11.2022.
Accordingly, the affiliating university permitted the college to access
the website to admit the students for the academic year 2022-2023 and
permitted them to write exams, and the results were also published.
The petitioner college further admitted four students to the B.Ed.,
(second basic unit) and 44 students for M.Ed., programme for the
academic year 2023-2024 in the month of September 2023. Under such
circumstances the petitioner college approached the affiliating university,
that is, the fourth respondent, on various occasions, requesting to access
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the website to admit the students. However, the said access was refused by
the fourth respondent and thereafter the university also announced the
exam timetable to conduct the first semester from 06.03.2024 onwards.
8.Hence, the petitioner was constrained to file a writ petition in W.P.
(MD)No.4316 of 2024 before this Court seeking to direct the fourth
respondent university to permit the petitioner college to upload the students
admitted for the B.Ed., programme (Additional intake) and the M.Ed.,
programme for the academic year 2023-2024 in their official website
forthwith and further permit them to take the periodical examination and to
get the results released and to award the degrees. However, this Court by
order dated 23.02.2024 dismissed the writ petition observing that the
petitioner institution having invoked the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court
cannot be allowed to indulge in forum shopping by filing the writ petition in
W.P.(MD)No.4316 of 2024 before this Court. However, liberty was given to
the petitioner to move this Court again for the relief if the writ petitions
which were filed before the Delhi High Court are withdrawn with liberty to
file a fresh writ petition on the same cause of action. However, the Hon'ble
Delhi High Court had dismissed the aforesaid writ petitions in WP(C) 15153
of 2022 and 15155 of 2022 by order dated 28.02.2024 without giving any
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
liberty to the petitioner to agitate before this Court for the same cause of
action. Thereafter, the petitioner institution filed two writ petitions in W.P.
(MD)No.5091 of 2024 and 5092 of 2024 before this Court challenging the
withdrawal order dated 27.12.2021, and the consequential appeal order
dated 12.07.2022 and further seeking to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to
restore the recognition for the M.Ed., programme conducted in the petitioner
college and the B.Ed., (additional intake) programme conducted in the
petitioner's college with effect from the academic session 2022-2023
onwards, respectively.
9.Though the Honourable Delhi High Court had dismissed the
petitioner's writ petitions on a similar cause of action by order dated
28.02.2024 without giving liberty to the petitioner to file a similar writ
petition on the same cause of action, this Court was pleased to take both the
writ petitions on file considering the welfare of students. As far as the
question of restoring the recognition for the M.Ed., programme conducted in
the petitioner college with effect from the academic session 2022-2023, this
Court was pleased to dismiss the writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.5091 of 2024
by order dated 04.03.2024. However, as far as the question as to the
recognition for the B.Ed., (additional intake) programme conducted in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
petitioner college, the impugned orders were quashed by this Court in W.P.
(MD)No.5092 of 2024, by order dated 04.03.2024, directing the 4th
respondent affiliating university, to open the web portal, thereby directing to
permit the petitioner to upload the list of students admitted for the year
2023-2024. The petitioner was further directed to furnish all the relevant
particulars, including a list of candidates, before the second respondent and
the second respondent was given liberty to verify the correctness of the
particulars to be furnished by the petitioner.
10.Pursuant to the dismissal of the writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.5091
of 2024 dated 04.3.2024 by this Court, 44 students who were admitted for
the M.Ed., course for the academic year 2023-2024 were not permitted to
write their examinations. However, four students admitted in the second
unit for the B.Ed., programme was allowed to appear for the examination
which was held on 06.03.2024, pursuant to the order passed by this Court
in W.P.(MD)No.5092 of 2024. The petitioner college had furnished all the
details for seeking recognition of the M.Ed., course from the academic year
2023-2024 vide proposal dated 03.07.2023 through registered post and also
had sent a reminder on 23.03.2024 through registered post. In the
meanwhile, the college received a show cause notice of the second
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
respondent on 10.04.2024, and on receipt of the same, the college had
furnished all the relevant documents as required by the second respondent.
Since the second respondent did not come forward to further sanction the
petitioner's proposal, the petitioner institution filed a writ petition in W.P.
(MD)No. 12622 of 2024 seeking direction against the first and second
respondents to restore the recognition for the B.Ed., programme second
basic unit from the academic session 2022-2023 onwards based on the
detailed proposal submitted by the college on 01.04.2024 and reminder on
18.04.2024. Simultaneously yet another writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.12061
of 2024 was also filed by the petitioner institution seeking to direct the first
and second respondents to restore the recognition for M.Ed., programme
conducted in the petitioner's college from the academic session 2023-2024
onwards based on the detailed proposal submitted by the college on
03.07.2023 and the reminder on 23.03.2024.
11.This Court was pleased to allow the writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.
12061 of 2024 on 10.06.2024 and W.P.(MD)No.12622 of 2024 on
28.06.2024 directing the second respondent to consider the proposal and
pass orders within a period six (6) weeks. Since the same was not duly
complied with, the petitioner was constrained to file a contempt petition in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont P(MD)No.1702 of 2024 before this Court. During the pendency of the
contempt petition, the second respondent sought for certain additional
particulars and the petitioner college also furnished the same. However, to
the shock and surprise of the petitioner college, the second respondent vide
impugned 444th meeting held on 15-16th October 2024 in serial number No.
62 in file No.AOSO0442, APSO613 for the B.Ed., and M.Ed., courses passed
the impugned order deciding to issue continuation of recognition order for 1
unit (50) students of B.Ed., programme and 1 unit (50) students for M.Ed.,
programme with effect from the academic year 2025-2026. Challenging the
same and requiring this Court to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to issue a
continuation of recognition for the petitioner's college for conducting B.Ed.,
programme (2 basic units) and M.Ed., programme from the academic year
2024-2025 onwards based on the detailed proposal submitted by the college
on 25.10.2024, this writ petition is filed.
12.Heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, Ms. Amala who
reiterated all the contentions raised in the affidavit filed along with the writ
petition and the learned standing counsel appearing for the first and second
respondents, Mr. Gowri Shankar who reiterated the contentions in his
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
counter affidavit and the learned counsel for the fourth respondent,
Mr.F.Deepak who appeared for the fourth respondent, University and
carefully perused the materials available on record.
13.The second respondent passed the order of withdrawing the
recognition of the petitioner's college for conducting M.Ed., programme with
effect from the academic session 2022-2023 onwards, vide proceedings in
F.SRO/NCTE/APS06134/M.Ed.,/(TN)/2021/29598 dated 27.12.2021. As
against the same, the writ petitioner preferred a statutory appeal before the
first respondent / NCTE and the first respondent, by order in proceedings
APPLSRC202214319 dated 12.07.2022, rejected the appeal filed by the
petitioner Institution confirming the order of the second respondent. In
similar lines, the second respondent also withdrew the recognition of the
petitioner college for conducting B.Ed., (additional intake) programme with
effect from the academic session 2022-2023 onwards, vide proceedings in
F.SRO/NCTE/APS08882/B.Ed.,-AI/(TN)/2021/29599 dated 27.12.2021.
The petitioner Institution preferred a statutory appeal as against the same
before the first respondent and the first respondent preferred to reject the
appeal by proceedings in APPLSRC202214320 dated 12.07.2022 confirming
the order passed by the second respondent. Challenging both the orders, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
petitioner Institution preferred two writ petitions before the Honourable
Delhi High Court in WP(C) 15153 of 2022 and 15155 of 2022. Pursuant to
the Interim Order of the Honourable Delhi High Court in the aforesaid writ
petitions dated 02.11.2022, the second respondent vide order in File No.
SRO/NCTE/APS06134/M.Ed.,/TN/2022, dated 09.11.2022, permitted the
petitioner Institution to participate in the counselling and admission for the
academic year 2022-2023, following which the affiliating University also
permitted the petitioner Institution to access the website to admit the
students for the academic year 2022-2023 and permitted them to write
exams and the results were also published.
14.During the pendency of the aforesaid writ petitions before the
Honourable Delhi High Court, the petitioner College further admitted four
students to the B.Ed., second basic unit and 44 students for the M.Ed.,
programme for the academic years 2023-2024 in the month of September
2023. Since the Interim Order passed by the Honourable Delhi High Court
in writ petitions in WP(C) 15153 and 15155 of 2022 enabled the petitioner to
admit students only for the academic year 2022-2023, the fourth
respondent affiliating University did not permit the petitioner College to
access its website to admit the students for the academic year 2023-2024.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Hence, the petitioner filed yet another writ petition before this Court in W.P.
(MD)No.4316 of 2024, seeking to direct the fourth respondent University to
permit the petitioner College to upload the students admitted for B.Ed.,
programme (additional intake) and M.Ed., programme for the academic year
2023-2024 and the same came to be dismissed by the order of this Court on
23.02.2024 and the relevant portion of the same is extracted as followsd:
4. I am not persuaded by the said submission. As rightly
pointed out by the learned standing counsel, this writ petition itself is
not maintainable. Challenging the withdrawal of affiliation made by
the NCTE on 27.12.2021, the petitioner filed an appeal and it was
dismissed on 12.07.2022. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed
W.P.(C)Nos.15153 and 15155 of 2022 before the Delhi High Court.
The petitioner also obtained interim relief for the year 2022-2023.
Having invoked the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court, the petitioner
cannot be allowed to indulge in forum shopping by filing the present
writ petition. This objection made by the learned standing counsel is
well founded.
5. I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition. Liberty is
given to the petitioner to move this Court again for relief if the writ
petitions filed before the Delhi High Court are withdrawn with liberty
to file fresh writ petition on the same cause of action. This writ
petition stands dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
15.Having failed in its attempt to get an order from this Court
directing the fourth respondent University to permit the petitioner College to
upload the students admitted for the B.Ed., programme (additional intake)
and M.Ed., programme for the academic year 2023-2024, the petitioner
Institute proceeded to the Honorable Delhi High Court and preferred to
withdraw the aforesaid writ petitions in WP(C) 15153 of 2022 and 15155 of
2022 and the Honorable Delhi High Court dismissed the aforesaid writ
petitions as withdrawn by order dated 28.02.2024. However, without giving
liberty to the petitioner to agitate the same matter before this Court. The
relevant portion of the same are extracted as follows:
“3.W.P.(C) 15155 / 2022 is dismissed as withdrawn.
4.This Court is not expressing any opinion on whether any
alternate remedy is available to the petitioner.
5.In view of the fact that Mr.Madan seriously contests the prayer
for liberty as sought by Mr.Ravi Kant, this Court is not expressing any
opinion thereon.
6.The next date of 18 March 2024 already fixed in the matter is
cancelled.
3.W.P.(C) 15153/2022 is dismissed as withdrawn.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4.This Court is not expressing any opinion on whether any
alternate remedy is available to the petitioner.
5.In view of the fact that Mr.Madan seriously contests the prayer
for liberty as sought by Mr.Ravi Kant, this Court is not expressing any
opinion thereon.
6.The next date of 18 March 2024 already fixed in the matter is
cancelled.”
16.Even thereafter the petitioner Institution proceeded to challenge
the aforesaid impugned order dated 27.12.2021 and the consequential
appeal order dated 12.07.2022 before this Court by filing two writ petitions
in W.P.(MD)Nos.5091 of 2024 and 5092 of 2024 with respect to the
recognition for B.Ed., (additional intake) programme and M.Ed., programme
from the academic session 2022-2023 onwards, respectively. As far as W.P.
(MD)No.5091 of 2024 with respect to the restoration of recognition for
M.Ed., programme conducted in the petitioner College with effect from the
academic session 2022-2023 onwards, this Court proceeded to dismiss the
same by order dated 04.03.2024 and the relevant portion of the same is
extracted as follows:
“3.Even before the learned senior counsel could
commence his argument, the learned standing counsel pointed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
out that for running M.Ed degree courses with 50' students
intake, faculty strength must be 10. At the time of passing the
impugned order by the regional authority, the petitioner herein
did not have requisite faculty strength. Even according to the
learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, the approved
faculty strength was only 4. Even this is contested by the
learned standing counsel for NCET. When the regulation
stipulates that an approved faculty strength must be 10, since
the petitioner did not posses the said strength, the question of
interfering with the impugned order will not arise at all. The
learned senior counsel states that since the academic year
2023-24, they have full strength and it has also been submitted
to SRC on 03.07.2023. It is for SRC to take a call.
4.The Writ Petition is dismissed.”
17.A combined reading of the Interim Order passed by the Honorable
Delhi High Court dated 02.11.2022 in WP(C) 15153 and 15155 of 2022,
final Orders in WP(C) 15153 of 2022 and 15155 of 2022 dated 28.02.2024
and W.P.(MD)No.5091 of 2024 dated 04.03.2024 would make it clear that
only by the strength of the Interim Protection given by the Honorable Delhi
High Court in its Interim Order dated 02.11.2022 in WP(C) 15153 and
15155 of 2022, the students admitted in the Petitioner Institute for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
academic year 2022-2023 were admitted, permitted to write exams and
results were also published. Pursuant to the withdrawal of WP(C) 15153 and
15155 of 2022 which were pending before the Honorable Delhi High Court
which were dismissed as withdrawn on 28.02.2024, the Interim Protection
passed by the Honorable Delhi High Court by Order dated 02.11.2022 would
automatically cease. Hence, the Petitioner Institution cannot on the strength
of the aforesaid order claim any right to admit students during the academic
year 2023-2024 either for the B.Ed., 2nd Basic Unit or for the M.Ed.,
programme. No doubt this Court by order dated 04.03.2024 in W.P.(MD)No.
5091 of 2024 had outrightly rejected the petitioner's claim seeking to restore
the recognition for the M.Ed., programme conducted in the petitioner's
College with effect from the academic session 2022-2023 onwards. Now, as
far as the petitioner's claim to restore the recognition for the B.Ed.,
Additional intake programme conducted in the petitioner's College with
effect from the academic session 2022-2023 onwards, this Court has dealt
with the same in W.P.(MD)No.5092 of 2024. In its order dated 04.03.2024,
this Court has held as follows:
”5. ..All along the petitioner's maximum intake for the first
year of B.Ed., course was only 100 or less. I must also note that the
petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
sought for two basic units for B.Ed., alone. Therefore, the case of the
petitioner should be tested only on the basis that the petitioner had
only two basic units for their B.Ed., course. The regulations stipulate
that for a basic unit of 50 students (100 students in two years), the
full time faculty strength shall be 7 and 3 professional support staff.
But if students for two years is 200, ie., for two basic units, the
number of faculty shall be increased to a minimum of 15. In this
case, I have already noted that the petitioner is having two basic
units and that therefore, the faculty strength should not be less than
15. It is beyond dispute that the petitioner had faculty strength of 17.
The original authority (SRC of NCTE) proceeded on the premise that
the petitioner was having two basic units + two additional units for
the first year. The SRC's resolution proceeds on the premise that the
faculty list submitted by the institution was sufficient for one unit
B.Ed., programme. In fact, the faculty was sufficient for two basic
units. It was obviously not sufficient for additional intake beyond two
basic units. The faculty staff were fully qualified. But this list was
not approved by the affiliating body. It is seen from the record that
all these appointments were subsequently approved. It is well settled
that the approval will relate back to the dates of appointment.
Though I would not apply the doctrine of relation back in normal
circumstances, taking into account the interests of students, I hold
that the faculty staff should be considered as approved faculty staff
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
from the dates when they were originally appointed. There is yet
another consideration. The petitioner had admitted only 54 students
for the year 2023-24 even though their sanctioned intake has been
100 (for two basic units).
6.As regards the conclusion regarding additional intake, the
petitioner clarified the position before the appellate authority. But the
appellate authority did not show any lenience only on the ground
that the petitioner failed to write to NCTE. As rightly pointed out by
the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, there was no occasion
therefor. The order dated 03.07.2015 issued by NCTE had
automatically superseded the earlier dated 13.05.2015 which spoke
of additional intake.
7.The other two reasons given in the impugned order are
rather trivial and they need not be taken note of. I cannot, of course,
overlook the other contention advanced by the learned standing
counsel for NCTE. The management challenged the impugned orders
before the Delhi High Court. It obtained interim order on 02.11.2022
for admitting students for the year 2022-23. It did not have any
interim order in its favour for the year 2023-24. I fail to understand
as to how the management felt emboldened to admit students for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
subsequent year. This is not expected from an institution like the
petitioner. I have to necessarily censure the petitioner-institution for
its conduct. In fact, I would have even imposed cost on the petitioner
but I refrain from doing so since it is strongly submitted by the
learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not a
profit making institution.
8.The other objection advanced by the learned standing
counsel no doubt is insurmountable. I must confess that my own
order stares at my face. But the spirit of the earlier order passed by
me on 23.02.2024 in WP(MD)No.4316 of 2024 is that the petitioner
should not indulge in forum shopping (which they did). I was of the
view that when the writ petition filed before the Delhi High Court was
pending, they cannot parallelly invoke the jurisdiction of this Court.
But now that impediment has gone. The Writ Petition filed before the
Delhi High Court was withdrawn. But when the petitioner sought
liberty, the Delhi High Court did not express any opinion thereon. In
matters such as this which concerns the interest and welfare of
students, one has to look beyond technicality. Even though the
contention of the learned standing counsel is well founded, for the
sake of students, I am inclined to hold that this writ petition is
maintainable even though the petitioner failed to obtain liberty from
the Delhi High Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9.In this view of the matter, the impugned orders are set
aside. The matter is remitted to the file of the second respondent. The
second respondent will issue notice to the petitioner and the
petitioner shall place all the relevant materials for the consideration
of the second respondent. The second respondent is at liberty to
verify the correctness of the particulars to be furnished by the
petitioner herein and pass an appropriate order. This shall be done
as expeditiously as possible.
10.The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner points out
that exams are scheduled to be held from 06.03.2024. Since the
order passed by the NCTE withdrawing recognition fro the petitioner-
institution has been set aside by me, the fourth respondent is
directed to immediately open the web portal. This shall be done
immediately. The petitioner is permitted to upload the list of students
admitted for the year 2023-24. The same shall be uploaded by the
fourth respondent.
11.With this direction, this writ petition is allowed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
18.Pursuant to the same, names of the four students who were
admitted in the additional intake, that is, the 2 nd basic unit for B.Ed.,
programme who were admitted in the petitioner College for the academic
year 2023-2024 were also permitted to be uploaded with the affiliating in the
4th respondent University and permitted to pursue their studies and write
their examination. Neither the petitioner nor the respondents preferred any
appeal as against the orders passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)Nos.5091 of
2024 and 5092 of 2024 dated 04.03.2024. Since there was a specific
direction in W.P.(MD)No.5092 of 2024 dated 04.03.2024 to the 2nd
respondent to verify the correctness of the particulars to be furnished by the
petitioner Institution, the 434th meeting of the 2nd respondent was convened
on 22.03.2024 and the committee took up the matter with respect to the
petitioner Institution as Agenda 1 in the said meeting. Complying with the
order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.5092 of 2024 dated 04.03.2024,
the 2nd respondent required the petitioner Institute to submit as many as 13
documents including the staff list duly approved by the affiliating body for
each of the recognized teacher education programme being run by the
institution.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
19.The committee also decided to issue a show cause notice under
Section 17 of NCTE Act, 1993, before withdrawal of recognition on the
grounds mentioned in the aforesaid minutes of the committee which was
resolved in Agenda 1 in the 434th meeting dated 22.03.2024 of the 2nd
respondent. In the meanwhile, the petitioner Institution had sent a reminder
on 23.03.2024 by registered post seeking recognition for the B.Ed., 2nd Basic
Unit programme from the academic year 2022-2023 with all necessary
documents. Pursuant to the 2nd respondent's observation on the 434 th
meeting on 22.03.2024, the petitioner Institution submitted all the
documents required by the 2nd respondent in the aforesaid meeting through
registered post on 01.04.2024. The learned counsel for the petitioner had
produced before me the track consignment which would reveal that the
aforesaid documents were submitted by the petitioner Institution, pursuant
to the SRC 434th meeting dated 22.03.2024 which was sent by registered
post on 01.04.2024 and was received by the 2nd respondent office on
08.04.2024. On 10.04.2024, a Show Cause Notice under Section 17 of
N.C.T.E. Act, 1993, was issued by the 2nd respondent seeking to respond
within a period of 15 days from the date of issuance of the Show Cause
Notice.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
20.Following which on 18.04.2024, the petitioner Institution had
informed the 2nd respondent that all the documents as required under SRC
434th meeting has been already sent to the 2 nd respondent by reply dated
01.04.2024. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, relied upon
the track consignment which would reveal that the aforesaid reply had been
delivered to the 2nd respondent on 23.04.2024. The petitioner Institution
further filed two writ petitions in W.P.(MD)Nos. 12061 of 2024 and 12062 of
2024 before this Court seeking to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to restore
the recognition for M.Ed., programme and B.Ed., programme 2nd Basic Unit
conducted in the petitioner College from the academic session 2022-2023
onwards based on the proposal submitted by the college. This Court by
order dated 10.06.2024 in W.P.(MD)No.12061 of 2024, disposed of the writ
petition directed the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's request and
pass appropriate orders within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt
of copy of the order in the aforesaid writ petition.
21.A similar order was also passed in W.P.(MD)No. 12622 of 2024 by
order dated 28.06.2024 directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass
orders within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of order
in the aforesaid case. While being so, the 444 th meeting of the Southern
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Regional Committee, that is, the 2nd respondent was held on 15-16th October
2024 at New Delhi. The matter pertaining to the Petitioner Institution was
taken up as the 62nd Agenda in the minutes of the 444th meeting of the 2nd
respondent dated 15-16th October 2024. In the aforesaid meeting, the 2nd
respondent in their 444th meeting decided as follows:
“62.St. Justins College of Education, 161-A, Kamaraja Salal,
Madurai-62509, Tamilnadu.
File No. AOSO0442, APSO6134, Course:- B.Ed., M.Ed.,
The original file of the Institution along with other related documents,
NCTE Act 1993, Regulations, Guidelines issued by NCTE from time to
time, the SRC after careful consideration made the following
observations: -
After considering the documents submitted by the Institution the
committee observed that the staff members list provided by the
Institution does not fulfil the mandatory eligibility requirements laid
down by NCTE (Regulations Norms and Procedure) Regulations,
2014. It is observed that the following members do not fulfil the
eligibility:
1. Mrs. M Rethi
2.Mrs. D Thilagavathi
3. Mrs. L Brigit
4. Mrs. M Meenakshi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. Mrs. A Arockia Gracy
Therefore, the Committee has decided to issue continuation of recognition
order for 1 Unit (50 Students) of B.Ed., programme and 1 Unit (50
Students) for M.Ed., Programme w.e.f. the academic year 2025-2026.”
22.The writ petitioner has challenged the minutes of the second
respondent in his 444th meeting agenda 62 dated 15th -16th October 2024 on
the following grounds:
(i) The recognition with respect to the first unit of B.Ed., programme
under aided stream being run by the Petitioner College was not withdrawn
at any point of time. Hence, by way of the impugned minutes, deciding to
issue continuation of recognition for one unit (50) students of B.Ed.,
programme with effect from academic year 2025-2026 is illegal,
unsustainable and without any application of mind since the recognition is
still in force.
(ii) As far as the first unit of B.Ed., programme under aided stream is
concerned, it is duly enjoying recognition as well as affiliation and as many
as 47 students out of the permitted 50 students for the first unit were
admitted through counselling for the academic year 2024-2025 and the
classes had commenced from 28.10.2024.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(iii) Citing a list of five staffs who are claimed to be unqualified,
handling the B.Ed., second unit, giving continuation of recognition for the
B.Ed., first unit which is an aided programme as well as M.Ed., programme
from the academic year 2025-2026 is unwarranted and per se illegal.
(iv) All those five staffs as cited by the impugned 62 nd agenda of the
444th meeting of the second respondent are duly qualified and their
qualification has also been approved by the affiliating body, vide proceeding
No.TNTEU / R / QA / B.Ed., / CC11218 / 2017 - 18 / 790 dated
12.04.2017 itself.
(v) As far as the conduct of M.Ed., programme is concerned, the
petitioner college had fulfilled all the requirements way back on 03.07.2023
and hence holding the proposal back without passing any orders and giving
recognition for M.Ed., from the academic year 2025-2026 is unjust and
would deprive the students with right to education.
(vi) As on the date of impugned minutes dated 15.10.2024 in the State
of Tamilnadu, the dates scheduled for admission of M.Ed., programme was
not even announced for the academic year 2025-2026 and the admission
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
for M.Ed., programme commenced for the academic year 2024-2025
only from 21.11.2024 to 06.12.2024.
(vii) The impugned minutes is passed in violation to Section 14(4) of
the NCTE Act, 1993, which clearly states that 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.
(viii) Following the mandates of the Honourable Supreme Court in
Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya (2013) case and the case of
Devendra Pathak Sarvodaya College of Education reported in
(2021)17 SCC 673, (para 30), the learned counsel for the petitioner
categorically insisted that the cutoff date fixed by the Honourable Apex
Court in Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya case could be
extended in the facts and circumstances of each and every case and as such
the impugned order is bad in view of the aforesaid judgments of the
Honourable Apex Court and sought for setting aside the impugned minutes.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(ix) The delay in passing the impugned minutes could be attributed
fully on the respondents 1 and 2 and hence the petitioner institution cannot
be penalized for the delay on the part of the respondents 1 and 2.
23.The impugned minutes on the 62nd agenda of the 444th meeting of
the second respondent held on 15-16th October 2024 with respect to file No.
AOSO-0442 pertaining to B.Ed. (AI) of the petitioner college and file
No.APSO-6134 pertaining to M.Ed., programme of the petitioner college is
challenged in this writ petition. Among the staff members provided by the
petitioner college to the second respondent in the staff member list, five
members, namely, Ms. M. Rethi, Mrs. D. Thilagavathi, Mrs. L. Brigit, Mrs.
M. Meenakshi and Mrs. A. Arogya Gracy do not fulfill the eligibility
requirements as laid down by NCTE (regulations norms and procedure)
regulations, 2004 and on that basis the second respondent committee had
resolved to issue continuation of recognition for 1 unit (50) students of
B.Ed., programme and 1 unit (50) students for M.Ed., programme with effect
from the academic year 2025-2026. The impugned minutes emanated from
a chain of facts and events pursuant to the order passed by the second
respondent withdrawing recognition to the B.Ed., (additional intake)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
streamline programme of the petitioner college and M.Ed., programme of the
petitioner college on 27.12.2021.
24.The dates and events from the aforesaid withdrawal dated
27.12.2021 till the date of the impugned minutes are as follows:
444th Meet of R-2 / File No.AOSO0442 B.Ed., (Additional intake) File
No.AOSO6134 M.Ed.,
S.No. Dates Events
1. 27.12.2021 Impugned order of 2nd respondent in
F.SRO / NCTE / APS 08882 / B.Ed., - AI /
(TN) / 2021 / 29599 and F.SRO / NCTE /
APS 06134 / M.Ed., / (TN) / 2021 / 29598
2. 15.03.2022 (B.Ed.,) Appeal u/s 18 of NCTE Act by the petitioner
16.03.2022
(M.Ed.,)
3. 11.06.2022 Petitioner appeared online before the 1st
respondent to present the case.
4. 12.07.2022 Impugned order of the 1st respondent
rejecting the appeal
5. 02.11.2022 W.P.(C) 15153 & 15155 o/ 2022 &
C.M.APPL.46863 & 46871 /2022 before the
Delhi High Court challenging the orders
dated 27.12.2021 & 15.03.2022 filed by the
petitioner. Interim order to admit students
for B.Ed., (AI) programme & M.Ed.,
Programme for the academic session
2022-23 permitted.
6. 09.11.2022 2nd respondent permitted the petitioner
institution to participate in counselling for
the academic session 2022-23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. Students admitted during 2022-23 were
permitted to write exams & results
published in 2023
8. Admitted 4 students in B.Ed., (AI) & 44
students in M.Ed., for the academic year
2023-2024
9. 23.02.2024 Filed W.P.(MD)No. 4316/2024 seeking to
direct the 4th respondent University to
upload the students admitted for the
academic year 2023-24 & the same was
dismissed.
10. 28.02.2024 Withdrew W.P.(C). 15153 & 15155 /2022
before Delhi High Court & the same were
dismissed as withdrawn.
11. 04.03.2024 The petitioner filed W.P.(MD)Nos.5091 &
5092 / 2024 before this Court challenging
order of the 1st respondent dated 27.12.2021
& the order of the 2nd respondent dated
12.07.2022
12. 04.03.2024 W.P.(MD)No.5091/2024 seeking to restore
the recognition for M.Ed.,programme w.e.f.,
2022-23 academic session dismissed
13. 04.03.2024 W.P.(MD)No.5092/2024 seeking to restore
recognition for B.Ed., programme w.e.f.,
2022-2023 academic session allowed –
Liberty given to the 2nd respondent to verify
the correctness of the particulars furnished
by the petitioner
14. 06.03.2024 Details 4 students admitted in B.Ed., (AI) for
2023-24 were uploaded in the website of the
4th respondent university & permitted to
write exams
15. 22.03.2024 434th meeting of the 2nd respondent –
complied the order of this Court in W.P.
(MD)No.5092/2024 and required the
petitioner to submit 13 documents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
16. 23.03.2024 The petitioner submitted reminder to restore
B.Ed., (2nd basic unit) from the academic
year 2022-2023 onwards with necessary
documents.
17. 03.04.2024 Reminder delivered in the 2nd respondent's
office as per track consignment filed by the
petitioner
18. 01.04.2024 The petitioner submitted documents
required by the 2nd respondent
19. 08.04.2024 Documents delivered in the 2nd respondent's
office as per the track consignment filed by
the petitioner.
20. 10.04.2024 Show Cause Notice U/s 17 Act, 1993, issued
by the 2nd respondent
21. 18.04.2024 Reply to the show cause by the petitioner
22. 23.04.2024 Reply delivered in the 2nd respondent's office
as per the track consignment filed by the
petitioner
23. 10.06.2024 The petitioner filed W.P.(MD)No.12061/2024
seeking to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to
restore M.Ed., programme for the academic
year 2023-2024
24. 28.06.2024 The petitioner filed W.P.(MD)No.12622/2024
to direct R-1 & R-2 to restore B.Ed.,
programme from 2022-2023 onwards
25. 04.08.2024 441st meeting of the 2nd respondent – called
for further documents from the petitioner
including the staff list.
26. 16.08.2024 Reply for 441st meeting given by the
petitioner
27. 30.08.2024 1st respondent issued a show cause notice
again based on the 441st meeting of the 2nd
respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
28. 05.09.2024 442nd meeting of the 2nd respondent called
for documents including consolidated latest
staff list approved by the 4th respondent
University
29. 11.09.2024 The petitioner replied with the documents
30. 13.09.2024 Interim order passed by this Court in Cont
P(MD)No.1702/2024 directing to permit the
college representatives to appear for the
meeting in person
31. 19.09.2024 443rd meeting of the 2nd respondent in which
the representatives of the college made their
appearance
1. Sr.D.Marthal (Secretary)
2. C.Meenakshi (Professor)
Required to produce three documents
including consolidated and updated faculty
list duly approved by the respondent.
32. 26.09.2024 The petitioner wrote to Registrar, TNTEU
(RA) for consolidated & revised staff approval
order
33. 27.09.2024 College received a consolidated & revised
approved staff list from the 4th respondent
34. 01.10.2024 College furnised a consolidated & revised
staff approval order
35. 15th & 16th October 444th Impugned minutes of the 2nd
2024 respondent
25.A careful perusal of the tabulation supra would reveal that on
withdrawal of the permission for B.Ed., (additional intake) programme and
M.Ed., programme of the petitioner college on 27.12.2021, an appeal under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Section 18 of the NCTE act, 1993, was preferred by the petitioner in both
the cases on 15.03.2022 and 16.03.2022 with respect to the withdrawal of
B.Ed., (additional intake) course and M.Ed., course respectively. The appeal
was duly taken up to file by the first respondent and the petitioner appeared
online before the first respondent to present his case on 11.06.2022 and
further both appeals came to be rejected by order dated 12.07.2022 by the
first respondent. The operative portion of the order passed by the first
respondent in the appeal filed by the petitioner college by order dated
12.07.2022 made it clear that the appellant institution was still deficient on
the grounds of rejection made by the second respondent. Only on that basis
the appeal committee concluded that the second respondent was justified in
withdrawing recognition and the appeal deserved to be rejected.
26.A careful perusal of the withdrawal orders dated 27.12.2021 would
reveal that the list of faculty submitted by the institution was sufficient only
for one unit of B.Ed., programme and that the institution failed to submit
faculty list for the second unit of B.Ed., (additional intake) and M.Ed.,
programme as per NCTE Regulations, 2014, and the other two reasons are
of course trivial in nature which could be duly rectified by the petitioner
institution. The petitioner without proceeding to rectify the deficiencies
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
pointed out in the withdrawal order as confirmed by the appeal order
proceeded to challenge the same before the Honourable Delhi High Court in
WP(C) 15153 and 15155 of 2022. By the strength of the interim order
passed by the Honourable Delhi High Court on 02.11.2022, the second
respondent permitted the petitioner institution to participate in counselling
for the academic session 2022-2023 by proceedings dated 09.11.2022. Only
on the strength of the aforesaid interim order passed by the Honourable
Delhi High Court students were admitted during 2022-2023 and were
permitted to write exams and results were also published in 2023.
27.Even thereafter without proceeding to rectify the deficiencies
pointed out by the second respondent in the withdrawal order and as
confirmed by the appellate authority first respondent in the appeal order,
the petitioner institution admitted four students in the B.Ed., (additional
intake) scheme and 44 students in the M.Ed., scheme for the academic year
2023-2024. Thereafter proceeded to file a writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.4316
of 2024 on 23.02.2024 seeking to direct the fourth respondent university to
upload the students admitted for the academic year 2023-2024 without
permission. Ultimately the said writ petition was dismissed on the grounds
of forum shopping pointing out the pendency of the writ petitions before the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Honourable Delhi High Court. Pursuant to the same on 28.02.2024 the writ
petitioner preferred to withdraw the writ petitions in WP(C) 15153 and
15155 of 2024 before the Delhi High Court and the same were dismissed as
withdrawn without giving liberty to the petitioner to file a similar case for the
same cause of action in another Court, more particularly before this Court.
28.It is needless to state that on being dismissed as withdrawn, the
interim orders passed by the Honourable Delhi High Court on 02.11.2022 in
WP(C) 15153 and 15155 of 2022 in CMAPPL.46863 and 46871 of 2022
would also go. Hence it is needless to state that the four students admitted
in the B.Ed., (additional intake) scheme and 44 students admitted in the
M.Ed., scheme for the academic year 2023-2024 is without proper
permission from the competent authorities for the aforesaid academic year.
Further challenging the withdrawal orders dated 27.12.2021 and appeal
passed by the second respondent and the appeal orders dated 12.07.2022
passed by the first respondent, fresh writ petitions were filed before this
Court in W.P.(MD)No.5091 of 2024 as far as M.Ed., scheme is concerned
and 5092 of 2024 as far as B.Ed., (additional intake) scheme is concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
29.This Court was pleased to dismiss the case with respect to M.Ed.,
scheme in W.P.(MD)No.5091 of 2024 on 04.03.2024. Thus it has become
clear that the 44 students who are admitted for the academic year in the
M.Ed., scheme 2023-2024 are without permission from the competent
authority as confirmed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.5091 of 2024, against
which the petitioner institution did not prefer any appeal. It is not the case
of the petitioner institution that they have further admitted students during
the academic year 2024-2025 for the M.Ed., scheme. However, this Court
was pleased to allow the writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.5092 of 2024 with
respect to B.Ed., (additional intake) scheme by setting aside the impugned
order, directing the 4th respondent to immediately open the web portal and
permit to upload the list of four students who were admitted for the year
2023-2024 under the B.Ed., (additional intake) scheme and 50 students
who were admitted under the B.Ed., regular aided scheme.
30.However, the second respondent was given liberty to verify the
correctness of the particulars to be furnished by the petitioner. In
compliance to the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.5092 of 2024
as far as B.Ed., programme (additional intake) is concerned, by order dated
04.03.2024, immediately the second respondent convened the 434th meeting
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
on 22.03.2024. In the said meeting after perusing the various documents
available with the second respondent pertaining to the petitioner institution,
the second respondent required to submit 13 documents. On 23.03.2024,
the petitioner institution submitted that already the documents as required
by the second respondent has been submitted before the second respondent
through registered post. Even then, on 10.04.2024, a show cause notice
under Section 17 of the NCTE Act, 1993, was issued by the second
respondent for not fulfilling the requirements as required under 434th
meeting of the second respondent dated 22.03.2024.
31.On 18.04.2024 the petitioner institution replied to the said show
cause. In the meanwhile the petitioner institution further filed W.P.(MD)Nos.
12622 and 12061 of 2024 seeking to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to
restore the M.Ed., programme and B.Ed., (additional intake) programme
from the academic years 2023-2024 and 2022-2023 onwards respectively.
Both the writ petitions were disposed of directing the respondents to
consider the petitioner's proposal. Following which, 441st meeting of the
second respondent was called for on 04.08.2024 and the matter with respect
to the petitioner institution was also taken up as the 7 th agenda in the
aforesaid meeting which was held on 04.08.2024. Despite the second
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
respondent's continuous request to furnish the necessary documents even
on 04.08.2024, the petitioner college was deficient for submission of seven
documents including the latest staff list duly approved by the registrar of
the affiliating body, that is, the fourth respondent university.
32.Following which on 16.08.2024, the petitioner complied with the
documents sought for by the second respondent by submitting the same.
Since the second respondent was not satisfied, by the documents furnished
by the petitioner institution on 30.08.2024, the second respondent issued a
show cause notice based on the 441st meeting of the second respondent.
Thereafter on 05.09.2024 the 442nd meeting of the second respondent was
convened and the petitioner institute's matter was taken as agenda 8 even
in which it was pointed out that the institution has to further submit 8 more
documents including the list of approved faculty as issued by the affiliating
university, that is, the fourth respondent herein. On 11.09.2024 the
requirements sought for in the 442 nd meeting of the second respondent was
complied with by the petitioner.
33.In the meanwhile on 13.09.2024, an interim order was passed by
this Court in Cont P(MD)No.1702 of 2024 directing to permit the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
representatives of the petitioner college to appear for meeting conducted by
the second respondent. In view of the same, in compliance to the aforesaid
order on 19.09.2024, the 443rd meeting of the second respondent was
convened and the representatives of the college, namely, sister D. Marthal
(Secretary) and C. Meenakshi (Professor) were permitted to make their
appearance before the second respondent while considering the matter
pertaining to the college as agenda No.6 and they were also given an
opportunity of hearing and the same was recorded in the minutes of the
aforesaid meeting and even thereafter the second respondent committee
resolved to grant a last opportunity for the institution to submit three more
documents including the consolidated and updated faculty list duly
approved by the competent authority. Only thereafter on 26.09.2024, the
petitioner wrote to the Registrar of the 4th respondent university for a
consolidated and revised staff approval order for the purpose of NCTE.
Thereafter the college received the consolidated faculty list from the 4 th
respondent university on 27.09.2024 and the same was furnished to the 2nd
respondent on 01.10.2024. Only thereafter, the 2nd respondent convened the
444th meeting on 15th and 16th October 2024 at New Delhi and the subject of
the petitioner college was taken up as 62 nd agenda and the impugned
resolution of the minutes of the 444th meeting came to be resolved.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
34.In the impugned minutes as far as file No.APSO6134 pertaining to
M.Ed., programme of the petitioner Institution is concerned, the committee
decided to issue continuation of recognition order for one unit (50) students
for M.Ed., programme with effect from the academic year 2025-2026 vide
minutes of the 444th meeting of the second respondent held on 15th and 16th
October 2024 at New Delhi. Following the minutes even before a final order
being passed by the second respondent in this regard, the writ petitioner
has filed this writ petition challenging the minutes pertaining to the file
seeking recognition for M.Ed., scheme as elaborately discussed supra,
pursuant to the withdrawal of recognition to the M.Ed., scheme by the order
of the second respondent dated 27.12.2021 which was further confirmed by
the first respondent by order dated 12.07.2022 withdrawing recognition
granted to the petitioner Institution for conducting M.Ed., programme of 2
years duration with an annual intake of one basic unit (50) students with
effect from the academic session, that is, 2022-2023 onwards. Thereafter
only with the strength of the interim order passed by the Delhi High Court
in CM APPL 46863 and 46871 of 2022 in WP(C) 15153 and 15155 of 2022
dated 02.11.2022, the second respondent permitted the petitioner
Institution to participate in counselling for the academic session 2022-2023
and the students were also admitted, permitted to write examinations and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
results were also published. However, for the academic year 2023-2024, I
have no hesitation to hold that the petitioner Institution was not provided
with any recognition for admitting students under the M.Ed., scheme from
the academic year 2023-2024.
35.A careful perusal of the tabular column supra would reveal that
rather proceeding to comply with the defects pointed out by the second
respondent in the withdrawal order and thereafter by the first respondent in
the appeal order, the petitioner Institute has preferred to file a writ petition
after writ petitions before the Delhi High Court and before the Madurai
Bench of Madras High Court. Only after the final order passed by the
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in W.P.(MD)No.5092 of 2024 on
04.03.2024, the writ petitioner Institute actually took certain efforts to
comply with the requirements / defects pointed out by the second
respondent. Whenever the petitioner Institute provided with the documents
as a resort to rectify the defects pointed out by the second respondent, now
and then the second respondent had convened its committee meeting taking
the subject of the petitioner College as one of the agenda and had further
resolved to point out further defects which are expected to be rectified by the
petitioner Institute and after conducting the 441st, 442nd, 443rd meeting
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
pursuant to the order of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.5092 of 2024 dated
04.03.2024 on 04.08.2024, 29.09.2024 and 19.09.2024 the petitioner
Institute came up to fully furnish with all the required documents as
pointed out by the second respondent more particularly by furnishing the
consolidated and revised staff approval list as sanctioned by the fourth
respondent university. When the college finally furnished the same on
01.10.2024 immediately on 16.10.2024, the 444th meeting of the second
respondent was convened and the impugned minutes came to be passed
deciding to issue a continuation of recognition for M.Ed., programme with
effect from the academic year 2025-2026 with respect to one unit (50)
students.
36.The petitioner Institute has never claimed that they have admitted
students for the M.Ed., scheme for the academic year 2024-2025. However,
in paragraph 22 of the affidavit filed by the petitioner Institute, it has been
pleaded that the petitioner College had admitted four students to B.Ed.,
(second basic unit) and 44 students for M.Ed., programme for the academic
year 2023-2024 in the month of September 2023. However, by the strength
of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.5091 of 2024 dated
04.03.2024, I once again categorically observe that the aforesaid admissions
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
are without due permission from the competent authorities. It is also clear
that the fourth respondent university also did not permit the petitioner
Institute to upload the details of the 44 students admitted for the M.Ed.,
programme for the academic year 2023-2024 and also they did not permit
them to appear for examination during the said academic year.
37.Hence, I don't find any demerit on the part of the second
respondent in resolving in his 444th meeting with respect to agenda 62
pertaining to the petitioner College deciding to issue a continuation of
recognition order for one unit (50) students for M.Ed., programme with effect
from the academic year 2025-2026 by the resolution of the meeting dated
15th and 16th of October 2024. Since the recognition for the conduct of one
unit (50) students for M.Ed., programme was withdrawn with effect from the
academic year 2022-2023, and which was not further recognized for the
subsequent years till the resolution dated 15th and 16th October 2024 in the
444th meeting of the second respondent, I am of the considered view that
the committee's decision to issue a continuation of recognition to one unit of
M.Ed., programme with effect from the academic year 2025-2026
prospectively cannot be interfered with, for the reason that the second
respondent cannot retrospectively resolve to decide to issue a continuation
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
of recognition of one unit (50) students for M.Ed., programme with effect
from the academic year 2023-2024, when the petitioner's writ petition in
this regard in W.P.(MD)No.5091 of 2024 came to be dismissed by the order
of this Court dated 04.03.2024, against which the petitioner Institute did
not prefer any appeal.
38.Since the admission of 44 students which was made by the
petitioner Institute under the M.Ed., scheme during the academic year
2023-2024 itself has been held invalid by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.5091 of
2024 directing the second respondent to take a final call, it is needless to
state that the petitioner Institute did not have any locus standi to make any
admission for the academic year 2024-2025. Though it was argued by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that the admission for M.Ed., programme
for the academic year 2024-2025 was scheduled from 21.11.2024 to
06.12.2024, that is, after the date of the impugned minutes dated
15.10.2024, it is not the case of the petitioner Institute that they have
admitted certain number of students for the academic year 2024-2025 as
well, pending this writ petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
39.Hence, it is a considered opinion of this Court that it is not
necessary to interfere with the impugned minutes as far as the file
No.APSO6134 pertaining to M.Ed., programme deciding to issue
continuation of recognition order for one unit (50) students for M.Ed.,
programme with effect from the academic year 2025-2026, as resolved by
the second respondent in the 444th meeting held on 15-16th October 2024.
As far as the impugned minutes pertaining to the 62nd agenda of the second
respondent in file No.AOSO0442 pertaining to the B.Ed., (additional intake)
scheme of the petitioner institution is concerned, the committee has decided
to issue continuation of recognition order for one unit (50) students of B.Ed.,
programme with effect from the academic year 2025-2026. As rightly
contended by the counsel for the petitioner, it is needless to state that the
recognition order for the continuation of one unit (50) students for B.Ed.,
programme (aided) stream of the petitioner institution was always in force
and the same was never ever withdrawn at any point of time from its
commencement. The particular file No.AOSO0442 pertaining to B.Ed.,
(additional intake) (one unit) (self-financing stream) of the petitioner
institution was the one which was under consideration.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
40.However, inadvertently, without considering the same, the
committee has decided to issue continuation of recognition order for the
already existing one unit of B.Ed., programme with effect from the academic
year 2025-2026 and the same has to be necessarily interfered and that
portion of minutes in agenda 62 pertaining to the B.Ed., programme is
hereby set aside. The petitioner institute is entitled for continuation of
recognition order for one unit (50) students of B.Ed., programme (aided
stream) continuously without any hindrance or withdrawal. However, as far
as the petitioner institution's proposal seeking recognition to the second
unit of 50 students of B.Ed., programme under the self-financing scheme in
the 444th meeting of the second respondent held on 15 th and 16th October
2024, the second respondent had observed that the staff members list
provided by the institution do not fulfill the mandatory eligibility
requirements laid down by NCTE (regulations norms and procedure)
regulations, 2014. The NCTE in exercise of its powers conferred under
Section 32 of the NCTE Act, 1993, framed NCTE (recognition norms and
procedures) regulations, 2014, which came into force with effect from
01.12.2014 in terms of the new NCTE regulations, during which the
duration of both the B.Ed., and M.Ed., courses were increased from one
year to two years.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
41.In exercise of the powers conferred by sub Section 2 of Section 32
of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993, the NCTE further
amended the NCTE (recognition norms and procedure) regulations, 2014,
namely, NCTE (recognition norms and procedure) (amendment) regulations,
2017, which came into force with effect from 29.05.2017. By the aforesaid
amendment of regulations in the year 2017 appendix 4 and appendix 5 to
the NCTE (recognition norms and procedure) regulation, 2014, came to be
amended. Section 8 of the NCTE (recognition norms procedure)
(amendment) regulation, 2017, amended appendix 4 in paragraph 5 in
subparagraph 5.2 of the regulations, 2014. The same is extracted as follows:
“(a) after C (ii) and between “Desirable” the following Note shall be
inserted namely:-
Note- “Besides fulfilling the above qualification the candidate
shall have cleared the National Eligibility Test (NET) conducted by
University Grants Commission. Provided candidates, who are, or have
have been awarded Ph.D degree in Education in accordance with the
University Grant Commission (Minimum Standard and Procedure for
Award of Ph.D. Degree) Regulation 2009, shall be exempted from the
requirement of the clearing of NET for appointment as Assistant
Professor or equivalent position in Universities or college or
institutions”,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(b) after C (ii), the entry “Desirable: Ph.D. Degree in Education with
subject specialisation” shall be omitted.”
42.Only on the basis of the said regulation / amendment, 2017, in the
impugned minutes, the second respondent has held that five staff members
among the staff members list provided by the institution do not fulfil the
mandatory eligibility requirements as laid down by NCTE regulations, 2014.
A careful perusal of the consolidated latest staff list, B.Ed., programme for
NCTE purpose furnished by the Tamil Nadu teachers education university
dated 27.09.2024 which was submitted by the petitioner institution before
the second respondent would make it clear that Ms.Rethi is a librarian who
is appointed under the aided stream of B.Ed., course, that is, with respect to
the first unit for which the sanction is continuous and valid as on date.
Hence, the mention of the name of Ms. Rethi who is a librarian under the
aided stream of B.Ed., first unit of the petitioner institution is per se illegal.
As far as the other appointed teaching faculties, namely, Mrs.D.
Thilagavathi, Ms. L. Brigit, Ms. M. Meenakshi and Ms. A. Arogya Gracy are
concerned, they are all serving as associate professors under the self-
financing stream of the B.Ed., course of the petitioner institution. The fourth
respondent university has provided information that their qualification has
been approved by the fourth respondent university as early as in the year
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2022 that was on 14.02.2022. But none of them have neither passed NET or
qualified in PhD. It is needless to state that the fourth respondent university
has approved the qualification without considering the NCTE (recognition
norms and procedure) (amendment) regulations, 2017.
43.In the absence of necessary qualification as per the NCTE
regulations with respect to Mrs.D. Thilagavathi, Ms. L. Brigit, Ms. M.
Meenakshi and Ms. A. Arogya Gracy, the second respondent cannot be
found fault at for having decided to refrain from issuing recognition order for
B.Ed., (additional intake) in the file No.AOSO0442 pertaining to the
petitioner institute with effect from the academic year 2024-2025. However,
it is made clear that the continuation of recognition for conduct of one basic
unit of B.Ed., programme aided stream by the petitioner college cannot be
interfered with and the same is in order. As far as the recognition for the
B.Ed., (additional intake) which is sought for by the petitioner the petitioner
is at liberty to rectify the defects pointed out by the second respondent and
make a fresh proposal on the basis of which the second respondent SRC
shall take a final call.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
44.It is pertinent to mention that this court while setting aside the
impugned order of 2nd respondent dated 27.12.2021 did not consider if the
faculty members are duly qualified in terms of regulations, 2014, but only
considered the total number of faculty members, thereby giving way to the
petitioner institute to admit 4 students in B.Ed., self financing stream
(additional intake) for the academic year 2023-24, this aspect was not
brought to the notice of the learned single judge. But in this case, the
learned standing counsel for the 1st respondent produced the amendment
regulations, 2017, in which either P.hd or a pass in NET has been made
mandatory for teaching faculty. The 4th respondent is directed to cancel the
qualification recognition granted to the teaching faculty pointed out in the
impugned 444th meeting's decision in 62nd agenda of the second respondent
pertaining to the B.Ed (AI). Though earlier the second respondent had duly
recognized intake of 50 students for one basic unit of M.Ed., course with
annual intake of 50 students from the academic session 2015-2016, the
same was withdrawn only with effect from the academic year 2022-2023 by
the impugned order dated 27.12.2021. That was obviously due to the
amendment in the NCTE regulation in the year 2017. Hence, the portion of
the impugned meetings pertaining to the admission of the M.Ed.,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
programme with effect from the academic year 2025-2026 need not be
interfered with.
45.Accordingly the writ petition is partly allowed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petititions are closed.
24.02.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
Sml
Note: Issue order copy on 25.02.2025.
To
1.The National Council for Teacher
Education,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Hans Bhawan, Wing II,
Bahadur Shahzafar Marg,
New Delhi-110 002.
2.The Regional Director,
Southern Regional Committee (SRC),
National Council for Teacher Education,
G-&, Sector-10 (Near Sector-10 Metro
Station)
Dwarka, New Delhi-110 075.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Department of Higher Education,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009.
4.Tamilnadu Teacher Education University,
Rep. by its Registrar,
Gangaiamman Koil Street,
Karapakkam, Chennai-600 005.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
Sml
24.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
