Aristotle Teachers Training Institute K.G.F. vs National Council for Teachers Education Southern Regional Committee, National Council for Teachers Education and Banglaore University

Huluvadi G. Ramesh

The Petitioner has sought for quashing of the order passed by respondent No. 1 National Council for Teachers Education (''NCTE'' for short) at Annexure-H and the order passed by respondent No. 2 - NCTE at Annexure-P and prays for a direction to respondent No. 1 to issue recognition to the petitioner to run D. Ed., course. The petitioner, an Educational Trust situated at K.G.F., made an application in terms of Section 14(1) of the NCTE Act, 1993 to respondent No. 1 for grant of recognition to commence Elementary D.Ed. course from the academic session 2004-05 and recognition was granted to the petitioner to start D.Ed., course with an annual intake of 50 students. Thereafter, the petitioner has commenced the D.Ed. course from the Academic year 2004-05 strictly adhering to the basic requirements and conditions as per NCTE norms and is running effectively. When things stood thus, in June 2011, the first respondent issued notice dated 7.7.2011 to the petitioner contending that in the inspection report dated 15.6.2010 conducted by the respondent No. 1 u/s 13 of the NCTE Act, the respondent No. 1 has pointed out certain deficiencies and called for an explanation. In spite of replying to the notice by the petitioner, respondent No. 1 has issued another notice and without considering the reply given by the petitioner and without hearing the petitioner, passed an order withdrawing the recognition for running D.Ed. course from the academic year 2012-13. In spite of submission of relevant materials to show the compliance of deficiencies pointed out and also showing the details of Bank Accounts in the name of the staff members of the petitioner - Institution, it has been stated that still there is deficiency. The petitioner has got sufficient infrastructure, both in respect of building as well as land, for the purpose of imparting education to the students who have been admitted to D.Ed. course. Accordingly, they have sought for allowing the writ petition by quashing Annexures H & P orders passed.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents - NCTE and perused the records.

The learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 & 2 - NCTE submit that Inspection Committee in its report has clearly observed that the petitioner-institution was established way back in the year 2004 itself and several deficiencies noted therein have not been complied with. When the non-compliance of the deficiencies are noticed, the order passed by the NCTE and the Appellate Authority cannot be negated as it is a fact finding order and the petitioner has not provided the basic infrastructure as required for establishment and continuation of D.Ed. course. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

The learned counsel appearing for 3rd respondent - University nevertheless submitted that though the University conducts examination, the basic infrastructure as is insisted upon by the first respondent, as a matter of providing basic infrastructure, has not been complied with by the petitioner and the submission of the petitioner cannot be accepted in the absence of steps being not taken to meet out the deficiencies pointed out. The learned counsel further submits that there is no provision to recognize/accord approval with retrospective effect. Accordingly, he has relied upon the judgment of the apex court reported in 2012 STPL (Web) 632 SC.

In this regard, the reply of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is the institution has already established way back in the year 2004 and certain deficiencies pointed out is without verification of the records and there is a substantial compliance. The above decision is not applicable to the case on hand and the decision is with respect to establishment of the institution and seeking for issuance of a letter of intent and formal recognition. But, it is not so in the case on hand and accordingly, sought for quashing of the orders at Annexures H & P.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner challenged the deficiencies pointed out by the first respondent-NCTE before the appellate authority and the appellate authority considered the very deficiencies pointed out by the NCTE. In that view of the matter, though the order has reached finality by the impugned order at Annexure-P passed by the appellate authority, but having regard to the grievances raised by the petitioner that the orders were passed in a mechanical manner without application of mind by the NCET as well as by the appellate authority, as a matter of fact finding authority, whether there is a compliance of the deficiencies or not is to be verified by the verification committee/inspection committee. In this regard, it is for the petitioner to pay the fees as prescribed once again for inspection by the Inspecting committee. Thereafter, on such report being submitted by the Inspection Committee about the infrastructure that is available in the petitioner-institution, a decision has to be taken afresh. With the above observation, the Writ Petition stands disposed off. It is for the petitioner to pay the requisite fee within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Thereafter, in another six weeks the respondent - authority to inspect the infrastructure and etc., and with regard to the queries raised by the first respondent and pass appropriate order.