Lalaram Rakhamal Shiksha Evam Seva Samiti vs National Council For Teachers

Challenging the orders passed on 19.12.2012 by respondent no.2 and order dated 26.6.8.2013 passed by the appellate authority respondent no.1 in the matter of granting recognition and permission to start M.Ed., course by the petitioner institute, this writ petition has been filed.

The petitioner institute has been granted recognition vide order dated 23.6.2005 and Annexure P-2 and Annexure P-3 respectively for the purpose of conducting certain course of studies in B.Ed., and M.Ed., respectively. The institute is conducting the course in accordance to the recognition granted. When a show cause notice was issued to the institute on 22.3.2012 vide Annexure R-1/4 asking them as to why their recognition be not withdrawn on the ground that appropriate inspection committee had informed that the teachers employed by the institute appear to be employed on part time basis, are not suitably qualified and are also not paid their salary in full amount or through the Bank. The petitioner replied to the aforesaid show cause notice and their reply was considered and vide Annexure R-1/6 dated 19.12.2012 their recognition was withdrawn. However when the appeal was filed, it is pointed out that the appeal was decided on totally different ground, in as much as, in the appeal it was held the petitioner had not obtained accreditation from NAAC within the cut off date i.e.1.4.2012 and therefore their recognition cannot be restored. It is pointed out that when the appeal was filed, the original default in the matter of show cause notice Annexure R-1/4 dated 22.3.2012 was rectified and therefore on a totally new ground the appellate authority continued with the withdrawal.

Inter alia contending that withdrawal of recognition on this new ground without show cause notice was not proper and placing reliance on certain orders passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court headed by Hon''ble the Chief Justice on 13.5.2014 in W.P.No.21586/2013 (Matushri Ahilya Devi Teachers Education Institute and another Vs. National Council for Teachers Education and others) Shri Ajay Mishra, learned Senior Advocate argued that in this case various aspects of the matter with regard to obtaining accreditation from NAAC before the cut off date has been considered by Hon''ble Bench and it is found that in the cases where the application for accreditation by the NAAC is pending as per new regulation, then coercive steps for withdrawal should not be initiated till NAAC takes a decision on the application as per the rule, till such time action for withdrawal should be kept in abeyance. Shri Ajay Mishra took us through the documents Annexure P-8 dated 16.7.2012, Annexure P-9 dated 18.7.2012, Annexure P-10 dated 13.8.2012 and Annexure P-11 dated 11.1.2013 issued by the NAAC and Accreditation council to canvas the contention that the petitioner''s application for grant of accreditation was filed on 13.8.2012 and the same is still pending. Taking us through the observations made by the coordinate Bench in the case of Matushri Ahilya Devi Teachers (supra) particularly paras 13 & 14 thereby he argued that similar directions as has been issued in the aforesaid case on 13.5.2014 should be issued in the case of present petitioner also and the petition be disposed of.

The respondent nos.1 & 2 represented by Shri K.K.Singh, submitted that once in the matter of grant of accreditation by the NAAC show cause notice and opportunity of hearing has been granted to the petitioner. Now in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Swami Vivekanand College of Education and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. He further points out that the power of relaxation under the regulation 12 for grant of recognition is only available to the State Government and therefore no relief can be granted to the petitioner.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have considered the rival contentions. The only question warranting consideration in this writ petition now is as to whether the NCTE is entitled to withdraw the recognition of the petitioner only on the ground that as per the prevailing regulation accreditation by the NAAC is not obtained before the cut off date i.e. 1.4.2012.

Even though Shri K.K.Singh, heavily relied on the judgment of Swami Vivekanand College (supra) to say that no interference can be made, but on going though the detailed judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 13.5.2014 in the case of Matushri Ahilya Devi Teachers (supra), we find that in the said case the legal principle laid down and the import of the judgment of Swami Vivekanand College (supra) was taken note of and it was found by the learned coordinate Bench that a large number of applications for accreditation has been filed before the NAAC and without conducting particular inspection and without issuing show cause notice to the institute NAAC may not be in a position to conduct the inspection and decide the application for grant of accreditation. After taking note of this peculiar situation in para 15 the matter has been dealt with by the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court in the following manner :-

�Further, indisputably, NAAC is not in a position to inspect all the institutions for the purpose of issuing Accreditation certificate, much less before the cut off date specified in the Regulations. Moreover, the recognized institutions are more than willing to comply with all the directions to be given by the Competent Authority for ensuring imparting of quality education. Thus, prescription of such a condition with a cut off date would be asking the concerned institutions to do something which is impossible for them and completely beyond their control. Rather, the failure should be attributed to Authorities in discharging its statutory duty. That would certainly warrant an exercise of discretion on case to case basis to grant/continue recognition in exercise of power under Regulation 12 of NCTE Regulations 2009, by the competent authority. We say so because the validity of the provisions of Clause (5) of Regulation 8, has been upheld by the Apex Court in Swami Vivekanand College of Education and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, . The provision is thus held to be intra vires, but since it is creating undue hardships because of failure of the Authorities themselves, in our considered opinion the power of relaxation ought to be exercised by the Competent Authority on case to case basis. At this stage, it would also be necessary to hold that before passing the orders impugned, opportunity of hearing should have been given to the petitioners and having failed to do so, the action of the respondents cannot be upheld.�

After having held so the petitions were allowed and disposed of in the following manner :-

�And quash the order of respondents with liberty to them to initiate proceedings afresh against the petitioners after granting them an opportunity of hearing and to pass fresh orders. In case the petitioners make an application for grant of relaxation in terms of Regulation 12 of NCTE Regulations 2009, in any of the conditions prescribed under Clause (5) of Regulation 8 of the said Regulations, it would be necessary for the respondents to examine the same and to pass orders on the said application on case to case basis on its own merits.�

In the present case also similar situation is existing. The applications filed by the applicants for grant of accreditation is pending before the appropriate council since 13.8.2012 as is evident from Annexure P-10 and now from the impugned orders it is clear that the recognition is withdrawn only because the NAAC accreditation is not available with the petitioner institute.

Keeping the aforesaid, we see no reason as to why similar treatment granted to the petitioner in the case of Matushri Ahilya Devi Teachers (supra) be not granted to the present petitioner also.

Even though Shri K.K.Singh, learned counsel for respondent nos.1 & 2 tried to emphasis that in the case decided by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Matushri Ahilya Devi Teachers (supra), interference was made because show cause notice before the council was not issued, whereas in this case show cause notice indicating non-availability of NAAC accreditation is also issued, we are of the considered view that the case decided by the Coordinate Bench in Matushri Ahilya Devi Teachers (supra), apart from the question of issuance of show cause notice, the capacity of NAAC to deal with large number of applications for grant of accreditation and fixing a cut off date, application of which was pending was also taken note by the Coordinate Bench and therefore directions were issued. That being the question of NAAC being unable to decide the application in time and the fact that the application of present petitioner for accreditation is pending entitlement of them to seek a decision of their application before the recognition is withheld.

Accordingly, we quash the impugned orders passed by the respondents and liberty is granted to them to pass fresh orders in the matter of grant of withdrawal of recognition. That apart, in case the petitioner makes an application for grant of relaxation in terms of regulation 12 of the NCTE Regulation 2009, action be taken as already directed in the order passed by the Coordinate Bench in Matushri Ahilya Devi Teachers (supra).

With the aforesaid, this petition stands disposed of.