Shri Ram Adarsh Education Society vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Heard counsel for the parties. As short question is involved, petition is taken up for final disposal forthwith, by consent.

This petition takes exception to the order dated 27/28th January, 2014 issued under the signature of the Regional Director, National Council for Teacher Education (Annexure-P/8). The said order was passed after issuance of show-cause notice to the petitioner-College. In the show-cause notice, several instances were cited for initiating action of de-recognition of the petitioner-College. However, in the final order passed by the Council which is impugned in this petition (Annexure-P/8) only two instances have been cited as ground for withdrawing recognition of the petitioner-college. The order reads thus:-

TO BE PUBLISHED IN GAZETTE OF INDIA PART-III SECTION-4 F. No. WRC/APW01635/223280/199th/2014/113480 Date: 27/28.01.2014 Withdrawal Order

Whereas, the recognition was granted to the institution namely SHRI RAM ADARSH EDUCATION SOCIETY, D.P. CHATURVEDI SCIENCE, COMM. ARTS & B.ED. COLLEGE BARAPATTHAR SEONI 480661 MADHYA PRADESH (APW01635/223280) for B. Ed. Course vide order dated 09.08.2005.

AND WHEREAS, the Western Regional Committee received copies of inspection reports of inspections conducted in the B.Ed. institutions by the District Authority, at the behest of the Higher Education Department, Govt. of Madhya Pradesh.

AND WHEREAS, the matter was placed in the 162nd WRC Meeting held on May 10, 2012 and it was decided to issue show cause notice to the institution based on the points given in the report of the Higher Education Department, which are as follows:-

And whereas, in compliance of show cause notice dated 07.01.2013 written representation submit by the institution on 31.01.2013.

AND WHEREAS, the institution submitted reply dated 27.11.2012, and the matter was placed before WRC in its 199th Meeting held on 20th-22nd, January, 2014 and the Committee decided to withdraw the recognition on the following points:-

Show Cause Notice dated 07.01.2013 was issued to the institution on the basis of the inspection reports of the Higher Education Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh. The undated reply of the institution received in WRO on 31.01.2013 was examined. It is seen that:-

(i) The Principal is not a Ph.D., which is requirement under the NCTE norms; and

(ii) Bank statement showing the salary being paid as per the UGC/State Government norms has not been submitted. Only a copy of the credit note of one month from the Bank has been submitted. There is information about the payment of EPF of only one month in this credit note etc. This does not meet the requirement of the Regulations, particularly since this institution was recognized on 09.08.2005.

Now therefore, in exercise of powers vested u/s 17(1) of the NCTE Act, 1993, the recognition of Shri Ram Adarsh Education Society, D.P. Chaturvedi Science, Comm. Arts & B.ED. COLLEGE BARAPATTHAR SEONI 480661 MADHYA PRADESH for B.Ed. course is hereby withdrawn from the end of the academic session next following the date of the withdrawal order.

Further, if the institution is not satisfied by the order, they can prefer an appeal to National Council for Teacher Education, Hans Bhawan, Wing-II, 1, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, Near ITO, New Delhi 110002 online against this order u/s 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 within 60 days of the issue of this order. The guidelines for filing the appeal may be seen on NCTE website.

By order (Sunil Shrivastava) Regional Director

(Emphasis Supplied)

No doubt, the respondent may be justified in pointing out that this order was the outcome of the show-cause notice dated 2/7.01.2013. That show-cause notice was founded on the information received from the Commissioner, Higher Education, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, as noted in the show-cause notice. The petitioner gave response to the said show-cause notice. However, the de-recognition order was passed in the context of only two grounds. The first is that the Principal is not a Ph.D. and the second is regarding payment of EPF of only one month which does not meet the requirement of regulations.

According to the petitioner, the order of de-recognition in the fact situation of the present case is excessive. As a matter of fact, the question of de-recognizing the petitioner''s college does not arise as the petitioner college has already taken remedial steps in respect of the points noted in the impugned order Annexure-P/8. For, petitioner has already submitted proposal to the University for permission to make appointment on the post of Principal and that proposal is still pending. Further, the second ground referred to in the impugned order has also been rectified.

No doubt, the petitioner could be relegated to file statutory appeal available against in the impugned order. However, we find the argument of the petitioner that the decision of withdrawing recognition in respect of a college already recognized in the year 2005 and was otherwise functioning properly in all other respects would be not only excessive and disproportionate but also suffers from failure to examine the crucial aspect as to whether those deficiencies would and in fact have impacted the quality of education imparted by the college. In that, by one stroke of pen, by passing the impugned order, the fate of several stake holders in the college has been completely jeopardized. Such as, the teaching staff, non-teaching staff, the students of the college are also affected by the de-recognition order.

We also find force in the argument of the petitioner that it is always open to the Authorities to give further time to the college to remove the deficiencies in a time bound manner. That issue ought to have been examined by the appropriate Authority whilst passing a drastic order of withdrawal of recognition. That obligation flows from Regulations 12 of NCTE Regulations, 2009. Since power to relax or grant extension is vested in the appropriate Authority, it is coupled with duty to examine all aspects of the matter before passing the drastic order of de-recognition.

In our considered opinion, therefore, the impugned order of withdrawal of recognition dated 27/28th January, 2014 (Annexure-P/8) will have to be quashed and set aside and the parties relegated before the appropriate Authority for consideration of all aspects of the matter, keeping in mind the exposition of the Apex Court in the case of National Council for Tech. Edu. and Another Vs. Vaishnav Inst. of Tech. and Mgt., and also the recent decision in the case of Matushri Ahilya Devi Teachers Education Institute and another Vs. National Council for Teachers Education and others and companion cases decided on 13.05.2014. All questions in that behalf are left open to be examined by the appropriate Authority on its own merits in accordance with law. The consequence of this order is to revive the recognition granted in favour of the petitioner college and for which reason, the petitioner college can continue to impart education to its students till further orders to be passed by the appropriate Authority under the Act of 1993.

The petition is disposed of accordingly.