Shri Ramnath Singh Mahavidyalaya vs National Council Of Teachers

In pursuance of the directions issued by the Apex Court and guidelines issued by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the wake of COVID-19 outbreak, the matter was taken up through video conferencing while adhering to the norms of social distancing prescribed by the Government.

Heard finally with the consent of both the parties.

In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has assailed the legality, validity and propriety of the impugned order dated 28.08.2019 (Annexure P/2) passed by the respondent No.2 as well as the order passed in appeal dated 17.02.2020 (Annexure P/1) confirming the impugned order.

The brief facts leading to filing of this case are that the petitioner-Institution runs the Educational Courses and was granted recognition for B.Ed. from the Academic Session 2003-2004. Since then continuously the courses are being run by the petitioner/Institute after fulfilling the norms of the NCTE. The Western Regional Committee (WRC) decided to issue the revised recognition order vide Circular dated 27.07.2016/1.12-17. In pursuance whereof a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner/Institute. The petitioner submitted the reply to the respondents. However, being dissatisfied with the reply the respondents withdrew the recognition of the petitioner/Institute. Being aggrieved, the petitioner submitted an appeal before the respondent No.1/NCTE. The appellate authority confirmed the order dated 28.08.2019. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted various representations along with the documents stating therein that the petitioner has already complied with the NCTE norms of 2014 in which there is no need for P.hd. decree and the notification of 2017 is not applicable to the petitioner/Institute.

Identical issue came up before the Delhi High Court for consideration in WP © 241/18 (Sunaina Devi Smarak Shikshan vs. National Council of Teacher Education and Ors.) wherein the petition was disposed of vide order dated 11.04.2019 in which it was held that the petitioner wherein is not required to possess the amended qualification as per the NCTE notification dated 9.6.2017.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's case is exactly identical to the case of Sunaina Devi Smarak Shikshan (supra) and as such the present petition may also be disposed of in terms of the order passed by the Delhi High Court.

On the other hand Shri R.P. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 and 2 opposed the prayer and submitted that it was in the interest of achieving excellence in education by the teachers who themselves impart education to others, the 2017 amendment regulations have been brought in whereby the qualifications required to be possessed by the faculty have been made more strict. He further submitted that once the 2014 regulations stood amended by the 2017 amendment regulations, the petitioner-Institute is obliged to abide by the amended regulations.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

This Court has gone through the judgment rendered in the case of Sunaina Devi Smarak Shikshan (supra) in which the impugned order passed by the NRC has been quashed and set aside. Further, the respondents have been directed to accord recognition to the petitioner for commencing B.Ed. course from the next academic session, de hors the ground on which the impugned order stands issued.

Since the issue raised in the present petition is identical to that of the issue raised in Sunaina Devi (supra), this Court has no hesitation to allow the writ petition. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 17.02.2020 (Annexure P/1) and 28.08.2019 (Annexure P/2) are hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent-NCTE is directed to accord recognition to the petitioner on the basis of 2014 regulations without insisting to comply with the amended regulations of 2017 for the present academic session 2020-2021. The petitioner/Institute shall be allowed to participate in the ongoing counseling which is to end on 19.09.2020.

Needless to state that the recognition so granted to the petitioner would be subject to fulfilling all the procedural and other requirements, if any.

With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed. No order as to cost.