Vivekananda College of Education vs The National Council for Teacher Education

V. Ramasubramanian, J.—The petitioner was established as a College of Education. On their application dated 29.5.2005, the Regional Director of the National Council for Teacher Education passed an order dated 21.11.2007 granting recognition to the petitioner for offering a B.Ed. Course of a duration of one year with annual permitted intake of 100 students. The recognition was conditional subject to the petitioner fulfilling the various requirements, such as (i) complying with the norms and standards prescribed under the Regulations, (ii) shifting to own premises within three years from the date of recognition, and (iii) getting approval for the appointment of Principal and seven faculty members from the affiliating University.

An inspection was conducted on 06.12.2011 by the visiting team and on the basis of their report, the Southern Regional Committee decided in its 216th meeting held on 11th and 12th January, 2012 to issue a show cause notice. Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 27.02.2012 was issued pointing out about eight deficiencies.

The petitioner submitted a reply on 09.3.2012 pointing out that they had already submitted documentary evidence in response to the deficiencies noted by the inspection team.

Thereafter, the second respondent issued a final show cause dated 25.6.2012 referring to other deficiencies. The petitioner submitted yet another reply on 21.8.2012. After considering the reply, the second respondent decided in its 233rd meeting held on 26-28th September, 2012, to issue a final notice. Accordingly, a second final show cause notice dated 30.10.2012 was issued.

The petitioner submitted a reply once again on 19.11.2012. Thereafter, the matter was taken up in the 237th meeting held on 5th and 6th January 2013, wherein it was decided to withdraw the recognition of the petitioner institution. Consequently, an order was passed on 14.3.2013 withdrawing recognition.

On the basis of the order of withdrawal of recognition, the petitioner surrendered D.T. Ed. Course. But, in so far as B.Ed. Course is concerned, the petitioner filed a statutory appeal to the first respondent on 12.4.2013. The first respondent passed an order on 07.8.2013, dismissing the appeal.

Challenging the order of dismissal, the petitioner filed a writ petition on the file of the Delhi High Court in W.P. (C). No. 6403 of 2013. The writ petition was disposed of by the Delhi High Court by an order dated 10.01.2014, remanding the matter back to the NCTE to decide the matter afresh, after looking into the documents produced by the petitioner. The Court also directed the petitioner to file all documents within three weeks.

In pursuance of the said order, the petitioner filed the documents called for by the respondents. However, the first respondent passed an order on 01.7.2004 rejecting the appeal, forcing the petitioner to come up with the above writ petition.

I have heard Mr. G. Sankaran, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. U. Venkatesan, learned counsel for the third respondent University.

The main grievance of the petitioner is that though the first show cause notice dated 27.02.2012 and the final show cause notice dated 25.6.2012, contained about eight deficiencies, the petitioner submitted a reply on 21.8.2012 pointing out how they have been rectified. But, in the second final show cause notice dated 30.10.2012 and the order of withdrawal of recognition dated 14.3.2013, the respondents reiterated the very same deficiencies. According to the petitioner, the order passed on 07.8.2013 by the Appellate Authority, contained only three deficiencies, namely (a) that the petitioner had not forwarded the originals of land documents, (b) that no documentary proof in respect of identifying lecturer in Foundation Course had been furnished, and (c) that the copy of the salary statements for May 2013 and not for any other month prior to withdrawal has been submitted. But, now by the impugned order, the respondents have stated some other grounds. Therefore, the petitioner claims that the impugned order is vitiated.

The correctness of the contention of the petitioner can be decided only if the deficiencies pointed out under every one of the show cause notices or orders is presented in a tabular form. Therefore, they are presented as follows:

Deficiencies pointed out in show cause notice No. 1 dated 27.02.2012

Deficiencies pointed out in show cause notice No. 2 dated 25.6.2012

Deficiencies pointed out in show cause notice dated 30.10.2012

Deficiencies pointed out in the order of the Appellate Authority dated 07.8.2013 Deficiencies pointed out in the impugned order dated 01.7.2014

Not furnished legible copy of approved building plan, building completion certificate, details of the land Space allotted for each course was less than the required sq.ft. Building completion certificate not submitted Original land documents not produced certified copy of land documents submitted only during hearing of appeal on 7-3-2014 Multipurpose hall is inadequate for one unit of B.Ed. and one unit of D.T. Ed. Certified copy of land documents from Sub Registrar not submitted Original certified copy of the land documents from Government authority and notarised english version of the same were not submitted No proof for identifying lecturer in foundation course was submitted Approval of faculty by the affiliating university not furnished Survey number given in the land usage certificate did not match the documents submitted Notarised land usage certificate from RDO not submitted Copy of salary statements prior to order of withdrawal not furnished Physical Education teachers working on part time basis. Lecturers in Fine Arts working only on part time basis Documentary evidence of approval of faculty by the affiliating body Land area and survey number in the building plan did not match with the reply for show cause notice Original FDRs in joint not submitted Original notarised land utility certificate not furnished Payment of consolidated salary was not in accordance with NCTE Regulations/norms and standards FDR towards endowment and reserve fund were not given in joint account Approval for appointment of Principal not submitted

.....

Insufficient computers for one unit of B.Ed. and D.T. Ed. course Survey numbers shown now were different with the one given at the time of initial recognition

Lecturers in Fine Arts/Physical Education for B.Ed. and D.T. Ed. not appointed

Non submission of FDRs in the joint name for all the courses separately Approved staff list from affiliating University not furnished No proof submitted for payment of salary to staff by Bank cheque as per Govt. pay scales

No documentary proof for appointment of lecturer in foundation course was furnished

Details of CPF/PPF of staff members not submitted to the inspection team

Consolidated salary paid were not in accordance with NCTE norms

Details of CPF/PPF facilities provided to staff were not furnished

Contributory PF statements for June 2012 to Feb 2013 furnished by appellant pertain to Vivekananda Polytechnic and not college of Education. Prior to May 2013 relates to some other institution.

Details of CPF/PPF provided to staff were not submitted....

It is true that in the final order dated 1.7.2014, the deficiencies as originally noted down in the first cause notice dated 27.2.2012 are not mentioned. But, I cannot lose sight of the fact that from the first show cause notice dated 27.2.2012, a period of nearly two years and four months has elapsed. The petitioner was obliged to comply with all the conditions that were stipulated in the Regulations. As a matter of fact, the decision to withdraw recognition was taken in the meetings held in January 2013 itself. Thereafter, the petitioner surrendered the Diploma in Teacher Education Course. All the conditions for the grant of recognition, as imposed in the original order of recognition dated 21.11.2007, ought to have been complied with, within a period of three years. There is no use in the petitioner contending that after six years, they have gradually improved the conditions and rectified all the deficiencies.

Today, the difficulty is that I cannot direct the NCTE to pass any orders, since several subsequent developments have now taken place. By an order dated 7.3.2014 passed in S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 4247 and 4248 of 2009, the Supreme Court appears to have directed the NCTE not to consider any application for recognition until a new set of Regulations are framed. Since the NCTE could not issue a new set of Regulations within the time stipulated, they made two applications before the Supreme Court, one in I.A. No. 56 of 2014 for extension of time till June 2014 to issue new set of Regulations and another in I.A. No. 57 of 2014 for processing the pending applications. Though the Supreme Court granted extension of time upto June 2014 for issuing a new set of Regulations, the Supreme Court did not pass any order in the other application.

Therefore, a batch of writ petitions were filed directly before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of The Constitution in W.P. (Civil) Nos. 148, 152 and 155 of 2014 by three colleges of education located in Punjab. The prayer in those writ petitions was for a Mandamus to direct the NCTE to process and decide their applications for the academic session 2014-15. But, these writ petitions were dismissed by the Supreme Court on 24.3.2014. Paragraph 2 of the said order reads as follows:

"It has been brought to our notice that this Court has passed orders in SLP(C) Nos. 4247-4248 of 2009 on 10th September, 2013 directing that those who are desirous of establishing Teacher Education Colleges/Institutions shall be free to make applications in accordance with the new regulations to be framed by the NCTE and their applications shall be decided by the competent authority keeping in view the relevant statutory provisions. By the said order, this Court has further directed that all pending applications shall also be decided in accordance with the new Regulations. The new Regulations have not been finalised and by an order passed by this Court on 7th March, 2014 in IA Nos. 56-57 of 2011 filed in SLP(C) No. 4247-4248 of 2009, this Court has granted extension of time till June, 2014 for the National Council for Teacher Education to revise the norms and standards of various Teacher Education Programmes and codify the new Regulations. The result is the National Council for Teacher Education has time upto June, 2014 to frame the new Regulations and till the new Regulations are framed, the pending application of the petitioners for recognition cannot be considered. Therefore, the consideration of the applications of the petitioner-institutions for the year 2014-2015 cannot be made by the National Council for Teacher Education before June, 2014, the academic session 2014-2015 would have commenced. We cannot, therefore, issue any direction to the National Council for Teacher Education to consider the applications of the petitioner-institutions for the academic session 2014-2015 in stead of 2015-2016."

Therefore, no Mandamus can be issued as prayed for by the petitioner, in the teeth of the order of the Supreme Court.

Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, M.P. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2014 are also dismissed.