GAYATRI B.ED COLLEGE THRO VICE PRESIDENT R.P PATEL Vs. NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHERS EDUCATION WESTERN REGION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of present petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 17.11.2011 passed by the respondent No.1 National Council for Teachers' Education ( for short the NCTE) and order dated 11.05.2012 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner came to be rejected by confirming the order of 17.11.2011 of respondent No.1 withdrawing the recognition of the petitioner college on the ground that the certified copy of the land documents not submitted with reference to new premises and also that the Principal was not appointed.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that the petitioner had applied for grant of recognition for B.Ed College which came to be granted on 14.05.2005 after following the necessary procedure. The respondent No. 1 thereafter, issued show cause notice on 05.07.2011 to the petitioner asking the petitioner institute to show cause as to why the recognition granted in favour of the petitioner institution should not be cancelled. The show cause notice was issued on the following grounds: (1) certified copy of land documents with respect to new premises not submitted ( 2) Faculty has been appointed on adhoc basis and these appointments have not been approved by the University and (3) The land documents duly certified by the competent authority were not submitted along with the application that was required as per the Section 7(d) of the NCTE Norms and Standards 2002 or as per Section 8(5) of NCTE Norms and Standards 2005. The petitioner replied to the show cause notice.

(3.) HE further submitted that while deciding the appeal the appellate authority has travelled beyond the scope of the appeal memo and come out with the reasons which were not in consonance with the show cause notice and from the order passed by the first authority. However, without admitting any of such ground Mr. Sanjanwala, learned Senior Advocate further contended that the recognition has been given as per the regulation of the NCTE as prevalent in th year 2005. He further contended that after the rules were amended many times, the main amendments being made in the year 2007 and 2009. Thus, it is apparent that the NCTE changes its rules time and again, that too, in such a drastic manner which makes it impossible for the institution to follow those amendments and then it also expects the institutions to follow the amended rules with immediate effect, which might not be feasible if the amendments were leading to infrastructural changes as is clearly reflected in the present case. 5.1 He drew attention of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in Special Civil Application No. 3205 and 2009 and allied matters whereby by way of common order dated 14.05.2010 the Hon'ble Court had given a time of six months to all the colleges similarly situated including the petitioner college to remove all the deficiencies that may be existing in their colleges and make the institute work in consonance with NCTE norms that existed as on the date of the recognition order granted to them earlier. In Para 25 of the order it is held as under: