SECRETARY, ST. JUSTINS COLLEGE OF EDUCATION, MADURAI Vs. NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION, NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-institution has been imparting teaching education since 1968. It was duly recognized by National Council for Teacher Education also. The petitioner is running B.Ed course as well as M.Ed course. In this case, I am concerned with B.Ed course alone. The Southern Regional Committee of NCTE passed order dtd. 27/12/2021 withdrawing recognition granted to the petitioner for conducting B.Ed - AI programme of two years duration with effect from the academic session 2022-23 onwards. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority vide order dtd. 12/7/2022 confirmed the withdrawal order passed by the original authority. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed W.P (C) No.15153 of 2022 before the Delhi High Court at New Delhi. An interim order was passed in favour of the petitioner on 2/11/2022. Based on the same, the petitioner admitted students for the academic session 2022-23. The petitioner admitted 54 students (50 basic + 4 additional) for the academic session 2023-24. Since for the four students admitted under the additional intake category, hall tickets have not been issued, the petitioner filed WP(MD)No.4316 of 2024 before this Court. Since the petitioner had parallelly invoked the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court challenging the order withdrawing recognition, I declined to entertain the writ petition. I, however, granted liberty to the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition filed before the Delhi High Court and move this Court for relief. Availing the said liberty granted by this Court, the present writ petition came to be filed.

(2.) The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated all the contentions set out in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition and called upon this Court to grant relief as prayed for.

(3.) The learned standing counsel appearing for NCTE raised several objections. The first objection was that this Court permitted the petitioner to file fresh writ petition provided the petitioner withdrew the writ petition filed before the Delhi High Court with liberty to file fresh writ petition on the same cause of action. It is pointed by him that WP(C)No.15153 of 2022 was dismissed on 28/2/2024 but liberty to file fresh writ petition on the same cause of action was not granted. The learned standing counsel would contend that failure to obtain liberty from the Delhi High Court would come in the way of maintaining this writ petition. He also faulted the conduct of the petitioner-institution. Laying considerable stress on Sec. 17(3) and (4) of the NCTE Act, he contended that the very admission of students for the year 2023-24 was an act of blatant illegality. He also laid emphasis on the fact that though the petitioner obtained interim order for the year 2022-23, when a similar application was filed, it was dismissed on 10/10/2023. He pointed out that by then the petitioner had already admitted some students and this fact was not brought to the notice of the court. More than anything else, the petitioner having obtained recognition for conducting B.Ed - AI programme of two years duration with an annual intake of 100 students each for two basic units, the petitioner was obliged to have commensurate faculty strength. He also pointed out that so long as the order dtd. 13/5/2015 was not modified or cancelled, the petitioner cannot demand continuance of recognition by having lesser faculty strength. The learned standing counsel drew my attention to the following observation made by the appellate authority :