INDIRA PRIYADARSHINI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner institution is being run by the society registered under the M.P. Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973 which imparts education in B.Ed. course. The petitioner submitted an application for grant of recognition to the Western Regional Committee to run B.Ed. course. The recognition under section 14(3) of the National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993 (in short 'the Act') to run the B.Ed. course was granted on 5-6-2007 with intake capacity of 100 students. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner acquired 7.83 acres of land for B.Ed. college having built up area 3000 square metres. The university also granted affiliation to the petitioner to run the B.Ed. course vide order dated 16-10-2007. The petitioner thereafter was served a show-cause notice under section 17 of the Act on the basis of the report of the visiting committee vide order dated 28-2-2009 by which the petitioner was asked to show cause as to why the recognition granted to it be not withdrawn. The show cause notice was issued inter alia on the grounds that the institution is running a large number of courses including B.Ed., D.Ed., B.P.Ed. and M.P.Ed; the B.Ed. course is in the same complex with total earmarked space for B.Ed. course is only 2856 square feet which is inadequate as per NCTE norms 2007; the principal was not available at the time of inspection; and that staff appointed is not as per NCTE norms.

(2.) The petitioner submitted a reply to the aforesaid show-cause notice in which inter alia it was pointed out that the fact that the petitioner was running several courses in the same institution can never be a ground for withdrawal of the recognition because all the recognitions were granted by the Western Regional Committee. It was further stated that the petitioner has total built up area of 3000 square metres in which all the recognised courses were accommodated as per clause 7 of the NCTE Regulations of the year 2007. It was further pointed out that mere non-availability of the principal at the time of inspection cannot be a ground for withdrawal of the recognition. However, the respondent No. 2 in purported exercise of section 14(3)(b) of the Act vide order dated 2-4-2009 withdrew the recognition on the ground that the land area is inadequate for conducting many courses of teacher education and built up area is not adequate. It was further stated that head of the department is not having sufficient teaching experience at B.Ed. level as per NCTE norms. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred the appeal under section 18 of the Act which was rejected vide order dated 18-8-2009. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, the petitioner has approached this Court.

(3.) Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the show-cause notice dated 28-2-2009 by which the deficiencies were pointed out was vague and the deficiencies which were not pointed out in the show-cause were made basis for withdrawal of the recognition. The action of the respondents in withdrawing the recognition granted to the petitioner institution is violative of section 13 of the Act as recommendatory action ought to have been suggested to the institution prior to the withdrawal of the recognition. It was further submitted that the petitioner has 3200 square feet built up area which is in accordance with the norms laid down by the Regulations. In support of his submissions, learned senior counsel has placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in B.D. Gupta vs. State of Haryana, 1972 AIR(SC) 2472, Joseph Vilangandan vs. The Executive Engineer (PWD) Ernakulam and others, 1978 AIR(SC) 930, Nasir Ahmed vs. Assistant Custodian General Evacuee Property U.P. Lucknow and another, 1980 AIR(SC) 1157, Shri Anand Sugar Mills vs. State of U.P. and others, 1986 AIR(SC) 749, Food Corporation of India vs. State of Punjab and others, 2001 AIR(SC) 250, Rajendran and another vs. State Asstt. Commr. of Police Law and order, 2009 AIR(SC) 855.