Heard Sri Gautam Baghel, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel for the respondents no. 2 and 3, Sri Jitendra Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 and Sri J.N. Maurya, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4.
The recognition granted to the petitioner institution was withdrawn by order dated 13.09.2018. By order dated 02.08.2019, the order dated 13.09.2018 withdrawing the recognition has been held to be valid. The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders dated 02.08.2019 and 13.09.2018.
Sri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel for the respondents no. 2 and 3 raised preliminary objection. He submits that the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy of filing an appeal under Section 18 of the National Council for Teacher Education, Act 1993, for redressal of his grievances.
Sri Gautam Baghel, learned counsel for the petitioner, faced with the aforesaid submission, in his usual fairness does not dispute the aforesaid position of law. He however contends that the petitioner apprehends that the grounds raised in the appeal may not be considered by the appellate authority, since this was the past experience of the petitioner.
The issues raised by the petitioner are factual in nature. The remedy under Section 18 of the National Council for Teacher Education, Act 1993, is efficacious. The facts have to be verified and submissions of parties have to be adjudicated by the appellate authority in the first instance. This court is not inclined to interfere in the matter on account of existence of an alternative remedy.
In light of submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the matter is remitted to the appellate authority constituted under Section 18 of the National Council for Teacher Education, Act 1993. The petitioner undertakes to submit an appeal within a period of ten days from today.
The appellate authority shall decide the appeal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order along with the memo of appeal. Learned counsel for the parties agree that if the appeal is filed within ten days the appellate authority shall decide the same without going into the question of delay. The appellate authority shall return findings on all the grounds taken in the memo of appeal as per law.
The respondents are directed to ensure that the meeting of the appellate authority happens in time so that the time line stipulated for deciding the appeal is adhered to.
In the facts of this case the petitioner shall be given an opportunity of hearing as this procedure is consistent with principles of natural justice as applicable to the facts of this case. The matter relates to withdrawal of recognition of an institution and visits the institution with drastic penalties. Considering the issue of withdrawal of recognition of an institution the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Council for the Teacher Education and Another Vs Vaishnav Institute of Technology and Management, reported at (2012) 5 SCC 139, held thus:
"28. Derecognition or withdrawal of recognition of a recognised institution is a drastic measure. It results in dislocating the students, teachers and the staff. That is why, the Council has been empowered under Section 13 to have a constant vigil on the functioning of a recognised institution. On recommendation of the Council after inspection, if a recognised institution does not rectify the deficiencies and continues to function in contravention of the provisions of the 1993 Act or the rules or the Regulations, the Regional Committee under Section 17 has full power to proceed for withdrawal of recognition in accordance with the procedure prescribed therein."
In the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Council for the Teacher Education and Another (supra) a personal hearing shall meet the ends of justice.
Before parting it would be apposite to notice the submissions of Sri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel for the respondents no. 2 and 3. Sri Dhananjay Awasthi, contends that the law laid down in National Council for the Teacher Education and Another (supra) shall not apply to the facts of this case. National Council for the Teacher Education and Another (supra), was not a case of submission of forged documents, which is the position in the instant case.
The argument is being noticed to be rejected. Mere assertions to the show cause notice are not sufficient proof of the correctness thereof. The charges in the show cause notice have to be determined by application of mind by the authority in accordance with law after giving full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
The writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 26.8.2019 Pravin