1.0 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.
2.0 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.
2.1 However, the respondent No. 1 on 17.11.2011 passed the impugned order withdrawing the recognition granted to the petitioner on the ground that certified copy of the land documents were not submitted with reference to new premises and the Principal was not appointed.
2.2 Against the order dated 17.11.2011, the petitioner preferred an appeal which came to be dismissed on 11.05.2012 on the ground that the petitioner did not submit to the WRC certified copy of the registered land documents pertaining to new premises and only photocopy of the land documents were submitted. Further it was held that the petitioner did not have exclusive land measuring at least 2500 square meters of land. Hence, the petitioner preferred present petition.
3.0 Mr. Sanjanwala, learned Senior Advocate with Ms. Thula, learned advocate appearing for the petitionerinstitution contended that show cause notice dated 05.07.2011 was issued on the following grounds:
1. Certified copy of land documents with respect to new premises was not submitted.
2. Faculty has been appointed on adhoc basis which have not been approved by the University.
3. The land documents duly certified by the competent authority was 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
4.0 He contended that however, in the order of withdrawal of recognition of the petitionerinstitution, the reasons are given that (1) certified copies of the land documents were not submitted with reference to new premise and (2) Principal was not appointed. He further contended that ground (2) that Principal is not appointed is not part of the show cause notice issued to the petitioner on 05.07.2011.
5.0 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.
Date: 11/10/2012
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:
“In our opinion, therefore, the expression “changes in the norms and standards for the course or training in teacher education” must be understood in its proper context. Such changes in norms and standards must be applied with respect to higher standards of education and other requirements that may have been prescribed. In any case, such changes of physical infrastructure cannot be applied to existing institutions who had been granted recognition after due verification and on the basis of norms and standards prevailing at the relevant time. Such changes also cannot be applied with retrospective effect to the teaching and nonteaching staff which would render them disqualified. Such changes can however, be applied for future engagement of teaching and non teaching staff.”
6.0 Mr. Sanjanwala, learned Senior Advocate further contended that the petitioner will be governed by the regulations which were prevailing on the date on which recognition was granted. In the alternative he contended that even if the petitioner is governed by the aforesaid norms, then also the petitioner is required to be granted time for complying with such norms.
7.0 Mr Sanjanwala, learned Senior Advocate contended that fresh norms were once again prescribed, namely, the National Council for Teacher Education ( Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2007. In these regulations also as in Regulations of 2005, it was provided interalia that:
7.1.1. the institution must have at least 2500 sq. mtrs land whereupon built up area consisting of classrooms etc. shall not be less that 1500 sq. mts. Space in each instructional room shall be 10 sq. ft. per student.
Built up area for running other courses in combination with B.Ed Programme shall be as under:
Only B.Ed. 1500 Sq. mts.
B.Ed plus M.Ed 2000 Sq. mts B.Ed plus D.Ed 2500 sw. mts.
B. Ed plus D.Ed and M.Ed. 3000 sq. mts.
8.0 He submitted that the petitioner institute is running two courses viz., B. Ed and PTC and therefore the institution must have at least 2500 sq. mts of land whereas the petitioner is having land of admeasuring 4326 square mts. Therefore, the order passed by the appellate authority is beyond the scope of the appeal memo.
9.0 This Court issued notice on 03.08.2012 making it returnable on 07.08.2012. Thereafter, rule was issued on 14.08.2012 making it returnable on 11.09.2012. This matter was adjourned from time to time. When the matter was taken up on 11.09.2012 adjournment was sought and it was adjourned on 20.09.2012 and thereafter ton 03.10.2012 and then to 10.10.2012. Reply has been filed by the respondent.
10.0 Mr. Champaneri, learned advocate for the respondent contended that the authority has taken into consideration the fact that new premises of the petitioner institute which was shifted was not inspected and has not fulfilled the requirement. In that view of the matter, the appellate authority has observed as under:
“..AND WHEREAS the Council further noted that appellant did not submit to the WRC certified copy of the Registered land documents pertaining to new premise. He submitted only photocopy of the land documents. A copy of the sale deed dated 31.03.2008 in English version mentioned 4326 square mts of land at Sy. No. 137/P/1 in village Chhapri was purchased by two institutions namely Maa Gayatri B.ed college and S. S. Patel PTC College. This sale deed revealed that the appellant institution did not have exclusive land measuring alteast 2500 sq. mts of land (b) the appellant stated that they selected Dr. Ashok Kumar Tewari's and he had been working since July 2010, if this was the fact, then Dr. Ashok Kumar S. Tewari's name would have been reflected in the staff list submitted by the institution at the time of inspection ( on 17. 04. 2011) for the session 20102011. Therefore, the submission of the appellant with regard to the appointment of Dr. Ashok Kumar S. Tewari cannot be accepted.
11.0 I have heard learned advocates for the parties. A perusal of the order dated 11.5.2012 shows that the same is based on completely new grounds. The withdrawal order stated was that the certified copy was not made available to the Council. From the record it is evident that the said ground was satisfied as the certified copies were made available to the appellate authority. Copies of land documents are produced at AnnexureH to this petition.
12.0 It appears that thereupon the authority raised a new ground stating that the total of the 2500 square meters of land purchased was not exclusively owned by the petitioner Trust. In this regard it is required to be noted that the petitioner was granted recognition in the year 2005 when the mandatory area of 2500 square meters did not exist. However, in any case the petitioner is having more than 4000 square meters of land. It is pointed out that the petitioner is also having another institute and even according to the NCTE rules, if both the institutes are having sufficient land, they can function in one premises.
13.0 As regards the ground that the Principal is appointed, the same is also baseless. The Principal was appointed on 01.07.2010 after following due procedure. His name is reflected in the Staff Profile of 201112. Therefore it appears that the respondent authority has taken a too technical view which cannot stand in the eye of law.
14.0 The notice and order both contain different grounds. The Appellate Authority cannot add any ground which is not referred to in the notice which would amount to violation of principles of natural justice. On this ground alone, the order of authorities are bad in law.
15.0 Thus, on overall consideration of the matter I am of the view that the impugned orders are not based on germane grounds. The show cause notice was issued on the basis that certified copy of the land documents not not submitted with reference to new premises and also that the Principal was not appointed. Such grounds are not tenable in view of the reasons stated hereinabove. The impugned orders therefore become bad and therefore deserve to be quashed.
16.0 For the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed. The order dated 17.11.2011 and order dated 11.05.2012 are hereby quashed and set aside. The recognition of the petitioner institution is ordered to be restored. If the students are available, the respondent University will allot them to the petitionerinstitution. Rule is made absolute.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) niru*