The petitioner, K.E.T. College of Teacher Education is run by M/s. Kerala Educational Trust Kozhikode. The above Trust was established for the purposes of setting up Educational Institutions. The K.E.T. College of Teacher Education was established, for commencing a B.Ed Course, in accordance with Section 14 of the National Council for Teacher Education (hereinafter referred to as “NCTE”) Act, that deals with the procedure for grant of recognition to colleges offering courses or training in teacher education. The petitioner had preferred an application seeking the grant of recognition under the Act. The application was made to the Regional Committee of the NCTE, the first respondent herein. It is stated that the recognition was granted by Ext.P1 order dated 26-11-2007 subject to the conditions prescribed therein. Pursuant to the recognition so granted by the first respondent, the petitioner also obtained the necessary permission from the State Government by Ext.P2 order dated 23-10-2007, and the affiliation in respect of the B.Ed Degree course from the 4th respondent/University, by Ext. P3 order dated 10-12-2007. In compliance with its obligation to acquire its own land for housing the institution, it purchased 62.75 cents of land as evidenced by Ext. P4 title deed dated 20- 1-2010. Thereafter, it constructed a building for the said institution and Ext.P5 completion certificate is produced along with the Writ Petition to evidence compliance with the said condition. It would appear that, by Ext.P6 show cause notice dated 25-6-2012, the first respondent Committee directed the petitioner to show cause as to why the recognition granted to it should not be withdrawn for alleged non-compliance with the conditions incorporated in the order granting recognition. Although on receipt of the said show cause notice, the petitioner complied with some more of the conditions stipulated, and furnished an explanation for non-compliance with the remaining conditions, the first respondent proceeded to issue Ext.P7 final show cause notice dated 5-2-2013. In the said show cause notice, reference is made to seven conditions, which were required to be complied with pursuant to an inspection that was carried out by the authorities of the first respondent/Committee. The petitioner has produced Exts.P8, P9, P10 and P11 to evidence compliance, with the requirements stipulated in Ext.P7 show cause notice regarding the building completion certificate, notorised land used certificate, encumbrance certificate and the appointment of a Principal on regular basis. It is pointed out that the approved staff list from the Calicut University was obtained only by August, 2013 and the purchase of the land in the name of the College was effected only much later. At any rate, in response to Ext.P7 show cause notice, the petitioner had written to the first respondent seeking some time for compliance with the last mentioned two conditions that were stipulated in the said show cause notice. It is the case of the petitioner that while it was under the impression that the extension of time sought for was granted, the first respondent by Ext.P13 order dated 20-7-2013, withdrew the recognition granted to it. On receipt of Ext.P13 order, the petitioner preferred an appeal in terms of Section 18 of the NCTE Act and, along with the appeal, submitted documents to show compliance with the conditions, that had been prescribed by the first respondent, but proof of which could not be produced before the first respondent prior to the passing of Ext.P13 order. It is the case of the petitioner that, notwithstanding the submission of the additional documents along with the appeal, and its representation at the time of personal hearing before the appellate authority, the appellate authority by Ext.P17 order dated 10-1-2014, rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner. In the Writ Petition, Exts. P13 and P17 are impugned and a direction is sought to the first respondent to issue permanent recognition to the petitioner's College. 2. A statement has been filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent wherein the sequence of events leading to the passing of Exts.P13 and P17 orders have been narrated. It is pointed out that, in so far as the petitioners had by their own showing, not complied with the conditions that were required of them prior to the passing of Ext.P13 order withdrawing the recognition granted to them, the first respondent could not be faulted for the decision it arrived at, after finding that the petitioner had not complied with the conditions for the grant of recognition. With regard to Ext.P17 appellate order, it is submitted that the appellate authority was only required to go into the correctness of the orders passed by the original authority and, in so far as it was not in dispute that the original authority had passed its order based on the documents that had been submitted by the petitioner to show the fulfillment of the conditions required of them, the appellate order also could not be found fault with. The learned counsel for the respondent would also bring to my notice an order dated 10-09-2013 of the Supreme Court, in a batch of Special Leave Petitions, wherein in the context of applications for recognition submitted before the Western Regional Committee of NCTE at Bhopal for establishment of new B.Ed Colleges, the Supreme Court had, after taking note of the recommendations of Justice J.S. Varma Commission, found that there was a necessity of the NCTE insisting on a compliance by the institutions with the new recommendations as a condition for the grant of recognition in future.
3. I have heard Sri. S. Sreekumar, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Sri. V.M.Kurian, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the 3rd respondent and Sri. Santhosh Mathew, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 4th respondent/University.
4. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, and also the submissions made across the bar, I find that this is a case where the petitioner had already been granted recognition by the first respondent as early as on 26-11-2007. The order granting recognition stipulated certain conditions that had necessarily to be complied with by the petitioner in order to get the permanent recognition under the NCTE Act. Although the petitioner is stated to have complied with some of the conditions by June, 2012, on account of the non-compliance with the other conditions, the first respondent issued a show cause notice to the petitioner proposing a withdrawal of the recommendation. The facts would disclose that the petitioner thereafter, produced documents before the first respondent to establish compliance with most of the other conditions as well. However, during the course of an inspection conducted by the first respondent, the petitioner was asked to comply with some additional conditions for the purposes of grant of a permanent recognition. Exts.P8, P9, P10 and P11 would indicate that most of these conditions were since complied with by the petitioner but it could not comply with the conditions, with regard to transfer of the land in the name of the institution as well as the requirement of producing before the first respondent, a staff list that was approved by the 4th respondent university, before the date on which the first respondent considered the matter. It was these shortcomings that resulted in Ext.P13 order of the first respondent, withdrawing the recognition that was granted to the petitioner by Ext.P1 order.
5. I note that the effect of an order in the nature of Ext.
P13, as provided in the second proviso to Sec. 17 (1) of the NCTE Act, is rather drastic. The said provision, however, states that the order withdrawing recognition would come into force only with effect from the end of the academic session next following the date of communication of such order. I would, think therefore, that if in any particular case, the applicant for a permanent recognition is able to comply with the obligations required of it, prior to the date from which an order withdrawing recognition is to take effect, then that would be sufficient ground for an appellate authority to recommend his case to the Regional committtee for a reconsideration of the matter. In the instant case, since Ext.P13 order is dated 20-07-2013 and its effect was to withdraw the recognition in favour of the petitioner with effect from the commencement of the academic year 2014-15, the likelihood of the petitioner complying with the conditions required of him before that date should have weighed with the appellate authority while deciding the appeal preferred by the petitioner. It is not in dispute that, challenging Ext.P13 order, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the appellate authority and had also submitted the document showing the list of staff appointed by it to the institute as verified by the 4th respondent University. The petitioner had also undertaken, at the time of hearing before the appellate authority, to comply with the condition with regard to transfer of the land in the name of the institute within two months. The appellate authority, however, by Ext.P17 order rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner solely on the ground that the decision of the original authority could not be found fault with, considering that the petitioner had not complied with the conditions required of it, at the time of hearing before the original authority. In my view, the appellate authority ought not to have considered the matter in such a mechanical manner. As an appellate authority functioning under the NCTE Act, it ought to have borne in mind the scheme of the Act, as also the fact that the instant case was one where the institute in question was granted recognition and the order that was impugned before it was one that withdrew the recognition from the institute for non-compliance of certain conditions. When it was considering an appeal against such an order that had serious consequences for the petitioner, it ought to have considered the possibility of the petitioner complying with the requirements stipulated by the first respondent Committee within a reasonable period after Ext.P13 order dated 20-7-2013. In my view, if the appellate authority had reason to believe that there was high probability of the petitioner complying with the remaining conditions as well, before the end of the academic year 2013-2014 then, it ought to have waited for a reasonable period to ascertain whether the petitioner complied with the remaining conditions before passing an order in the appeal. The petitioner submits that he has complied with all the conditions, including the condition requiring the transfer of the land in the name of the institution by 21-1-2014. In that view of the matter, I feel that the case of the petitioner ought to be re-considered by the first respondent Committee, more so because, the withdrawal of recognition pursuant to Ext.P13 order would have taken effect only with the commencement of the academic year 2014-15, and the compliance by the petitioner with all the conditions was much prior to that date. I therefore, quash Exts.P13 and 17 orders so as to enable the first respondent Committee to consider the matter afresh in the light of the fact that even before the expiry of the academic year 2013-2014, the petitioner had complied with the conditions required of it for the purposes of retaining the recognition granted to it by Ext.P1 order. The first respondent Committee shall pass fresh orders in the matter, after hearing the petitioner, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
6. I must hasten to add that the order of the Supreme Court referred to by the learned counsel for the respondent will not have any application to a consideration of the case of the petitioner in the instant case, since going by the terms of that order it is clear that the new regulations would govern only the applications filed by those desiring to establish a Teacher Education Colleges/Institutions, as well as pending applications which have not been processed by the NCTE till date. The case at hand being one where the application was already processed, and recognition having already been granted earlier, would have to be examined in the light of the directions in this judgment.
6. It is brought to my notice by the Sr. counsel for the petitioner that, during the pendency of this Writ Petition, the petitioner has admitted students to the B.Ed degree course for the academic year 2014-15 as well. Taking note of this fact, I make it clear that the continuation of recognition to the petitioner for the academic year 2014-15 would depend upon the decision to be taken by the first respondent Committee, in terms of this judgment.
This Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/- A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE
ani/ /truecopy/
P.S.toJudge