Allowed

Nabakrushna Choudhury College of Teacher Education Angul v. National Council for Teacher Education and Anr.

Delhi HC8 Feb 2024W.P.(C)/1383/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging quashing of recognition for an M.Ed. course on the ground of faculty-list non-compliance with the 2014 NCTE Regulations. The court quashed the appellate order and remanded the appeal to the NCTE Appellate Committee for reconsideration with the faculty lists and a hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 11.01.2023 quashed; appeal remanded to NCTE Appellate Committee for reconsideration with faculty lists and hearing; no costs.

Nabakrushna Choudhury College of Teacher Education… — Education and Admissions | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~31

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 1383/2024

¶4

NABAKRUSHNA CHOUDHURY COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION ANGUL ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Dhananjay Mishra and Mr. Nikhil Bhatia, Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION AND ANR ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rahul Madan, Standing Counsel for NCTE

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR

¶8

¶9

O R D E R (ORAL) 08.02.2024

¶10

W.P.(C) 1383/2024

¶11

1. The present writ petition seeks quashing and setting aside of order dated 11 January 2023 passed by the Appellate Committee of the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), upholding the decision of Eastern Regional Committee (ERC) of the NCTE to withdraw the recognition granted to the petitioner for conducting the M.Ed. course.

¶12

2. The only ground on which the Appellate Committee has arrived at its conclusion is the alleged failure on the part of the petitioner to submit its faculty list in accordance with the provisions of the Signature Not VerifiedNational Council for Teacher Education Regulations, 2014 (“the 2014

¶13

Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR WP (C) 1383/2024 Signing Date:11.0 2.20 24 14:39

¶14

Page 1 of 4

¶15

Regulations”, hereinafter).

¶16

3. Mr. Dhananjay Mishra seeks to submit that, during the pendency of the appeal before the Appellate Committee, which was filed on 19 May 2022, the petitioner had not only inducted the requisite faculty for running its M.Ed. course, but had also obtained approval from the Utkal University, Bhubaneshwar (the affiliating university) for its faculty list. He has drawn my attention to a communication dated 27 October 2022, addressed by the petitioner to the Member Secretary, NCTE, enclosing the said faculty list.

¶17

4. Mr. Rahul Madan, learned Counsel for the respondent submits that it is not clear, from the record, whether the aforesaid faculty list was ever made available to the Appellate Committee which was seized of the appeal filed by the petitioner. He submits that, unless the faculty list is made available to the Appellate Committee, it cannot be expected that the Appellate Committee would take it into account.

¶18

5. Be that as it may, if the petitioner, in fact, had requisite faculty in place, and the faculty was approved by the affiliating university, there is no reason why the said faculty list should not be taken into account while considering the petitioner’s appeal.

¶19

6. In view of Mr. Madan’s submission that the record does not clearly indicate that the aforesaid faculty list was placed before the Appellate Committee of the NCTE, I am of the opinion, that the interest of justice would be subserved if this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Appellate Committee of the NCTE in its next

¶20

Signature Not Verified

¶21

Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR WP (C) 1383/2024 Signing Date:11.0 2.20 24 14:39

¶22

Page 2 of 4

¶23

sitting to reconsider the petitioner’s appeal taking into account the aforesaid faculty list, which constitutes Annexure P-10 to the present writ petition. The petitioner submits that, thereafter, the petitioner has further augmented its faculty and the latest faculty list is also annexed to the present writ petition as Annexure P-13. The petitioner is directed to address a communication to the Appellate Committee within two days, enclosing the aforesaid faculty lists. The petitioner would also be entitled to an opportunity of hearing before the Appellate Committee during its next meeting, so that any uncertainties in the matter could be solved and further litigation, if possible, be avoided.

¶24

7. As a result, the impugned order dated 11 January 2023 is quashed and set aside. The appeal preferred by the petitioner is remanded for reconsideration to the Appellate Committee.

¶25

8. The Appellate Committee is directed to take a decision on the petitioner’s appeal as expeditiously as possible and if possible, within two weeks of the holding of its next meeting.

¶26

9. Needless to say, the rights of the petitioner to seek legal remedy, if it continues to be aggrieved by the order passed by the Appellate Committee stands reserved.

¶27

10. This writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent, with no order as to costs.

¶28

CM APPL. 5717/2024

¶29

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR WP (C) 1383/2024 Signing Date:11.0 2.20 24 14:39

¶30

Page 3 of 4

¶31

11. This application does not survive for consideration and stands disposed of.

¶32

C.HARI SHANKAR, J

¶33

FEBRUARY 8, 2024 rb

¶34

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶35

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR WP (C) 1383/2024 Signing Date:11.0 2.20 24 14:39

¶36

Page 4 of 4

Nabakrushna Choudhury College of Teacher Education Angul v. National Council for Teacher Education and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nabakrushna Choudhury College of Teacher Education Angul v. National Council for Teacher Education and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

La Tropicana Residents Association Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Rajnish Mishra and Ors. Vs Union of India and Anr.

Aditya Malhotra & Anr. Vs Canara Bank & Anr.

Neeraj Paper Marketing Limited Vs Sales Tax Officer Class Ii, New Delhi

Jyoti Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors.

Vidya Vihar Cghs Ltd. & Ors. Vs Sh. Dharam Singh Yadav & Ors.

M/S Subhash Chand Kathuria Vs Punjab National Bank

Arjun Singh Vs Airport Authority of India and Ors.

Dinesh Chandra Gupta Vs Tajinder Pal Singh & Anr.

Anand Kumar Singh Vs Jamia Millia Islamia through Prof. Mr. Eqbal Hussain Officiating Vice Chancellor & Ors.

Shri Salek Chand Jain Vs Sh Vijay Kumar Dev & Ors.

School of Physical Education and Sports Development, Opjs University Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.

Dav College of Teacher Education, Koraput Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.

Dnyaneshwar Hiralal Phuse Vs Union of India & Anr.