Netaji Subhash University through Its Registrar Nagendra Kumar, Vs National Assessment and Accreditation Council through Its Director

¶1

2025:JHHC:37365

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

(Civil Writ Jurisdiction)

¶4

W.P. (C) No.3133 of 2025

¶5

¶6

Netaji Subhash University through its Registrar Nagendra Kumar, Aged about 42 years, son of Sri Tej Narayan Singh, Resident of Prabhu Dular Nirala Path, P.O. Baridih, P.S. Baridih, Jamshedpur, District-East Singbhum.

¶7

…. …. Petitioner(s)

¶8

Versus

¶9

1. National Assessment and Accreditation Council through its Director Post Box No.1075, Nagarbhai Opposite National Law University, P.O.+P.S.Nagarbhai, Bengaluru (Karnataka) (Pin-560072).

¶10

2. Appeal Committee through its Chairman-cum-Director, National Assessment and Accreditation Council through its Director Post Box No. 1075, Nagarbhai Opposite National Law University, P.O.+P.S.Nagarbhai, Bengaluru (Karnataka) (Pin-560072).

¶11

3. Union of India, through Secretary Department of Higher Education, BTE Complex, Muni Maya Ram Marg, Pitampura, P.O.+P.S.- Pitampura, District – North West Delhi, New Delhi – 110034.

¶12

…. …. Respondent(s)

¶13

¶14

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

¶15

For the Petitioner(s)	---- : Mr. Rajendra Krishna, Adv.
	Mr. Shubham Mayank, Adv.
For the U.O.I.	: Mr. Prashant Pallav, ASGI
	Mr. Pawan Kr. Pathak, C.G.C.
For the NAAC	: Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Adv.
	Mr. Aditya Banerjee, Adv.

¶16

¶17

04/Dated: 12^th December, 2025

¶18

1. Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned counsel, assisted by Mr. Shubham Mayank, Advocate, has appeared and submitted that he has received instructions from Respondent Nos.1 and 2, namely, the National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC), to appear and pursue the case on its behalf. In this regard, he has submitted a letter bearing No. NAAC/Admin/Court Case/2025 dated 11.12.2025, along with the vakalatnama, which are taken on record.

¶19

2025:JHHC:37365

¶20

2. In view of the above, Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned counsel is permitted to pursue the case on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 & 2. Notices are complete.

¶21

3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶22

4. The present writ petition has been filed for following reliefs:-

¶23

“(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) or a writ in nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to accept the entire 63 (sixty three) Qualitative and Quantitative Metrics against which the petitioner has submitted its ground along with relevant documents in its appeal preferred before the appellate authority, since the petitioner has been communicated vide letter dated 3.6.2025 that the Appeal's Committee has recommended to the Chairman, Committee Executive (EC) for consideration of only 12 (twelve) select quantitative metrics which is 2.1.2, 3.1.2, 3.4.4, 3.5.1, 3.7.1, 4.1.2, 4.2.2.,4.4.1, 7.1.4, 7.1.6 and 7.1.1.

¶24

AND

¶25

(ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) or a writ in nature of certiorari for quashing/setting aside the decision of the appellate authority vide its letter NAAC/DO-PS/102-ACReply/2025 dated 3.6.2025 (Annexure-7) in which it has been categorically stated the decision of Appeal's Committee which is ceased with the appeal of the petitioner for considering the Grade awarded by the National Assessment and Accreditation Council.

¶26

AND

¶27

(iii) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) or a writ in nature of certiorari for quashing of communication the respondents made through email by the Appeal Committee dated 05.06.2025 (Annexure-8) in which the request of the petitioner to consider the entire 18 (eighteen) metrics in the quantitative metrics and to consider remaining 30 (thirty) qualitative metrics, but, the aforesaid request of the petitioner has been rejected by the appeal committee and accordingly the petitioner has been given time till 19th June, 2025 to only provide information/documents in the select quantitative metrics as communicated in the letter dated 03.06.2025 so that the appeal committee can give final decision.

¶28

AND

¶29

(iv) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) or a writ in nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to consider the entire documents which the petitioner has already filed in appeal on different metrics, and during pendency of writ petition the appeal committee is going to take any final decision.

¶30

AND

¶31

(v) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) or a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the communication made by the respondent through email, informing the decision taken by the Appeal Committee, whereby it has been stated that there has been no change in the CGPA after the Re-DVV process. Thereafter, the petitioner University has been accredited with a CGPA of 1.59 on a seven-point scale at C Grade valid for a period of 5 years from 27.02.2025, as the said decision has been taken without considering all the documents submitted by the Petitioner University.”

¶32

Page | 2

¶33

W.P. (C) No.3133 of 2025

¶34

2025:JHHC:37365

¶35

5. The appellate order dated 03.06.2025 (Annexure-7) passed by the Director, Netaji Subhash University, Jamshedpur, has been challenged and the relevant portion of the same is quoted hereinbelow:-

¶36

“NAAC/DO-PS/102-AC-Reply/2025 Date:03/06/2025

¶37

Respected Vice Chancellor Greetings from NAAC.

¶38

This has reference to your appeal for reconsidering the grade awarded by NAAC. The Appeals Committee reviewed application and listened to your presentation in the 102nd Meeting of the Appeals Committee held on 19th May 2025.

¶39

After thorough examination and discussions, the Appeals Committee has recommended to the Chairman, EC for Re-DVV for select quantitative metric ID-2.1.2, 3.1.2, 3.4.4, 3.5.1, 3.7.1, 4.1.2, 4.2.2, 4.4.1, 5.4.1, 7.1.4, 7.1.6, and 7.1.10 related to your institution.

¶40

On completion of the Re-DVV process, the outcome shall be intimated to your institution through the HEI portal. ”

¶41

6. By amendment, the reasoned order i.e. Annexure-9 has been

¶42

challenged which is quoted hereinbelow:-

¶43

“ This has the reference to the Appeal Committee decision communicated to you recommending a Re-DVV process. The outcome of the Re-DVV exercise of your institution has been processed and approved by the Standing Committee constituted by the Executive Committee to examine the peer team reports and declare the accreditation results. There has been no change in the CGPA after the Re-DVV process. Thus, your institution has been Accredited with a CGPA of 1.59 on a seven point scale at C Grade valid for a period of 5 years from 27-02-2025. The result is already uploaded on NAAC website. The original certificate of accreditation will be dispatched to the institution in due course. The Assessment Outcome Document (AOD) of your institution is available on the portal and the same may be downloaded and displayed on your institutional website. I am sure that the detailed peer team report handed over to you during the exit meeting along with the AOD will enable the institution to initiate further quality enhancement measures.

¶44

As per the guidelines of NAAC, it is mandatory for accredited institutions to retain the Self-Study Report (SSR) uploaded on the institutional website for A&A by NAAC until the completion of validity period of A&A. The SSR along with data templates should not be password protected and accessible to all the stakeholders. Institutions are also requested to take note of the mandatory requirement of submitting Annual Quality Assurance Report……..”

¶45

7. The only point has been raised before this Court by the petitionerUniversity that the above orders are unreasoned orders. There are total 87 parameters and they have opened only 13 parameters and for non-opening of the rest of the parameters, no reason has been assigned.

¶46

Page | 3

¶47

W.P. (C) No.3133 of 2025

¶48

2025:JHHC:37365

¶49

8. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the above prayer and it has been submitted that thorough examination has been conducted and after deliberation, the impugned order has been passed and it is mere a communication.

¶50

9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the records, it appears that the matter has already been finalised, so far as the accreditation concerned by the Original Authority. Being aggrieved, the appeal has been filed by the petitioner-institution.

¶51

10. It is settled principle of law that any order has to be reasoned one. Even reason has to be communicated so that the affected party must be aware of the reason for non-grant of any relief as claimed in any proceeding. 11. Considering the above settled legal position, this Court finds that the matter should be remanded to the Appellate Authority for re-consideration regarding opening of rest of the parameters as claimed by the petitioner. 12. In that view of the matter, the impugned appellate order dated 03.06.2025 (Annexure-7) passed by the Director, National Assessment and Accreditation Council is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Appellate Authority to reconsider the case for re-opening of the rest of the parameters within two weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, considering the fact that this is an academic year.

¶52

13. With above observation and direction, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

¶53

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

¶54

Dated: 12^th December, 2025 Amar/Uploaded on 15.12.2025

¶55

Page | 4

¶56

W.P. (C) No.3133 of 2025

Netaji Subhash University through Its Registrar Nagendra Kumar, v. National Assessment and Accreditation Council through Its Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Netaji Subhash University through Its Registrar Nagendra Kumar, v. National Assessment and Accreditation Council through Its Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sudhanshu Kumar Pandey Vs the State of Jharkhand, through the Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Dept.

Dilip Kumar Mahto Vs State of Jharkhand

Shanti Kunwar Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms

Abdul Gani Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Uday Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rambahadur Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand