This oral order quashed the impugned show-cause and appeal orders. The petitioners undertook to submit demanded materials within a week, prompting the court to direct the respondents to examine deficiencies and take a decision.
Quash the impugned orders contained in Annexure-6 and Annexure-11.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13349 of 2013
====================================================== 1. Dasharath Prasad Singh Institute of Teachers Education through Its Secretary Dasharath Prasad Singh Son Of Late Ram Swarath Singh Village and P.O. Prahladpur Via Ramna, P.O. + P.S. Mushahari, District - Muzaffarpur .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The Union of India through the Secretary, H.R.D., Department Of School Education And Literacy, Shashtri Bhawan, New Delhi 2. The Member Secretary, National Council For Teacher Education WingIi, Hans Bhawan - 1, Bahadur Sah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 11003 3. The National Council For Teacher Education Through Its Regional Director, Eastern Regional Committee, N.C.T.E. 15, Neelkanth Nagar, Mayapatti, Bhubaneshwar , 751012
.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Chittaranjan Sinha, Sr. Advocate Mr Sanjeet Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. S.N.Pathak, Sr.SCCG ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ORAL ORDER
Challenge in the present writ application is to the two orders contained in Annexure- 6 as well as Annexure- 11, which are dated 18.1.2013 as well as 30.4.2013 respectively. Annexure11, in fact, is the order passed in appeal.
Contention of the senior counsel for the petitioner is that he wanted to respond to the notices or the show cause issued by NCTE within 30 days of receipt thereof. They have categorically denied in the writ application that any earlier
Patna High Court CWJC No.13349 of 2013 (7) dt.06-01-2014
2/3
communication was received and the one, which was received, was received on 15.12.2012 as is the assertion in paragraph 19.
Stand of counsel for the NCTE is that the time frame of 30 days was not adhered to. The 30 days have been calculated from the date of issuance of the letter.
There is ample scope of mischief by sticking to such a stand that the person can only respond within 30 days from the date of the issuance of the letter since there is no full proof method of service of the show cause on the date the show cause was prepared. Since any communication from Bhubaneswar to the place where institution is located is bound to take time, therefore, it is an unfair procedure, which is being adopted by the respondents of sticking to 30 days time frame from the date show cause was issued. Appropriate remedial measures, therefore, is required to be taken by the respondents as well as evolving a methodology where an institution like that of the petitioner must be given time of 30 days from the date of receipt.
Learned senior counsel representing the petitioner undertakes on behalf of the petitioner that they will tender all the materials so demanded in the show cause within a week from today. If it is done, the respondent authority will examine the deficiency so met or removed in the light of the show cause and
Patna High Court CWJC No.13349 of 2013 (7) dt.06-01-2014
3/3
take a decision, may be within a reasonable time frame already laid down in the case of Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya v. State of Uttar Pradesh & others, reported in (2013) 2 SCC 617.
The impugned orders contained in Annexures 6 and 11, therefore, stand quashed in the light of what has been indicated above.
Writ is allowed.
(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)
sk
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the respondent authority adhering to a 30-day response period calculated from the date of issuance of the show-cause letter rather than receipt is fair and adequate.
Whether the impugned show-cause orders and appeal order deserve to be quashed given the procedure adopted by the respondents.
Whether the petitioner undertook to submit demanded materials within a week and examine deficiencies within a reasonable timeframe.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya v. State of Uttar Pradesh & othersReferred¶15
Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya v. State of Uttar Pradesh & others, (2013) 2 SCC 617 · Who else cites this
Dasharath Prasad Singh Institute of Teachers Education through Secretary
The Union of India
The National Council For Teacher Education
AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
