JUDGMENT Hon’ble Dilip Gupta, J.—Brahaspati Mahila Mahavidyalaya, Kanpur Nagar has sought the quashing of the order dated 6th January, 2010 passed by the Northern Regional Committee (hereinafter referred to as the ‘’Committee’) of the National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi by which the grant of recognition to the petitioner-Institution for B.Ed. Course has been withdrawn with effect from the Academic Session 2010-11. The petitioners have also sought the quashing of the order dated 5th March, 2010 passed by the Appellate Authority/National Council for Teacher Education by which the appeal filed by the petitioners for setting aside the aforesaid order has been dismissed. 2. It is stated in the writ petition that the Committee had granted conditional recognition to the petitioner-Institution by the order dated 6th July, 2009 and all the deficiencies mentioned in the aforesaid letter were removed by the Institution. Subsequently, the Institution submitted an application before the Committee for grant of permanent recognition and the Committee by the order dated 13th July, 2007 granted permanent recognition. The petitioner-Institution sought affiliation from Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj University, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘’University’) and the Chancellor of the University granted temporary affiliation by the order dated 22nd January, 2007 with effect from 1st July, 2006 and subsequently the State Government granted permanent affiliation to the petitioner-Institution with the University. However, the Committee made an inspection of the Institution and thereafter issued a show-cause notice dated 19th May, 2009 under Section 17(1) of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘’Act’) mentioning nine deficiencies which are as follows : “1. The year marked building is not being used exclusive for B.Ed. course. 2. The salary is not being paid as per norms of UGC/University/State Government. 3. Building map is not approved by the competent authority. 4. The number of computers is not sufficient for 100 students. 5. The Language Lab. is not very good. 6. The Society renewal has not been done after 2001. 7. FDRs for Reserve and Endowment funds have not bee renewed. 8. EPF is not been maintained in respect of the appointed employees. 9. Three thousand titles are not available in the library.” 3. The petitioner-Institution submitted a letter dated 16th June, 2009 pointing out that all the deficiencies had been removed. 7. FDRs for Reserve and Endowment funds have not bee renewed. 8. EPF is not been maintained in respect of the appointed employees. 9. Three thousand titles are not available in the library.” 3. The petitioner-Institution submitted a letter dated 16th June, 2009 pointing out that all the deficiencies had been removed. The Committee, however, by the order dated 6th January, 2010 withdrew the recognition and the relevant portion of the order is as follows : “1. The Faculty still has not been appointed as per NCTE norms for B.Ed. 2. Approved earmarked building map still has not been submitted. 3. Still the computers are not sufficient for 100 students. 4. The Language learning lab still ill equipped. 5. EPF still has not been maintained. 6. The library does not have number of titles as per NCTE norms for B.Ed. NOW THEREFORE grant of recognition to BRAHASPATI MAHILA MAHAVIDYALAYA, 50, K BLOCK, KIDWAI NAGAR, KANPUR - 208011, UTTAR PRADESH for the B.Ed. Course in terms of Section 17 of the NCTE Act, 1993 is hereby withdrawn from the academic session 2010-2011.” 4. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners filed an appeal which has been dismissed by the order dated 5th March, 2010 and the relevant portion is as follows : “AND WHEREAS Shri. Ratnakar Shukla, Manager and Ms. Usha Patnakar Shukla, Brahaspati Mahila Degree College, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh presented the case of the appellant institution on 11.2.2010. In the appeal and during personal presentation it was submitted that the college had appointed faculty as per NCTE norms, building plan submitted was approved by Kanpur Development Authority which was the competent authority to approve building plan in Kanpur city; the institution was having 25 computers including one laptop in ICT laboratory at the time of inspection and at present the institution having 40 computers; language learning lab was adequate and the library was having 3806 books which were purchased from time to time from 20th February, 2004. AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the VT in its report dated 31st March, 2009 mentioned that it was having 2682 sq. mtrs. of built-up area for B.A., B.Sc., BBA & M.A. multipurpose hall was 1200 sq. ft., Labs and library were being shared with other courses; it seems ad hoc persons were appointed in place of approved names for some time and further the staff was frequently being changed. mtrs. of built-up area for B.A., B.Sc., BBA & M.A. multipurpose hall was 1200 sq. ft., Labs and library were being shared with other courses; it seems ad hoc persons were appointed in place of approved names for some time and further the staff was frequently being changed. Sharing of the library and labs facilities with other than teacher training courses is not permissible as per norms. This means that there are no exclusive infrastructural facilities for B.Ed. programme. In view of the above the Council came to the conclusion that there was no justification to accept the appeal and that it should be rejected. AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit, VT Report and after considering oral arguments advanced during hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that there was no ground to accept the appeal and hence it should be rejected. Accordingly, the appeal was rejected and the NRC’s order dated 6.1.2010 was confirmed.” 5. Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the Appellate Authority fell in error in holding that there was no exclusive infrastructural facilities for B.Ed. programme in the Institution inasmuch as the Institution satisfies all the requirements including the requirement of having 1500 sq. meters since it has 3925.70 sq. meters of built-up area and in any case no opportunity was given to the petitioners to submit a reply since this was not even a ground mentioned in the show-cause notice and was also not a ground mentioned by the Committee in its order dated 6th January, 2010. He has, therefore, submitted that the matter needs to be sent back to the Appellate Authority for taking a fresh decision. 6. Sri R.A. Akhtar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submited that under the relevant Regulations framed by the National Council for Teacher Education, it was necessary for the Institution to have exclusive 2500 sq. meters of land for the B.Ed. Course out of which the built-up area should be at least 1500 sq. meters and since the petitioner-Institution has not complied with the aforesaid requirement, the Appellate Authority was justified in confirming the order passed by the Committee for withdrawing the recognition. 7. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. 8. Course out of which the built-up area should be at least 1500 sq. meters and since the petitioner-Institution has not complied with the aforesaid requirement, the Appellate Authority was justified in confirming the order passed by the Committee for withdrawing the recognition. 7. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. 8. A perusal of the show-cause notice does indicate that the ground which has been mentioned by the Appellate Authority in the impugned order was not even a charge to which the petitioner-Institution was required to reply. The Committee has also not withdrawn the recognition of the petitioner-Institution on this ground. The petitioner-Institution was required to be given an opportunity to show-cause before the recognition was withdrawn on the grounds mentioned in the appellate order. 9. Thus, the appellate order dated 5th March, 2010 cannot be sustained. It is, accordingly, set aside. The Appellate Authority shall, after giving opportunity to the petitioner-Institution, pass a fresh order in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is filed by the petitioners before the Vice-Chairperson of the National Council for Teacher Education. 10. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. ————