Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 351 (MP)

VNS College of P Education and MS v. NCTE

2015-03-26

RAJENDRA MENON, S.K.GANGELE

body2015
ORDER 1. Challenging the action of NCTE/respondents No.1 and 2 in deleting the name of the petitioner/Institute from the list of recognized Institutes authorized to conduct a Course in MPEd, without prior notice, and contending that deleting their name for non-grant of accreditation is an illegal action, this writ petition has been filed. 2. Records indicate that similar action taken by NCTE in the matter of deleting the names of Institutes, identical in nature, have been considered and decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in a bunch of writ petition decided Writ Petition No.21586/2013 [Matushri Ahilya Devi Teachers Education Institute and another v. NCTE and others], on 13.5.2014, so also in Writ Petition No.5985/2014 [Kamla Nehru Mahavidyalaya v. State of M.P. and others], also decided by the same Bench on 13.5.2014. 3. Thereafter, certain clarifications were issued by the same Division Bench on 19.12.2014 in Review Petition No.764/2014; and, further certain modifications are also ordered on 12.1.2015, in Writ Petition No.9008/2014 [Swami Vivekanand College v. NCTE and others]. Claiming similar benefit, this writ petition has been filed. 4. We find that in the judgment rendered in the main case on 13.5.2015 and subsequently clarified in Writ Petition No.5985/2014 and Writ Petition No.9008/2014, similar petitions have been allowed and disposed of. The directions issued in the said writ petitions read as under :- “15: We have given our considered thought to these submissions. On one hand, it is clear that in terms of the Regulations framed in the year 2009, a cut off date is prescribed. As per the terms and conditions of NAAC for conducting any inspection, the institutions which have been granted recognition in the year 2009 itself, would not be completing the norms for the purposes of obtaining an Accreditation certificate from the NAAC and in that case they would not be entitled to make an application for grant of recognition to the NCTE. Further, indisputably, NAAC is not in a position to inspect all the institutions for the purpose of issuing Accreditation certificate, much less before the cut off date specified in the Regulations. Moreover, the recognized institutions are more than willing to comply with all the directions to be given by the competent authority for ensuring imparting of quality education. Further, indisputably, NAAC is not in a position to inspect all the institutions for the purpose of issuing Accreditation certificate, much less before the cut off date specified in the Regulations. Moreover, the recognized institutions are more than willing to comply with all the directions to be given by the competent authority for ensuring imparting of quality education. Thus, prescription of such a condition with a cut off date would be asking the concerned institutions to do something which is impossible for them and completely beyond their control. Rather, the failure should be attributed to authorities in discharging its statutory duty. That would certainly warrant an exercise of discretion on case to case basis to grant/continue recognition in exercise of power under Regulation 12 of NCTE Regulations 2009, by the competent authority. We say so because the validity of the provisions of Clause (5) of Regulation 8, has been upheld by the apex Court in Swami Vivekanand College of Education and others v. Union of India and others [ (2012)1 SCC 642 ]. The provision is thus held to be intra vires, but since it is creating undue hardships because of failure of the Authorities themselves, in our considered opinion the power of relaxation ought to be exercised by the competent authority on case to case basis. At this stage, it would also be necessary to hold that before passing the orders impugned, opportunity of hearing should have been given to the petitioners and having failed to do so, the action of the respondents cannot be upheld. 16: Resultantly, we allow the Writ Petition No.16805/2013, Writ Petition No.21669/2013, Writ Petition No.21953/2013, Writ Petition No.220/2014, Writ Petition No.1571/2014, Writ Petition No.1998/2014, Writ Petition No.2066/2014, Writ Petition No.2067/2014, Writ Petition No.2068/2014, Writ Petition No.2070/2014, Writ Petition No.2071/2014, Writ Petition No.2072/2014, Writ Petition No.3262/2014 and Writ Petition No.5984/2014 and quash the order of respondents with liberty to them to initiate proceedings afresh against the petitioners after granting them an opportunity of hearing and to pass fresh orders. In case the petitioners make an application for grant of relaxation in terms of Regulation 12 of NCTE Regulations 2009, in any of the conditions prescribed under Clause (5) of Regulation 8 of the said Regulations, it would be necessary for the respondents to examine the same and to pass orders on the said application on case to case basis on its own merits.” 5. Subsequently, in Writ Petition No.5985/2014, certain clarifications were issued on 12.1.2015. In Writ Petition No.9008/2014, liberty was granted to the respondents to initiate proceedings afresh against the Institute after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass fresh orders as per law. 6. Keeping in view the aforesaid, this writ petition is also allowed. Impugned order stands quashed and the respondents are granted liberty to proceed afresh in the matter, as already directed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, in the cases as referred to hereinabove. 7. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of. ....................