Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 715 (GAU)

Chandra Kanta Hazarika College v. State of Assam

2017-06-02

ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

body2017
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. PJ Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. SS Roy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5, being the authorities in the National Council for Teacher Training, (for short, NCTE) and Mr. K Gogoi, learned counsel on behalf of respondent No.1 as well as Mr. R Mazumdar, learned counsel for respondent No.2 being the authorities in the Dibrugarh University. 2. The petitioner college was established in the year 1994 with the object of imparting teacher education and training and was established after obtaining the ‘No Objection Certificate’ dated 10.10.1994 from the Government of Assam to run an institute for imparting B.Ed course and had been functioning in the name of Chandra Kanta Hazarika College. The petitioner college is affiliated to the Dibrugarh University for conducting the 1(one) year course for the academic session 1994-1995. The petitioner college had started its functioning from the building made available by the Doner of the college and was located at Ashram Path, Amolapatty Railway Gate, Dibrugarh. Upon enactment of the National Council for Teachers’ Training, Act, 1993 (NCTE Act, for short) a statutory body in the name of National Council for Teacher Training, (for short, NCTE) was created to achieve the planned and coordinated development of the teacher education system throughout the country and for regulation and proper maintenance of norms and standards of the teacher education system for effective functioning. 3. The NCTE is empowered to establish Regional Committees under Section 20 of the NCTE Act, 1993 and any institution intending to offer a course or training in teacher education is required to obtain recognition from the Regional Committee by submitting appropriate application. Accordingly, the petitioner No.1 made an application before the Eastern Regional Committee and upon doing so, a provisional recognition dated 06.03.1998 was issued in favour of the petitioner college for the year 1998-1999 for conducting the B.Ed course. As required the inspection team from Eastern Regional Committee (ERC) had visited the petitioner college and submitted a report that college did not fulfill certain norms and standard as laid down and notified by the NCTE. 4. Being dissatisfied, the petitioner preferred an appeal and in the said appeal the respondent No.6 by an order dated 13.03.2001 granted recognition to the petitioner college under Section 14(3) of the NCTE Act. The said recognition was granted subject to fulfillment of certain conditions. 4. Being dissatisfied, the petitioner preferred an appeal and in the said appeal the respondent No.6 by an order dated 13.03.2001 granted recognition to the petitioner college under Section 14(3) of the NCTE Act. The said recognition was granted subject to fulfillment of certain conditions. One such condition was that the petitioner would continue to do the required act for fulfilling the norms laid down in the Regulations and to submit an Annual Report and Performance Appraisal Report at the end of each academic year. In compliance thereof, the petitioner has been regularly submitting its Annual Report and Performance Appraisal Report. It is stated that, in the meantime, the petitioner had acquired a plot of land on its own and constructed a new building for running the college. Accordingly the functioning of the college was shifted to the new location in the year 2008. After the college was shifted to the new location, the college authorities requested the ERC to carry out an inspection as required under the Act and deposited the required fees of Rs.40,000/- for the purpose. Although, at the time of inspection, the authorities had expressed its full satisfaction, but subsequently, by an order dated 08.07.2010, it was provided that upon perusal of the report submitted by the visiting team the ERC was of the view that the petitioner Institute does not fulfill the norms and standards and other requirement laid down and notified by the NCTE. In the said letter of 08.07.2010 about 22 deficiencies were laid down by the ERC and an opportunity was given to the petitioner to submit written representation. Although the petitioner had submitted a detail representation on 26.07.2010 explaining each and every deficiency as has been alleged, but the petitioner was served with an order dated 18.11.2010, whereby the recognition of the college was cancelled by the ERC. 5. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal against the order dated 18.11.2010 of the ERC under Section 18 of the NCTE Act. The said appeal was also rejected by the NCTE through the order dated 26.04.2011. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid withdrawal of the recognition and rejection of the appeal, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. On a perusal of the order dated 08.07.2010, it is noticed that the authorities in the NCTE had listed out 22 Nos. of deficiencies in the petitioner college. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid withdrawal of the recognition and rejection of the appeal, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. On a perusal of the order dated 08.07.2010, it is noticed that the authorities in the NCTE had listed out 22 Nos. of deficiencies in the petitioner college. Some such deficiencies being that teachers for Physical Education, Art, Work Experience, IT Literacy Teachers are not available, Hall is not available, games and sports facilities are not be available etc. It has also been stated that the college is functioning for the last 8years from 2002-2010 without any recognition of NCTE. It is also stated that the building is located in a congested residential area and the building is not like a college building and it is inadequate for 60 students and staff. In reply thereof, the petitioners by their written representation dated 26.07.2010 had taken a specific stand that physical education etc., are not a part of the syllabus of the Dibrugarh University to which the college is affiliated and, as such, no teacher is required for the purpose. Again for the purpose of imparting Art, Work Experience, a teacher having M.Ed degree from Dibrugarh University, who is experienced and well equipped to impart art and work experience classes is available, and, as such, the assertion that such teachers are not available is incorrect. Regarding IT course, it is stated that under the syllabus of Dibrugarh University computer education is one of the optional subject but the concerned institution is not offering the subject, therefore, no teacher is required. 6. Regarding non-availability of psychology labs and educational technology lab, it is stated that the college has a particular laboratory, however, if upon inspection any upgradation is required, the college is willing to incorporate the same. In such manner, the college authorities had given specific replies to the different 22 deficiencies that the respondent NCTE had incorporated in the letter dated 08.07.2010. 7. But, however, by the order dated 18.11.2010, the NCTE had withdrawn the recognition of the petitioner college. In such manner, the college authorities had given specific replies to the different 22 deficiencies that the respondent NCTE had incorporated in the letter dated 08.07.2010. 7. But, however, by the order dated 18.11.2010, the NCTE had withdrawn the recognition of the petitioner college. In the order of 18.11.2010, no reason has been stated as to why the recognition has been withdrawn other than stating that an opportunity was given to the Institution to make a written representation within a period of 21 days before the withdrawal of recognition and that as per the provisions contained under Section 17 of the NCTE Act on account of the deficiencies mentioned therein, the recognition had been withdrawn. 8. Subsequently, being aggrieved by the decision and withdrawal, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Statutory Appellate Authority. The appellate authority also rejected the appeal of the petitioner by its order dated 26.04.2011. In the appellate order also, it is noticed that the authority initially listed out all the 22 deficiencies that were incorporated in the earlier show-cause dated 08.07.2010. Thereafter, the appellate authorities arrived at a conclusion that the petitioners had admitted though for different reasons that the teachers for Physical Education, Art, Work Experience IT Literacy were not available, no dimension of the size of the hall were mentioned etc. Ultimately, the appellate authorities arrived at a conclusion that after perusal of the documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit, VT report and after considering oral documents, advanced during hearing, the Council had reached the conclusion that there was no ground that had been made out to allow the appeal and, accordingly, it was rejected. 9. This Court is constrained to notice that even in the appellate order, no reason has been given as to why the explanations given by the petitioner were found to be not acceptable. The only reason given is that the petitioner had admitted the deficiencies though for different reasons have been stated for the purpose. 10. Further, it has also been stated that upon perusal of the documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit and upon considering the oral arguments advanced, the Council had arrived at a conclusion that there is no ground to allow the appeal. In the considered view of this Court, the aforesaid by itself cannot be an appropriate ground to reject the appeal. 11. Further, it has also been stated that upon perusal of the documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit and upon considering the oral arguments advanced, the Council had arrived at a conclusion that there is no ground to allow the appeal. In the considered view of this Court, the aforesaid by itself cannot be an appropriate ground to reject the appeal. 11. In order to reject the appeal, it was incumbent upon both the original as well as appellate authorities to examine each and every detailed reasons given by the petitioner against the 22 deficiencies and give a specific conclusion and findings against each deficiencies as to why the reasons given were found to have been not acceptable. 12. The said purpose of giving a detailed reason is further fortified from the Norms and Standard for Secondary Teacher Education Programme made by the NCTE. Clause 7 of the said Norms and Standards provides for the infrastructure facilities that are required to be in place for a B.Ed., institution while Clause 8 provides for the instructional facilities in such institution. 13. On a perusal of the Sub-Clause e of Clause 5 of the Norms and Standard providing for qualification for the other teaching staff for teaching Physical Education, Art, Work Experience, IT Literacy Teachers etc., it is seen that the same are to be prescribed by the affiliating Dibrugarh University. In the instant case, it is the case of the petitioner that the Dibrugarh University syllabus for B.Ed. course does not provide for any such Physical Education, Art, Work Experience, IT Literacy Teachers etc., therefore, the question of prescribing qualification etc., does not arise. 14. In view of the stand taken by the petitioners as regards the availability of the teachers for Physical Education, Art, Work Experience, IT Literacy Teachers, the same could not have been rejected by the NCTE authorities, merely by stating that the reasons are not acceptable. Similarly, the other reasons stated by the NCTE authorities that the college is functioning for the last 8(eight) years from 2002-2010 without any recognition of the NCTE, also, prima facie, appears to this Court to be incorrect. The order dated 12.03.2001/13.03.2001 by which the recognition was given to the petitioner institution indicates that recognition was given for B.Ed course for 1(one) year duration from the academic session 2001-2002. The order dated 12.03.2001/13.03.2001 by which the recognition was given to the petitioner institution indicates that recognition was given for B.Ed course for 1(one) year duration from the academic session 2001-2002. The said order of recognition would mean that the recognition was given from the academic session and that it is a continuous recognition until the same is withdrawn. The expression B.Ed. course for 1(one) year cannot be interpreted to mean that the recognition was given only for a period of 1(one) year. 15. Further it has been pointed out that by the order dated 08.05.2001, the recognition given to the petitioner Institution was given with retrospective effect from the session 2000-2001. In such view of the matter also, a mere conclusion by the NCTE authorities that the reason given by the petitioner institution is not acceptable, without specifying the reason thereof is found to be un-acceptable. 16. In view of the above, it is deemed appropriate that NCTE authorities, if they are of the view that the petitioner institution does not meet any of the required Norms and Standards as provided in the NCTE Norms and Standards of Teacher Regulation 2001., the concerned authority may conduct a proper inspection of the petitioner institution and while conducting the inspection the representatives of the petitioner institution be also allowed to remain present. 17. Upon such inspection, if the NCTE finds that the petitioner institution falls short of any such Norms and Standards, the same may be indicated by a show cause requiring the petitioner to either remove the deficiencies or to give reasons for the same. Upon such show cause being issued and reply being given, the appropriate authority in the NCTE would take the final decision on the question of maintainability of the recognition given to the petitioner institution. In doing so, it is expected that the NCTC would give due application of mind to each and every deficiencies and also to the answer that may be given by the institution to such deficiencies and form separate reason against each individual deficiency. 18. The aforesaid exercise be carried out within a period of 2(two) months from today. 19. It is stated that as because of the earlier withdrawal of the recognition, the petitioner institution is not allowed to admit further students. 18. The aforesaid exercise be carried out within a period of 2(two) months from today. 19. It is stated that as because of the earlier withdrawal of the recognition, the petitioner institution is not allowed to admit further students. In that view of the matter, it is expected that the NCTE authorities would complete the inspection as well as the entire process within a period of the aforesaid 2(two) months. 20. In terms of the above, this writ petition stands disposed of. 21. A copy of this order be furnished to Mr. SS Roy, learned counsel for the respondent, NCTE. 22. The earlier order of withdrawal of recognition dated 18.11.2010 shall merge with the subsequent order to be passed by the NCTE, after conducting the aforesaid exercise. 23. Consequently, in view of the above, the connected miscellaneous cases, if any, shall also stand closed.