Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 896 (GUJ)

Nilkanth P. T. C. College v. State Of Gujarat

2025-08-08

NIKHIL S.KARIEL

body2025
ORDER : NIKHIL S. KARIEL, J. 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Harsh Upadhyay for the petitioner, learned AGP Ms.Nirali SArda for the respondent – State and learned advocate Ms.Hetal Patel for respondent no.3. 2. This petition questions the action of the State, whereby the petitioner institution is not permitted to participate in the admission process for being allotted the students in the course of Diploma in Elementary Education (D.El.Ed.) programme. The petitioner being institution recognized by the NCTE and affiliated to the State Examination Board for conducting Primary Teacher Training Course, were entitled to participate in the admission process by the State for the course of Diploma in Elementary Education. It appears that prior to admission process being initiated, the NCTE had issued public notices on 02.04.2024 and 09.09.2024 inter alia calling upon the Teachers Education Institution (TEI) to submit their Performance Appraisal Report (P.A.R.) for the academic year 2021-22 and 2022-2023. Vide public notice dated 09.09.2024, the NCTE had fixed the timeline for online submission of PAR from 09.09.2024 to 10.11.2024. It appears that later on, vide public notice dated 10.12.2024, the NCTE had extended the time period for filling up of the PAR till 31.12.2024. 3. It further appears that vide public notice dated 02.04.2025, the NCTE had issued another public notice, whereby the TEI were informed that the show cause notices under Section 17(1) of the NCTE Act, 1993, are being issued to institutions, which have not filled up the PAR by the Regional Committee concerned and whereas upon the said show cause notice being received, all the concerned TEI would be required to submit a reply through online mode to the NCTE within a period of 15 days thereafter. It is the case of the petitioners that while they had not submitted the PARs to the NCTE for various reasons, vide orders issued in the month May, 2025 to be specific on 24.04.2025 and 09.05.2025, the State Government through the Deputy Director of Education, Office of the Director of Primary Education had inter alia informed the institutions that since the institutions concerned had not filled up the Performance Appraisal Report and submitted the same to the NCTE as required vide public notice dated 09.09.2024 etc., therefore, the institutions concerned is prohibited from taking part in the admission process for programme of Diploma in Elementary Education. The petitioner being aggrieved by such actions, has challenged the same before this Court. 4. Learned advocate for the petitioner would challenge the impugned actions by submitting that the public notices issued by the NCTE on 09.09.2024 and 10.12.2024 do not envisage any penal action, which would be taken by the NCTE for non- submission of the PAR. It is further submitted that while vide the public notice dated 02.04.2025, the NCTE has intimated that those institutions (TEI), which have not submitted the PAR would be issued show cause notice under Section 17(1) of NCTE Act, such show cause notices have also not been received by the present institution. It is submitted that in any case, the State Government prior to ordering that the petitioner would not be able to participate in the admission process in programme of Diploma in Elementary Education, never afforded any opportunity to the petitioner and whereas the petitioner was never put to the notice that non-filling of the PAR as required by the NCTE would result in such stringent consequence at the hands of the State. It is further submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that as such, the State neither under the NCTE Act or Regulations or even under any other Regulations, is empowered to take any such penal action against the petitioner institution and whereas it is submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to participate in the admission process. 5. Learned advocate for the petitioner would also vehemently submit that while the petitioner having not received any show cause notice as such, the recognition given by the NCTE to the petitioner institution is valid as on date. 6. This petition is vehemently opposed by the learned AGP for the respondent State. Learned AGP would state in detail through public notices dated 09.09.2024 and various other documents and would submit that the idea of the NCTE for calling upon the the institution to submit their Performance Appraisal Report, was to find out as to whether the institution fulfill the minimum criteria as required for grant of recognition / affiliation by the concerned body. It is submitted by the learned AGP that non-submission of PAR for almost around 9 to 10 months, entitled the State to infer adversely insofar as the institutions are concerned as regards their fulfilling criteria for affiliation / recognition. It is submitted by the learned AGP that non-submission of PAR for almost around 9 to 10 months, entitled the State to infer adversely insofar as the institutions are concerned as regards their fulfilling criteria for affiliation / recognition. Learned AGP would submit that the NCTE having undertaken the exercise so as to ensure that the minimum standards of teacher education system is maintained throughout the country, the State was only attempting to ensure that such institutions, which do not fulfill the minimum criteria, do not participate in the admission process. To a pointed query by this Court, the learned AGP could not point out as to any provision based upon which the impugned action has been undertaken by the State. Learned AGP would submit that since the public notice clearly reflects the intent of the NCTE and since the State wanted to ensure that the minimum standard of education is maintained throughout the State, the impugned action was taken with a bona fide purpose and whereas it is submitted that this Court may not interfere. 7. Having heard the learned advocates for the petitioner and learned AGP for the respondent State, to this Court, it would appear that the action of the State in prohibiting the petitioner from participating in the admission process in the programme of Diploma in Elementary Education, clearly appears to be an excess of the jurisdiction. It would appear to this Court that for the State to have exercised such powers, two primary requirements were to be fulfilled being; 7.1. Firstly the availability of appropriate powers with the State to undertake such an exercise. To this Court, it would appear that there is no provision either in the NCTE Act or any other statute, which empowers the State to undertake the exercise of prohibiting the institution from participating in the admission process upon the institution not filling up of their Performance Appraisal Reports with the NCTE. 7.2. To this Court, it would appear that in absence of any enabling powers, it was not open for the State to have undertaken the exercise of prohibiting the institutions concerned from the admission process. 7.2. To this Court, it would appear that in absence of any enabling powers, it was not open for the State to have undertaken the exercise of prohibiting the institutions concerned from the admission process. It would also appear to this Court that while the State may have the best of the intention, yet such intention should be backed up by an adequate source of powers and in absence of such powers, to this Court, any action taken by the State, would be a clear excess of jurisdiction, more particularly, when it appears that the powers exercised has almost resulted in the institutions being de-affiliated i.e. when the institutions are not provided with students for a particular year, to this Court, it would appear that the same almost amounts to de-affiliation/de-recognition of the institution for that particular year. 7.3. The second requirement to this Court would be that even if the State were empowered by a statute, rules and regulations to take such a penal action against any institution, then also, the State was duty bound to ensure that the principles of natural justice were followed. Taking the best case of the State that it had the power to prohibit the institutions from participating in the admission process to the programme of Diploma in Elementary Education, in case the institutions did not fill up the PAR and submit the same to the NCTE, then also State could not have done away with the principles of natural justice. The State not having issued any show cause notice to the institution before taking the impugned action, therefore also, the action of the State would be bad in law and would be required to be interfered with. 7.4. In any case, learned advocate Ms.Hetal Patel on behalf of the NCTE would also submit that as of now, the recognition of the institution is continued and there has been no cancellation at the end of the respondent no.3. Having regard to such statement also, the action of the State would require appropriate interference. 8. Having regard to the observations and discussions hereinabove, to this Court, the following directions would meet with the ends of justice: (i) The respondents are hereby directed to add the name of the petitioner College in the list of colleges mentioned in the advertisement as available on the website of the respondent authorities for allotment of students in (D.El. 8. Having regard to the observations and discussions hereinabove, to this Court, the following directions would meet with the ends of justice: (i) The respondents are hereby directed to add the name of the petitioner College in the list of colleges mentioned in the advertisement as available on the website of the respondent authorities for allotment of students in (D.El. Ed.) course. The respondents are further directed to consider the case of the petitioner vide application dated 10.06.2025 for allotment of students in (D.El. Ed.) course for the academic year 2025-26. (ii) Necessary consequences including the petitioner permitting to participate in the admission process, to follow. 9. With the above observations, the present petition stands disposed of as allowed.