LexSHRI MORVI SARVAJANIK KELAVNI MANDAL SANCHALIT MSKM B.ED. COLLEGE versus NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHERS EDUCATION AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 555 SHRI MORVI SARVAJANIK KELAVNI MANDAL A SANCHALIT MSKM B.ED. COLLEGE v. NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHERS' EDUCATION AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 11215 of 2011) B DECEMBER 16, 2011 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND T.S. THAKUR, JJ.] National Council of Teachers' Education Act, 1993: s.17 C - Withdrawal of recognition - Recognition granted to appellant-institution for offering course of B.Ed. - Withdrawal of recognition on the ground of inadequacy of built up area available to the institution, the land underlying the structure not being in the name of the institution, the institution being D run in a building that was used by two other institutions and the lecturers employed not having requisite qualifications - Held: Inspection was conducted more than once and said deficiencies were pointed out which seriously affected its capacity to impart quality education and training to future E teachers - However, deficiencies specifically pointed out were not removed by the appellant-institution - Therefore, withdrawal of recognition was justified - Prayer for permitting the students to continue in the appellant-institution for session 2011-12 on sympathetic ground also rejected since F recognition of the institution stood withdrawn on 20th July, 2011 which meant that while it had no effect qua admissions for the academic session 2010-2011, it was certainly operative qua admissions made for the academic session 2011-12 which commenced from 1st August, 2011 onwards - G Education/Educational institutions. The appellant-trust established a college which was granted recognition on 29.5.2007 under Section 14(3)(a) 555 H 556 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A of the NCTE Act for offering a B.Ed. with an intake of 100 students. On 27.7.2008, the NCTE issued a notice to the appellant to show cause why the recognition should not be withdrawn in terms of Section 17 of the Act in view of the deficiencies pointed out in the notice like inadequacy B of built up area available to the institution, the land underlying the structure not being in the name of the appellant-trust and the college being run in a building that was used by two other institutions. The recognition was withdrawn by the NCTE since the appellant did not C respond to the show cause notice within the period stipulated for the purpose. The appellant filed a special civil application challenging the order of withdrawal of recognition. The High Court directed the appellant to remove the deficiencies pointed out by the NCTE and 0 gave liberty to the NCTE to conduct fresh inspection and pass appropriate orders. In compliance with the directions of the High Court, the inspection was conducted by the NCTE after receiving intimation from the appellant that the deficiencies were removed. However, NCTE sent a fresh notice pointing out several E deficiencies. Meanwhile the appellant moved High Court for direction to the University to allot students to the appellant. The High Court directed the University to allot the students of the appellant for the academic session 2011-12. In the meantime, the Western Regional F Committee issued an order withdrawing the recognition granted to the appellant. The appellant filed writ petition before the High Court challenging the order of withdrawal of recognition which was dismissed. The instant appeals were filed challenging the order of the High Court. G Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. The present is one such case where the institution established by the appellant was inspected more than once and several deficiencies that seriously H M.S.K MANDAL SANCHALIT MSK. B.ED. COLLEGE 557 v. N.C.T.E. & ORS. affect its capacity to impart quality education and training A to future teachers specifically were pointed out. Inadequacy of space and staff, apart from other requirements stipulated under the provisions of the Act and the Regulations, is something which disqualifies any institution from seeking recognition. Such deficiencies B were not disputed nor can the same be disputed in the light of the reports submitted by the inspecting teams from time to time, including the report submitted on the basis of the latest inspection that was conducted pursuant to the directions issued by the High Court. It is c difficult to appreciate how the institution could have reported compliance with the requirements of the regulations and complete
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.