In this case, the Petitioner’s application for the recognition of its integrated BA/B.ED /B.SC. B.ED program was rejected. The entire case is fought on the precedent Sir Chotu Ram Jat College of Education v National Council for Teacher’s Association W.P.(C) 5303/2021.
Brief Facts
The Petitioner approached National Council for Teacher’s education to gauge approval to offer BA/B.ED/B.SC.B.ED program through their institution. The NCTE referred the matter to the Northern Regional Committee (NRC). The NRC issued a show-cause notice pointing out certain deficiencies in the Petitioner’s application. The Petitioner remedied those ills and another show-cause notice was issued on 21.6.16 to the Petitioner, regarding which no reply was received by the NRC. The NRC rejected the application of the Petitioner on 29.7.16 against which the Petitioner has filed the current Writ petition.
The contention of the Petitioner
The Petitioner contended that the show cause notice issued on 21.6.16 was backed up by an Order dated 12.3.16 issued by the Govt of Haryana requesting the NCTE not to entertain applications of societies/trusts seeking recognition for their integrated programs and opening of new B.Ed. colleges in the State of Haryana. According to the Petitioner, the said Order could not be made applicable to the application of the Petitioner, since the Petitioner’s application was presented before that Order. The Petitioner further placed reliance on Chotu Ram Jat college of education v National Council for Teacher’s Association (supra) which ruled that “the institutions whose applications were pending before the imposition of the bans by the State Governments would not be covered by the ban, and their applications would have to be reconsidered by the NCTE”.
The contention of the Respondents
The Respondents contended that the Order issued on 27.9.16 was not based solely on the state ban, but it was based upon three other grounds which were taken in the show cause notice dated 21.3.16. The Respondents also contended that the Petitioner ought to have availed its statutory remedy of appeal under Section 18 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993, rather than approaching this Court directly under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Court’s Decision
The Writ petition was allowed and the Order issued on 27.6.19 by the Northern Regional committee was set aside.
Reasons For Decision
The Court referred to the cases in which NCTE was involved and similar petitions were filed on similar grounds, NCTE itself accepted that the appeals would be covered by Chotu ram’s decision. The Court further reasoned that as a general proposition, a statutory authority was entitled to be guided only by relevant factors, and where irrelevant factors had been considered by the statutory authority, the Order was vulnerable to correction under Article 226 of the Constitution and in this particular case as well NCTE was influenced by the decision of state ban, therefore the decision of Chotu ram would make the Order issued on 27.6.19 bad in law.
The Court further refused the contention that remedies under Article 226 of the Constitution, by stating that the Petitioner was faced with an Order which proceeded not just on the facts of its case, but on the general policy recommendation of the State Government and further several such petitions had been allowed by the Court and the Petitioner could not be discriminated against.
Click here to view the Judgement
Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.
