P.T.M. Teacher Training Institute v. National Council for Teacher Education and Anr.

1. The present application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) has been filed by the petitioner seeking an adinterim ex-parte order and stay of the operation of the impugned withdrawal order dated 24.11.2022 passed by respondent no.2/Southern Regional Committee (‘SRC’) and the order dated 11.01.2023 passed by the respondent no.1/National Council for Teacher Education (‘NCTE’), and consequently permit the petitioner to admit students for academic session 2024-25 during pendency of the above-captioned writ petition.

2. The petitioner-Institute herein is seeking quashing of the withdrawal order dated 24.11.2022, passed by respondent no. 2 by which the recognition of the petitioner-Institute for D.E[1].Ed course has been withdrawn on the ground that the petitioner-Institute had failed to file its Performance Appraisal Report (‘PAR’) within the stipulated period of time. Thereafter, the petitioner-Institute had filed an appeal against the said withdrawal order before the NCTE Appellate Committee and vide the impugned order dated 11.01.2023, the statutory appeal was rejected. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

3. Issue Notice. Mr. N.K. Bhatnagar, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argues that the withdrawal order dated 24.11.2022 passed by SRC is against the principles of natural justice and against the mandate of Section 17 of the National Council of Teacher Education Act, 1993 (‘NCTE Act’). It is further submitted that a perusal of the withdrawal order reveals that the decision taken by the SRC, in its 412th meeting held on 5th and 6th July, 2022, does not record any such satisfaction qua any particular institute especially the petitioner-Institute, and therefore, the very initiation of proceedings under Section 17 of the NCTE Act is without jurisdiction and is bad in law. It is argued that it is settled principle of law that if the initial action is illegal and without jurisdiction, the same cannot be sanctified by subsequent development, and the impugned order passed by the Appellate Committee of NCTE is cryptic and unreasoned. Further, it is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner-Institute that the appeal against the said withdrawal order has been rejected on the ground of non-submission of certified/notarized copies of the documents along with the appeal, including certain faculty details. It is also submitted that petitioner-Institute had submitted notarized copies of the documents along with the appeal and neither the NCTE Act nor the Rules thereof mandate that the appeal needs to be accompanied with certified or notarized copies of the documents.

5. It is further submitted that the counselling authorities have not included the name of the petitioner-Institute in the counselling process and if the impugned orders are not stayed during pendency of the writ petition, the name of the petitioner-Institute will not be included therein and the students will not have option to choose the petitioner-Institute. Thus, since the counselling process would be over, it is prayed that adinterim stay be granted on the impugned orders.

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents opposes the present application by submitting that the recognition of the petitioner-Institute under Section 14 of NCTE Act, 1993 was granted vide order dated 18.08.2006 for D.El.Ed course of two year duration, with an annual intake of 50 seats for the academic session 2006-2007. It is also submitted that SRC, in its 412th meeting held on 5th & 6th July, 2022, had taken note of non-functioning of the website of the institutes which is mandatory requirement as per NCTE Regulations, 2014, wherein the name of the petitioner-institute was listed. It is argued that the petitioner-institute had also failed to submit the PAR, which is a mandatory requirement as per the prevailing rules. In view of the non-compliance, the Regional Committee had advised the Regional Director, SRC to issue show cause notice to all such institutes seeking appropriate infrastructure and instructional details. However, the petitioner-Institute had failed to submit the reply to the aforesaid show cause notice and had also failed to submit its reply to the final show cause notice dated 07.09.2023. Thus, the respondents had withdrawn the recognition granted to the petitioner-Institute for D.El.Ed course of two year duration. Thereafter, the appeal filed by the petitioner-Institute before the Appellate Authority of NCTE was rejected vide impugned order dated 11.01.2023. It is argued that the said order is well-reasoned and does not require the interference by this Court. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that the issue with regard to PAR is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is submitted that the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 190/2021 vide order dated 13.03.2023 had set aside the public notice which mandated the requirement of filing of the PAR. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 06.07.2023 passed in SLP No. 11756/2023 has stayed the operation of the order passed on 13.03.2023 by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court. In this regard it submitted that the petitioner-Institute had failed to provide the PAR and therefore, its recognition had been withdrawn. Thus, it is argued that the application seeking interim relief is liable to be dismissed.

7. This Court has heard arguments addressed on behalf of both the parties and has perused the material on record.

8. This Court observes that the NCTE had issued a public notice on 29.09.2019, requiring all institutes to mandatorily submit a Performance Appraisal Report (PAR). The petitioner-institute had failed to provide the Southern Regional Committee (SRC) with its PAR within the stipulated time period. Consequently, the SRC had issued a withdrawal order to the petitioner-institute on 24.11.2022 after providing fair opportunities for representation. The petitioner-institute subsequently had filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority of the NCTE against the withdrawal order dated 24.11.2022, which was rejected on 11.01.2023. Therefore, the petitioner-institute is before this Court.

9. This Court notes that it is an undisputed fact that the petitionerinstitute did not provide a Performance Appraisal Report to SRC. It is also noted that NCTE had issued a public notice on 29.09.2019, requiring all Teacher Education Institutions (‘TEIs’) running NCTE recognised Teacher Education Courses to mandatorily submit a Performance Appraisal Report. The same had been challenged before a Single Bench of this Court and vide judgment dated 27.05.2021, this Court had dismissed the Writ Petition bearing No. 11304/2019 and connected matters, and had held that the public notice dated 29.09.2019 issued by the NCTE was in accordance with law. The said judgment had been challenged before the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court by way of LPA No. 190/2021 and vide judgment dated 13.03.2023, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court had set aside the Public notice dated 22.09.2019, mandating the requirement of filing of PAR. Thereafter, the NCTE had preferred SLP No. 11756/2023 against the judgment dated 13.03.2023 passed in LPA No. 190/2021. Vide order dated 06.07.2023, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has stayed the operation of the judgment dated 13.03.2023 passed in LPA No. 190/2021, pending decision in the SLP the relevant portion of which reads as under: “... Issue notice. In the meantime, operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed.”

10. Thus, this Court notes that as on date, the TEIs’ which are running NCTE recognised Teacher Education Courses are required to file a Performance Appraisal Report annually as the same is required for regulatory examination of the physical infrastructure, teaching faculty and other stipulations as per NCTE rules, regulation or the NCTE Act. However, the petitioner-institute has failed to provide the same to SRC.

11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the stay of the judgment passed in LPA No. 190/2021 dated 13.03.2023 does not mean that the directions contained in the said judgment have been stayed as a whole. In this regard, he also submits that till the SLP is decided, the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court will have to be complied with. However, in this Court’s opinion as per the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court, it is clear that the operation of the judgment of Division Bench of this Court has been stayed which means that the directions contained in the conclusion of the said judgment has been stayed. Therefore, in this Court’s opinion there is no doubt about the legal position in the present case that since the operation of the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench has been stayed, it is the operation of the entire judgment including the conclusion of setting aside of the Notification in question has been stayed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Therefore, this Court is bound by the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court and cannot even for grant of interim relief, allow, which has been specifically stayed by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

12. In view thereof, the interim relief sought by the petitionerinstitute cannot be granted at this stage.

13. The interim relief application filed by the petitioner-Institute is accordingly dismissed. W.P.(C) 533/2024

14. List for arguments on 04.09.2024.

15. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.