Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
JUDGMENT
JANATA SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDALS WOMENS B ED COLLEGE & ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Ms. Priti Kumari and Mr. Pankaj Kumar Ray, Advs.
Through: Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Mr. Hardik Rupal, Mr. Vibhu Sharma and Ms. Aishwarya Malhotra, Advs. for
NCTE.
1. With the consent of learned counsels appearing on behalf of parties, the petition is taken up for hearing.
2. The present petition has been filed seeking following reliefs: “a) issue a writ of certiorari or any other suitable writ or order quashing/setting aside the withdrawal order dated 14.11.2022 passed by WRC and order dated 30.10.2024 passed by appellate authority of NCTE; and/or b) issue a writ of mandamus or any other suitable writ or order to the Respondents to issue the restoration order with consequential direction to respondents to display the name of petitioner institution in the list/ category of recognized institutions for conducting B.Ed. Course on their website and to inform the Affiliating University as well as Department of Higher Education, Government of Maharashtra enabling participation in the counselling & admission process for the Academic Year 2025-26 and subsequent years.”
3. The grievance articulated in the present petition is essentially against the final Show Cause Notice [hereinafter ‘SCN’] dated 13.05.2022, withdrawal order dated 14.11.2022 [Annexure-P1(Colly)], as well as, the final order passed by the Appellate Committee dated 30.10.2024.
4. Mr. Amitesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner institution invites attention of the Court to SCN [Annexure-P17], to submit that the only allegation made in SCN is that the petitioner institute has not submitted compliance of the revised recognition order dated 12.08.2015.
5. He submits that in SCN no deficiencies have been pointed out to petitioner institute. In the absence of specific deficiencies having been pointed out, it was not possible for petitioner institute to meaningfully respond to the said SCN. Therefore, the SCN is vague and imprecise.
6. Further, drawing attention of the Court to impugned withdrawal order dated 14.11.2022, he submits that the said withdrawal order has been passed on the premise that the petitioner institution is deficient in appointing the regular qualified Principal as per NCTE Regulations, however, this ground was not raised in SCN by the respondents/NCTE. Thus, the withdrawal order being at variance with the allegation made in SCN, cannot be legally sustained.
7. He further contends that even the impugned appeal order dated 30.10.2024 [Annexure-P1(Colly)] is predicated on different grounds. Elaborating on his submission, he contends that apart from holding that petitioner institution has no qualified Principal, it has also been held by the Appellate Committee that there is a deficiency with respect to staff/faculty members of petitioner institution.
8. He, therefore, contends that SCN, impugned withdrawal order dated 14.11.2022 and the impugned appeal order dated 30.10.2024 being at complete variance with each other, should be quashed and set aside.
9. Per contra, Mr. Hardik Rupal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents/NCTE has pointed out that revised recognition order dated 19.08.2015 was issued by respondents/NCTE, subject to the petitioner institution fulfilling four conditions mentioned therein.
10. He submits that one of the conditions mentioned therein was with regard to creation of additional facilities viz. additional built-up area, additional infrastructure and additional staff. Since, the same has not been complied with by petitioner institute, it led to the issuance of SCN.
11. However, on a specific query posed by the Court to Mr. Rupal as to whether any specific allegation in SCN has been made with regard to the petitioner institute being deficient in appointing a regular qualified Principal or faculty members or with regard to infrastructural deficiencies, he fairly states that no such specific allegations are made in the SCN.
12. It is settled law that a clear notice is essential for ensuring that the person against whom an action is proposed, has an adequate, informed and meaningful opportunity to show cause against the proposed action.
13. In this regard, reference may be had to a decision of this Court in Maa Sharda Vidyapeeth vs. National Council for Teacher Education and Anr., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 5683, wherein, in somewhat similar facts and circumstances, the withdrawal order of recognition passed against the petitioner institute therein being in excess of the allegations of the show cause notice was quashed, observing as under:
proposed. To put it otherwise, we are of the opinion that in order to fulfil the requirements of principles of natural justice, a show-cause notice should meet the following two requirements viz:
(i) The material/grounds to be stated which according to the department necessitates an action; (ii) Particular penalty/action which is proposed to be taken. It is this second requirement which the High Court has failed to omit.
(ii) We may hasten to add that even if it is not specifically mentioned in the show-cause notice but it can clearly and safely be discerned from the reading thereof, that would be sufficient to meet this requirement.” (emphasis supplied)
20. From the above exposition of law, it is evident that a clear notice is essential for ensuring that the person against whom an action is proposed, has an adequate, informed and meaningful opportunity to show case against the proposed action.
XXX XXX XXX
22. Accordingly, the impugned decision of withdrawal of recognition being in excess of the allegations of the show cause notice cannot be sustained and, thus, it is quashed and set aside. (emphasis supplied)
14. It is equally settled that if the allegations in the show cause notice are not specific, and are on the contrary vague, or lack details and/or are unintelligible, it is sufficient to hold that noticee was not given proper opportunity to meet the allegations indicated in the show cause notice.[1] Commissioner of Central Excise, Banglore vs. Brindavan Beverages (P) Ltd. and Others.; (2007) 5 SCC 388; Board of Technical Education, UP vs. Dhanwantri Kumar; 1990 SCC OnLine SC 3.
15. Now coming back to the facts of the case, this Court finds that the SCN is vague as it does not contain specific and intelligible allegations, therefore, the opportunity granted to the petitioner institution by way of said SCN cannot be said to be a meaningful one. Accordingly, the impugned withdrawal order dated 14.11.2022, as well as, the impugned order dated 30.10.2024 of the appellate committee, which are premised on the said SCN, cannot be sustained.
16. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The impugned withdrawal order dated 14.11.2022, as well as, the impugned order dated 13.10.2024 of the appellate committee, are set aside, and the following directions are passed:
(i) the matter is remanded to the respondent no.2-WRC to pass a fresh order on the basis of inspection;
(ii) the NCTE is directed to carry out fresh inspection under Section
(iii) in the event any deficiencies are pointed out in the recommendations, NCTE will grant reasonable time to the petitioner institution to rectify the same; and
(iv) if no deficiencies are recommended, or in case deficiencies recommended by NCTE are rectified by petitioner institution during the time period granted to it, the WRC will restore the recognition of petitioner institution for B.Ed. course (two basic units-100 seats), and consequently, the NCTE shall communicate about the restoration order to the affiliating university of the petitioner institution, as well as, to the State Government. Further, NCTE will also do the needful with regard to updation of the status of petitioner institution on its website.
17. The petition along with pending applications, is disposed of, in the aforesaid terms.
18. The date already fixed i.e. 27.10.2025 stands cancelled.
VIKAS MAHAJAN, J SEPTEMBER 16, 2025