SMD Girls College of Education v. National Council for Teacher Education

1. In pursuance of the applications made by the petitioners herein seeking recognition for the B.Ed, course from the Academic Session 2015:DHC:11481-DB 2013-14, the Northern Regional Committee, National Council for Teacher Education decided to issue Letters ofIntent(LOT)under Clause 7(13)ofthe National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2014 (for short 'Regulations') and required the petitioners to appoint the faculty and submit the faculty list after getting the same approved by its affiliating body. Accordingly, the petitioners appointed the faculty and the same was duly approved by the Affiliating University. The petitioners submitted the approved faculty list and the other supporting documents for consideration by the Northern Regional Committee(NRC)and issuance ofthe orders ofrecognition. However,the petitioners were informed by NRC that in the 236^^ Meeting held from 29^*^-30'^ April,2015 and 1^2"''May,2015,it was decided by NRCto cancel the LOIs granted to the petitioners and to issue show-cause notices to the petitioners calling for explanation since the documents submitted by them in respect ofthe land revealed that the said land is on private lease which is impermissible under the provisions of the Regulations. Immediately thereafter, the Trust which sponsored the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.5927/2015 executed a sale deed and transferred the title ofthe land which was earlier leased out and the said fact was informed to NRC. However,in the 238^*^ Meeting held from 20'^-3U'May,2015,it was decided by NRC not to acceptthe request ofthe petitioner in W.P.(C)No.5927/2015 on the ground that on the date ofapplication the petitioner was not holding the title to the land in question.

2. Similarly, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.5940/2015 had also rectified the deficiencies pointed outby NRCin the 236^*^ Meeting and submitted the documents. However, NRC failed to respond. Hence, these two writ petitions.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties.

4. Though the prayer in both the writ petitions included a declaration that Regulation 8(4)(i) of the Regulations, 2014, to the extent it makes a distinction between the land on private lease and the land on Government lease, is ultra vires Section 14 of National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993(for short'the Act')and is liable to be struck down,it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the said prayer is not pressed. Hence, the only other issue that requires consideration is whether the decision ofNRG to cancel the LOI granted to the petitioners is sustainable.

5. Though the said decision is assailed in the petitions on various grounds,the learned counsel for the respondents atthe outset has pointed out that against the impugned decision ofNRC under Section 14 ofthe Act, an alternative remedy of appeal is available under Section 18 of the Act and without exhausting the said alternative remedy the petitioners cannot invoke thejurisdiction ofthis Court under Article 226 ofthe Constitution ofIndia.

6. In the light ofthe scheme ofthe Act, we find force in the submission ofthe learned counsel for the respondents and we consider it appropriate to mrelegate the petitioners to the remedy of statutory appeal. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits ofthe case,we dispose ofboth the writ petitions granting liberty to the petitioners to prefer an appeal to the "National Council for Teacher Education" as provided under Section 18 of the Act against the impugned decisions of NRC. If any such appeal is preferred within one week from today, the same shall be considered and disposed ofby the respondent No.1 following due process oflaw within six weeks thereafter. V

7. The writ petitions as well as all the pending applications stand disposed ofaccordingly. )jMy DECEMBER 02,2015/rb CHIEF JUSTICE JAYANT NATH,J