w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Shri P.M. Patel College of Education V/S The Registrar, Sardar Patel University

    R/Special Civil Application No. 6656 of 2020, Civil Application No. 1 of 2020 in R/Special Civil Application No. 6656 of 2020, Civil Application No. 2 of 2020 in R/Special Civil Application No. 6656 of 2020 and Civil Application No. 3 of 2020 in R/Special Civil Application No. 6656 of 2020

    Decided On, 29 January 2021

    At, High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad

    By, THE HONORABLE JUSTICE: A.C. RAO

    For Petitioner: G.M. Joshi, Sr. Counsel, Jayraj Chauhan and Devendra G. Rana And For Respondents: Siddarth Dave, Dhaval Dave, Sr. Counsel and U.P. Vyas



Judgment Text


1. Heard Mr. G.M. Joshi, learned Senior Counsel with Mr. Jayraj Chauhan, learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Dhaval Dave, learned Senior Counsel with Mr. Udayan Vyas, learned advocate for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. Siddarth Dave, learned advocate for the respondent No. 2.

2. In the present petition, the petitioner has prayed as under:-

"A. Issue a writ of certiorari and/or a writ in the nature of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order, direction to quash and _ set-aside the show cause notice dated 13.02.2020 issued by the WRC of NCTE by declaring it to be null, void, ineffective and as to extent of non-application of mind, it being contrary to the binding decision of court of law, dehors the record and is being illegal, bad, ultra vires, capricious And further be pleased to quash and set-aside the action and inaction of the respondent authority of S.P. University in removing the name of the petitioner from the prospectus of central admission cell of B.Ed., course for academic year 2020-21 and consequent notice dated 04.03.2020 by declaring to be _ illegal, arbitrary, bad, ultra vires, capricious and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities being Sardar Patel University to reflect the name of the present petitioner on the website of the Sardar Patel University for admission through central admission cell in the course of B.Ed., for intake of 50 students for the academic year 2020-21 and onwards as per NCTE regulation and further be pleased to quash and set-aside the notification dated 04.03.2020 so as note below the said notification issued by S.P. University.

Interim reliefs:

B. Pending admission and till final disposal of the petition the Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct respondent university to incorporate name of the present petitioner college on the website of the Sardar Patel University and direct the university to accept the online admission application form for course of B.Ed., in academic year 2020-21 under central admission cell and further be pleased to stay operation, implementation and execution of the notification dated 04.03.2020 and the note below that and Further be pleased to stay the vague notice issued by the NCTE, dated 13.02.2020 based on non-existent contents which is contrary to decision of Hon'ble Court to meet ends of justice.

C. Pending admission and till final disposal of this petition the Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondent-university to allocate students for the seat of intake of 50 students in the course of B.Ed."

3. The short facts leading to filing of the present petition are as under:

3.1 That the present petitioner is filing this petition challenging the action and inaction on the part of the respondent no. 1 and 2 in not including the name of the present petitioner college in prospectus and reflecting name on website of university in list of choice of colleges for filling in admission form through central admission cell of S.P. University for the academic year 2020-21 for the course of B.Ed., which is conducted in the present college on the flimsy ground on issuance of show cause notice by the NCTE to be served upon the petitioner institute without considering the contents of the show cause notice and also without ascertaining the fact as to whether the petitioner has committed any breach of alleged provisions of applicable law when the recognition was granted or have defaulted in complying with the conditions of the regulations has applicable in 2002, 2005, 2007, and 2014 or not.

3.2 That the NCTE regulation 2002 came into force wherein, as per Rules appended as appendix are applicable to the petitioner college, as per rule 7(d) requirement is that lease agreement if any, qua government land, required on long terms lease as per law of the concerned State, will also be considered valid for the purpose for running the B.Ed. College. That as per section 65 and 66 of provisions of Gujarat Municipalities Act, land can be given on lease by the municipality to any of the eligible person for advancement of the purpose of municipality on various conditions as enumerated in the Act for 9 years accordingly, decided to give land on lease for tenure of 9 years with an option of further renewal, consequently on 16.9.1991 vide resolution no. 242 is passed by the General Board of the Nagarpalika which in the case of the petition has been renewed time and again from 1992 onwards upon execution of lease agreement by the chief officer, Vide order dated 2.7.2017 chairman of AVKUDA and collector of Anand has extended the lease of the land of the petitioner institute upto 5.11.2026, Therefore, it is abundantly clear that policy prevalent at relevant point of time was applicable, which do not mandate lease to be executed for period of 30 years, hence subsequent objection of NCET in 2011 is bad in law.

3.3 That the petitioner has applied to the NCTE on 26.12.2003 seeking permission to start B.Ed., course commencing from the academic year 2004, which was granted. Affiliation was given to the petitioner by the S.P. University pursuant to the recognition granted by the NCTE in year 2004, In 2010, a permanent affiliation was given by the Sardar Patel University to present petitioner. That the petitioner was constrained to challenge order dated 23.12.2008, before the this Court by preferring Special Civil Application No. 4996 of 2009, which was clubbed with various other petitions and this Court wherein interim protection was granted and subsequently university was also directed to grant students by reflecting the name of the petitioner college as eligible college vide order dated 4.5.2010. That on 14.8.2010 till 31.5.2017 until date of his superannuation, the Principal came to be appointed as per the applicable norms and standards of NCTE Regulation of the year 2002, 2005 and 2009, which was approved by the Sardar Patel University, As per the amendment in the age of superannuation of the principal an order came to be passed by the petitioner and consequently S.P. University was intimated to give extension to the services of the Principal up to attaining age of 70 years. Therefore dispute qua appointment of Principal was not available to be raised by the S.P. University or the NCTE even though time and again without application of judicial mind and without ascertaining the record mechanically issue of appointment of principal came to be raised which is indicative of gross bias.

3.4 That on 23/26.7.2010 NCTE has amended the regulation. The order of NCTE being illegal, was immediately challenged before this Court by preferring writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 7743 of 2012 on 11.6.2012. An order came to be passed on 26.6.2012 granting the interim relief, even thereafter various orders came to be passed in the matter which is known to the respondent authority, however final order came to be passed on 11.4.2019. That on 18.7.2013, the petitioner institution is recognized by UGC under Section 2(f) and 12B of the Act. That on 28.11.2014, new regulations came to be passed by NCTE, In December, 2014, another amendment in Regulation 2014 came into force. That on 9.11.2015 petitioner has received the NAAC Accreditation in its award ceremony conducted on 14.9.15. That on 28.4.2017 & 29.5.2017 further amendment came to be made in the NCTE Regulations. After obtaining necessary permission from management, an advertisement was published in the newspaper on 8.6.2017 and interview was fixed for appointment of principal of the college, Principal Mr. Vipul Patel came to be appointed vide order dated 22.6.2017 after following the NCTE regulation so applicable, copies of appointment order joining report at annexure AG, appointment was sent for approval of the S.P. University, which is pending for the reasons best known to them, however employee was discharging the duties, Thereafter, staff profile for the Principal came to be prepared by the Management on 22.6.2017 and was immediately sent for approving body being Sardar Patel University for necessary approval. That the NCTE Regulation dated 9.6.2017 are not implemented with retrospective effect.

3.5 That on 1.11.2017, Staff profile was prepared and it was presented before the concerned authority of NCTE under the signature of Registrar of Sardar Patel University, which comprises of 1 in charge Principal, 7 Teachers as per requirement of authority. That on 18th July, 2018 UGC regulation on minimum qualification for appointment of teachers and other academic staff in university and colleges and measure for the maintenance of standard in higher education were published, therefore S.P. University had raised the objection by referring the clause 4.1 of the said regulation that Principal is not having API score as suggested by the UGC 2018 regulation, therefore it has kept the file pending before it, even though such subsequent UGC regulations of 2018 are not applicable to the case on hand, therefore it is specifically submitted that, bias, illegal, malicious and high handed approach has been adopted by the Vice Chancellor and Registrar of the S.P. University. That the petitioner has requested the university to provide the staff profile accordingly after due verification of the record as well as consultation with employees, on 22.10.2018 the staff profile has been approved and stamped by the in-charge Registrar of Sardar Patel University, which was presented with the NCTE. That on 20.11.2018, further amendment came to be made in the NCTE regulations by adding Appendix 16 and 17. That on 4.12.2018 order came to be passed by this Court, therefore on 20.1.2019 the petitioners have tendered detailed representation pointing out various aspects of the case which has been ignored by the authority concerned. That the Sardar Patel University vide notice dated 17.1.2019 had directed the petitioner to remain present for admission procedure to be undertaken for the Academic Year 2019-2020 vide its notification dated 17.1.2019, Pursuant to which, Sardar Patel University has published public notice on 7.2.2019 and prepared a note of meeting held on 5.2.2019 to give admission in B.Ed. college, Sardar Patel University vide its order dated 4.4.2019 has intimated the petitioner to remain present for admission procedure, consequently, Sardar Patel University had allocated the students to petitioner college, thereafter, university has accepted the enrolment of the students to the tune of 50, which is as per allocated intact by NCTE including 21 open students, 7 scheduled caste students, 7 Schedule Tribe students, 15 SEBC students and grant total of 50 students in all, Therefore, as on today, 50 students are studying in 1st and 2nd year in the petitioner college and are likely to appear in the forthcoming examination to be held by College and University. That on 11.4.2019, this Court has passed an order where in it is recorded the finding after considering the submission of the respective parties that impugned order dated 25.11.2011 and 19.3.2012 have become ineffective and do not survive.

3.6 However, the representation of the petitioners is also not considered by the authority concerned and by meeting dated 23-26.7.2019, the recognition of petitioner institution came to be withdrawn, which is at Sr. No. 7 in the part-II of the action taken report published by the respondent authority on the website, That the order of the Western Region Committee dated 23/26.07.2019 challenged before this Court by way of Special Civil Application No. 13237 of 2019 wherein this Court vide order dated 01.08.2019 had granted interim protection in favour of the petitioner, In the meantime, while the detailed order was received by the petitioner from the office of the Western Region Committee of NCTE and accordingly the present petitioner has preferred an appeal under Section 17 of the NCTE Regulation and Act which was registered by the authorities and upon hearing the parties the appellate authority vide its order dated 06.11.2019 was pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 26/27.07.2019. Even though order of the WRC has been set aside, on 18.1.2020 a notice came to be issued by the office of the S.P. University wrote a letter to the petitioner intimating that university is bound by the directions of the NCTE to comply with the withdrawal order passed in the meeting dated 23/26.07.2019. That as the petitioner were apprehending foul play at the hands of VC and Registrar of the S.P. University, preferred petition, wherein on 16.4.2019 this Court has passed an order directing the State of Gujarat, Anand Municipality as well as AUKUDA directing authority not to interfere with the possession and occupation of the land belonging to the petitioner pursuant to the lease agreement. That the Sardar Patel University has issued a letter dated 05.02.2020 wherein it was informed that as mentioned in the memo of show-cause notice issued by the NCTE appropriate actions be taken by the college within time specified therein. That from the bare perusal of the show cause notice dated 13.02.2020 served upon petition on 19.2.2020 it was shocking to learn that, it is not clear with the authority as to what are the defects which have been found out in the institute of present petitioner. The contents of the notice is so vague that it is impossible for the petitioner to respond to the contents of the notice because all the way since 2004 till 2020 all the alleged defects have been cured by the petitioner. It is stated that from the contents of the show-cause notice it is visible that the compliance of the queries raised by the NCTE have been fulfilled therefore the impugned order were quashed and set aside even though on the same ground and on the same alleged non-compliance notice has been reissued however as per the decision of this Court above referred all the alleged defects does not survived on account of efflux of time and change in the regulation which are not applicable with retrospective effect, hence the issuance of the notice is non application of judicial mind so as is in colourable exercise of power.

3.7 That the agenda item of S.P. University is challenged before this Court by filing Special Civil Application No. 1359 of 2020, However, without considering the above aspect the Sardar Patel University has passed resolution at resolution no. 11 on 21.01.2020, As the university has passed and illegal resolution in dated 21.1.2020 where by petitioner's college has been put into "no admission zone" without there being any order from the NCTE which is being recognising body passed and resolution overreaching the applicable rules and regulation, said illegal resolution came to be challenged by way of SCA/5262/2020 before this Court where in vide order dated 27.2.2020 action of the respondent university has been stayed qua clause 11 sub clause (4) of the meeting of the meeting of syndicate dated 21.1.2020.

3.8 That on 04.02.2020, the Sardar Patel University has advertised through its central admission cell calling upon the candidates to fill in the forms for securing admission in B.Ed., Course conducted by the various collages affiliated by the Sardar Patel University for the academic year 2020-21, With gross bias, and in complete violation of decisions of this Court so as on the non-existent and flimsy ground Sardar Patel University as well as WRC of NCTE has issued the notice dated 13.02.2020 served on 19.2.2020 and consequent letter dated 25.02.2020 and_ the notification dated 04.03.2020 where by petitioner college is not shown in the list of college on central admission cell of S.P. University for the admission in the course of B.Ed., for the academic year 2020-21 in its prospectus.

4. At the time of arguments, learned Senior Counsel Mr. G.M. Joshi, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has submitted that the impugned notice (page 69) is undisputedly issued in exercise of the powers under Section 17 (1) of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The section is reproduced at page 54 at paragraph 4.41. The section makes it absolutely clear that the notice is required to be issued for the purpose of withdrawal of the recognition granted to the institution concerned. It is stated in the opening paragraph of the notice itself that the institution was granted recognition by order dated 8 October 2004. (page 99). The recognition is from academic session 2004-2005. It is not limited as canvassed by the respondents. Therefore, there is no ambiguity about the object and purpose of the notice which is only for the purpose of withdrawal of the recognition, which, even according to the notice impugned is subsisting.

4.1. It is submitted that when the notice itself mentions that recognition is in force in that the same is issued for the purpose of showing cause as to why action under section 17 (1) should not be taken, it is not open for either of the respondents to even remotely suggest that the purpose and the object of the notice is different then what is stated in the notice itself. The law on the subject is well settled. In the case of Mohinder Singh Gill Versus The Chief Election Commissioner reported in : AIR 1978 SC 851 the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reaffirming the clear judgment rendered in the case of Gordhandas Bhanji (AIR 1952 SC 16) has held in paragraph 8 as follows:

"8. The second element matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose, J. in Gordhandas Bhanji (AIR 1952 SC 16) (at p. 18):

"Public orders publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he may, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are made to have public effect and intended to affect the acting and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself".

Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older."

4.2. It is, therefore, submitted that it is not open for the respondents to argue that the notice may be is a case having been issued under some other section or for some other purpose. Therefore, petitioner submits that notice is only for the purpose of showing cause as to why the recognition should not be withdrawn. Undisputedly, even when such notice and the proceedings resulted into withdrawal of the recognition, it would have effect from the session following day of the same order, as provided in subsection (3) of Section 17. Even the word "session" means the academic session as can be gathered from the language used in the order granting recognition, which uses the phrase "academic session 2004-2005". In that view of the matter, it is not open for the respondent University to exclude the name of the petitioner institution from the list of the colleges offering admission to the B.Ed. course, as even in the order would be passed against the petitioner institution it would have effect from the session next, which would be at the most, academic session 2021-22, if the order is passed in this year.

4.3. It is submitted that Section 17 itself requires the issuing authority to specify the defects or the contravention of any of the provisions of the Act, or the rules, regulations, orders made issued thereunder. The impugned notice does not mention any contravention or breach or defect, the breach of which is alleged calling upon the petitioner to explain the same. The notice does not even informed the petitioner about a reason why the recognition is sought to be withdrawn. Therefore, the impugned notice deserves to be quashed and set aside as it does not mention any ground on which the recognition is sought to be withdrawn. Petitioner respectfully submits that though the petitioner was advised to answer to the notice, such answer was mentioning about the past history which is already placed on record. Such answer/response was only advanced as an abundant caution. In absence of any grounds set out in the notice, the fact of submitting the response would not, in respect of submission of the petitioner, come in the way of challenging the notice on the above grounds.

4.4. To sum up, it is submitted that as on date of the petition, the recognition granted from academic session 2004-2005 by order dated 8 October 2004 is subsisting and not withdrawn, as all the orders prior to the date of the impugned notice dated 13 February 2020 are rendered ineffective/defunct. As the impugned notice itself is defective beyond repair, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and the action of the respondent University excluding the name of the petitioner institution from the list of colleges offering education in B.Ed. course deserves to be quashed and set aside and the college is required to be given permission to admit students for the said course.

5. So far as the interim relief is concerned, it is an admitted fact that during the course of arguments, the last date for the admission had already gone. Under the circumstances, the interim relief has become infructuous. So the only question remains for consideration before this Court is whether the show-cause notice dated 13.02.2020 issued by the WRC on NCTE is required to be declared null and void or not.

6. It is vehemently submitted that when the petitioner had issued notice under Section 17 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993, therefore, the respondent itself has admitted that the registration is in favour of the petitioner and they want to cancel the registration. It is vehemently contended that when the notice under Section 17 is issued, then the respondent cannot say that the petitioner does not have any recognition from the respondent. In the show-cause notice they have not stated anywhere that the petitioner requires any further recognition from the respondent. He has relied on the certificate issued by the respondent, wherein certificate of accreditation is issued by the respondent and therefore, they cannot pray that the petitioner requires a fresh recognition.

6.1. In support of his submission, the learned senior counsel has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in case of Mohinder Gill vs. Election Commissioner reported in : 1978 (1) SCC 405, wherein, it is observed as under:

"The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought, out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose J. in Gordhandas Bhanji (1) "Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in Ms. mind, or what he intended to, do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to effect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself."

Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older:

6.2. He has also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in case of Abhyudya Sanstha vs. Union of India and Others reported in : 2011 (6) SCC 145 wherein, it is observed as under:

"18. We have considered the respective submissions and carefully examined the records. In our view, the appellants deserve to be non suited because they have not approached the Court with clean hands. The plea of inadvertent mistake put forward by the learned senior counsel for the appellants and their submission that the Court may take lenient view and order regularisation of the admissions already made sounds attractive but does not merit acceptance. Each of the appellants consciously made a statement that it had been granted recognition by the NCTE, which necessarily implies that recognition was granted in terms of Section 14 of the Act read with Regulations 7 and 8 of the 2007 Regulations. Those managing the affairs of the appellants do not belong to the category of innocent, illiterate/uneducated persons, who are not conversant with the relevant statutory provisions and the court process. The very fact that each of the appellants had submitted application in terms of Regulation 7 and made itself available for inspection by the team constituted by WRC, Bhopal shows that they were fully aware of the fact that they can get recognition only after fulfilling the conditions specified in the Act and the Regulations and that WRC, Bhopal had not granted recognition to them. Notwithstanding this, they made bold statement that they had been granted recognition by the competent authority and thereby succeeded in persuading this Court to entertain the special leave petitions and pass interim orders. The minimum, which can be said about the appellants is that they have not approached the Court with clean hands and succeeded in polluting the stream of justice by making patently false statement. Therefore, they are not entitled to relief under Article 136 of the Constitution. This view finds support from plethora of precedents.

23. In the result, the appeals are dismissed. Each of the appellants is saddled with costs of Rs. 2 lacs, which shall be deposited with the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority within a period of three months. If the needful is not done, the Secretary, Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority shall be entitled to recover the amount of cost as arrears of land revenue.

24. We also declare that none of the students, who had taken admission on the basis of allotment made by the State Government etc., shall be eligible for the award of degree etc. by the affiliating body. If the degree has already been awarded to any such student, the same shall not be treated valid for any purpose whatsoever. WRC, Bhopal shall publish a list of the students, who were admitted by the appellants pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court and forward the same to the Education Department of the Government of Maharashtra, which shall circulate the same to all government and aided institutions so that they may not employ the holders of such degrees."

6.3. Relying on the above judgment, it is contended that as per Section 17 of the Act, the order of withdrawal or refusing recognition can be said to come into force only with effect from the end of the academic sessions next following the date of communication of such order. Under the circumstances, the respondent was obliged to permit the present petitioner to continue with the academic session and the name of the petitioner-college was required to be shown in the web-site and the petitioner was required to continue with the admission imparting to the students who had taken admission. The respondent has failed to consider that the petitioner has engaged professor and necessary known education staff and the expenses of the salary and maintenance is incurred by the petitioner, so non-showing the name of the petitioner has caused more difficulty to the petitioner and the action itself is illegal.

7. Mr. Dhaval Dave, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1 has contended that the present Petition deserves to be dismissed at the threshold without entering in to the arena of merits thereof as the main relief sought therein is against the Show Cause Notice dated 13th February, 2020 (page 69) issued by Western Regional Committee (WRC) of National Council for Teacher's Education (NCTE), Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 herein. This is ex-facie evident from the plain reading of the prayer clause of the present Petition (page 56, paragraph 8A). The principal prayer therein is for quashing and setting aside the aforesaid Show Cause Notice. The other prayer sought against the Sardar Patel University, Respondent No. 1 herein, is sequel to the principal relief for quashing and setting aside the aforesaid Show Cause Notice. Because the action of Respondent No. 1 Sardar Patel University in not including the name of Petitioner No. 1 College in the process of admission was based upon the said Show Cause Notice. It is the settled proposition of law that unless the Show Cause Notice is patently found to be wholly without jurisdiction, a writ petition challenging the Show Cause Notice deserves to be not entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is to be treated as premature in nature. It cannot be said that the aforesaid Show Cause Notice is without jurisdiction as Respondent No. 3 has the ample jurisdiction to issue the same. It is not even the case of the Petitioners that it is without jurisdiction. Reliance is placed, in support of this, on Union of India vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayan : (2006) 12 SCC 28 (paragraphs 13 to 16.)

7.1. It is contended that without prejudice to the aforesaid, even otherwise the present Petition deserves to be dismissed on merits for multiple reasons set out hereinafter. Firstly, as per the Scheme of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (NCTE Act), the recognition from the National Council of Teacher Education (NCTE) is mandatory for conducting any course in the discipline of Teacher Education at the level of graduation called B.Ed. course. It is absolutely not permissible for any college to run B.Ed. course without such recognition. (See sections 14 to 16 of the NCTE Act). In the present Petition, the Petitioner has not placed on record the subsisting recognition from NCTE for running B.Ed. course. Hence, the action of Respondent No. 1 Sardar Patel University in excluding Petitioner No. 1 College from the process of admission for B.Ed. course pending outcome of aforesaid Show Cause Notice is absolutely in consonance with the scheme of the NCTE Act.

7.2. It is contended that at this juncture, it would be relevant to refer to the per contra contention raised by the Petitioners. According to the Petitioners, when the aforesaid Show Cause Notice is issued under section 17 of the NCTE Act, the recognition is presumed to be in existence in as much as section 17 of the NCTE Act is for withdrawal of the recognition. To be very precise, according to the Petitioners, when said Show Cause Notice is under section 17 of the NCTE Act, it is for withdrawal of the recognition and hence there has to be recognition in force. However, the aforesaid Show Cause Notice, if read in its entirety, it is not simplicitor for withdrawal of the existing recognition. The said Show Cause Notice is meant for the purpose of seeking explanation of Petitioner No. 1 College on two issues. Firstly, the said Show Cause Notice calls upon Petitioner No. 1 College to prove that it has the requisite staff as per The National Council for Teachers Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2014 (hereinafter called 'Regulations 2014'). Secondly, the said Show Cause Notice calls upon Petitioner No. 1 College to prove as to whether the deficiencies recorded against Petitioner No. 1 College in the earlier order dated 25th November, 2011 withdrawing recognition of Petitioner No. 1 College have been duly rectified or not. Thus, the said Show Cause Notice is not for simplicitor withdrawal of an existing recognition under Regulations 2014. It is true that the said Show Cause Notice refers to section 17 of the NCTE Act. However, the reference of section 17 of the NCTE Act is not the decisive factor for construing the true import thereof. It is needless to mention that the true import of the said Show Cause Notice is required to be culled out from the contents thereof and not from the provision of law referred to therein for the purpose of issuing the same. To support this proposition, reliance is placed on Lekhraj Sathramdas Lalvani vs. N.M. Shah, Dy. Custodian cum Managing Officer, Bombay : AIR 1966 SC 334: (1966) 1 SCR 120 (Paragraph 4) and MIG Cricket Club vs. Abhinav Sahakar Education Society : (2011) 9 SCC 97 (Paragraph 27).

7.3. It is contended that further to the aforesaid, the following are deserved to be noted for the purpose of appreciating the factual matrix which led to the issuance of the aforesaid Show Cause Notice.

[A] The recognition which Petitioner No. 1 College has under the erstwhile regulations which were in force prior to the introduction of Regulations 2014 was withdrawn by Respondent No. 3 vide order dated 25th November, 2011. The said order was confirmed in appeal by the Appellate Authority of Respondent No. 4 on 19th March, 2012. These two orders withdrawing recognition of Petitioner No. 1 College were challenged by the Petitioners by filing SCA No. 7743 of 2012. In this Writ Petition, this Honourable Court passed an order dated 11th November, 2019 (Page 315). Vide this order, it came to be recorded that as Regulations 2014 has come into force pending further hearing of the said Writ Petition, it would be appropriate to permit Respondent No. 3 to consider the case of Petitioner No. 1 College for grant of recognition afresh under Regulations 2014 for which requisite information was already submitted by Petitioner No. 1 College. Hence, with this direction the said Writ Petition was disposed of. This aspect is referred to in the said Show Cause Notice vide paragraph 8 thereof (Page-70).

[B] Following the aforesaid order dated 11th April, 2019 (Page-315) of this Honourable Court, Respondent No. 3 considered the case of Petitioner No. 1 College and passed an order dated 23rd/26th July, 2019 (Page-333) declining to grant recognition to Petitioner No. 1 College. This aspect is also referred to in the said Show Cause Notice vide paragraph 9 thereof (Page-70).

[C] The aforesaid order dated 23rd/26th July, 2019 passed by Respondent No. 3 was challenged by the Petitioners by preferring SCA No. 13237 of 2019 in which this Honourable Court passed an order dated 1st August, 2019 (Page-335). Vide this order, this Honourable Court issued a notice and restrained Respondent No. 1 University from taking coercive action against Petitioner No. 1 College. Here it needs to be emphasized that this Honourable Court did not grant stay against the implementation of the said order dated 23rd/26th July, 2019 by which the recognition was declined to Petitioner No. 1 College under Regulations 2014. As it appears, realizing the inadequacy of the aforesaid order dated 1st August, 2019, Petitioner No. 1 College preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority of Respondent No. 4 challenging the said order dated 23rd/26th July, 2019 of Respondent No. 3 declining the recognition to Petitioner No. 1 College. In this appeal the Appellate Authority passed an order dated 6th November, 2019 (Page-336). Vide this order the Appellate Authority remitted the matter to Respondent No. 3 for reconsideration on the issue of eligibility of Petitioner No. 1 College for recognition in light of Regulations 2014. This aspect is referred to in the said Show Cause Notice vide paragraph 11 thereof (Page-70).

[D] Following the aforesaid order dated 6th November, 2019 passed by the Appellate Authority of Respondent No. 4, Respondent No. 3 issued the said Show Cause Notice in due compliance thereof.

[E] Thus, even the factual matrix leading to the issuance of the said Show Cause Notice leave no room for the doubt that it was predominantly issued for the purpose of considering the eligibility of Petitioner No. 1 College for recognition under Regulations 2014. Thus, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that as the said Show Cause Notice refers to section 17 of NCTE Act which is for withdrawal of the recognition, it is to be presumed that Petitioner No. 1 College is having the recognition and till it is withdrawn it has the right to continue as the college offering B.Ed. course.

7.4. It is further contended that without prejudice to the aforesaid even if it is assumed that as the said Show Cause Notice refers to section 17 of the NCTE Act, the recognition in favour of Petitioner No. 1 College is to be presumed as in existence till it is withdrawn pursuant to the said Show Cause Notice, no fault can be found with the decision of Respondent No. 1 University in excluding Petitioner No. 1 College from the process of admission pending outcome of the said Show Cause Notice. Because it is the policy of Respondent No. 1 University as pleaded in its reply (Page 430 to 432 paragraph 4) not to include any college in the process of admission against which the Show Cause Notice is issued under the NCTE Act on the issue of recognition. Accordingly, in addition to Petitioner No. 1 College, even other colleges against which Show Cause Notices were issued have been excluded from the process of admission. There is a rational behind this policy. Once a Show Cause Notice is issued on the issue of recognition, the concerned college is under the cloud of uncertainty. In such situation, if the concerned college fails to get recognition, the students admitted to such college pending such Show Cause Notice would be in great difficulty as they would not be entitled to pursue their studies. The importance of this aspect is highlighted by the Apex Court in its decision in the Chairman, Bhartia Education Society & Anr. vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors : (2011) 4 SCC 527 (paragraph 11 to 15, and 19 to 21).

7.5. It is contended that during the course of hearing it was sought to be contended by the Petitioners that it was not mandatory for them to apply for recognition under Regulations 2014 if they were having recognition under the erstwhile Regulations. This contention is wholly devoid of substance. Regulation 8 (11) of Regulations 2014 (Page 244) clearly conveys that all revised norms under Regulations 2014 would be applicable to the existing colleges also save and except on the aspect of land area. Even apart from this, having submitted requisite details as per Regulations 2014 for the assessment of the same by Respondent No. 3 as recorded in the order of this Honourable Court dated 11th April 2019 (Page-315-Paragraph 5), it does not lie in the mouth of the Petitioners to contend that fresh recognition under regulations 2014 is not required.

7.6. It is contended that with regard to the contention raised by the Petitioners that in the event of WRC of NCTE passing an order of withdrawal of recognition, it would come into effect from the next academic year being academic year 2021-22, it is submitted that 1st proviso to Section 17(1) of the NCTE Act, 1993 uses the expression "academic session" and not "academic year". This means that as soon as the "academic session" during which an order of withdrawal of recognition is passed by NCTE, it shall come into force at the end of that academic session. The term "academic session" is to be understood with reference to academic session fixed by the concerned University. The academic session, so far as Respondent No. 1 University is concerned, commences from the Month of June and ends in the Month of November followed by another academic session from December to April/May of the next year. Accordingly, it is submitted that in the event of an order of withdrawal of recognition is passed by NCTE, it shall come in to force from the end of the academic session and therefore it would not be permissible for Petitioners to contend that even after passing of an order of withdrawal of recognition, University is bound to grant permission for admission of students as the order of withdrawal of recognition would come into force only in the next academic year and not in this academic year. In support of the interpretation of expression 'academic session", reliance is placed on the following decisions:-

[i] N.A. Gunasekaran vs. The Regional Director, Southern Regional Committee.

[ii] Subhash Chandra Bose College vs. NCTE.

[iii] Banas Gram Vikas Samiti vs. Vice Chancellor.

7.7. It is contended that without prejudice to whatever stated hereinabove, it is required to be noted that applications for admission to B.Ed. Course were invited from 22nd September, 2020 to 30th September, 2020. (Refer page 11 of Civil Application No. 1 of 2020). First counseling was held from 19th October, 2020 to 22nd October, 2020. (Refer page 27 of Civil Application No. 2 of 2020). Second Counseling/choice filing was held from 26th October, 2020 to 29th October, 2020. (Refer last page of Civil Application No. 3 of 2020). Thus, the process of admission to B.Ed. course was already over.

7.8. It is contended that without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions, it is pertinent to note at this juncture that Western Regional Committee of National Council for Teachers Education in its 321st Meeting held on 9th to 11th November, 2020 by Agenda item No. 19 has resolved not to accord recognition to Petitioner No. 1 College. This significant development after conclusion of hearing on the present Petition ought to have been brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Court by Petitioners herein as the Minutes of the 321st Meeting of the WRC of NCTE is available on the website of the NCTE. However, recently, pursuant to the decision taken on Agenda Item No. 19, an Order dated 19th December, 2020 has been passed by WRC of NCTE whereby withdrawal order dated 25th November, 2011 is confirmed and recognition in favour of Petitioner No. 1 College is declined. In view of the aforesaid significant development, present Petition preferred by Petitioners is deserved to be dismissed as having become infructuous. To be very precise, when decision is rendered by Respondent No. 3 pursuant to the aforesaid Show Cause Notice, the present Petition challenging the said Show Cause Notice will not survive.

8. As against this, Mr. Siddharth Dave, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 2 has drawn the attention of this Court to page no. 220 of the petition, which is a withdrawal order passed by the NCTE and inter alia, contended that as per the said order dated 25.11.2011, the recognition of the petitioner which was granted in the year 2004 is already withdrawn by the said order and therefore, the petitioner cannot say that he is recognised and he has any right to continue with the college. The learned counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court towards that fact that such order was challenged by the petitioner by way of filing Special Civil Application No. 7743 of 2012 and the said petition is also withdrawn by the petitioner. In the said order it is clearly observed in para 5 as under:

"5. In view of the above, since the implementation of the impugned orders dated 25.11.2011 dated 19.03.2012 was stayed as per the interim order dated 26.06.2012 and since, in the meantime, the new Regulations have come into force, the said impugned orders have become ineffective, and do not survive. Hence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the petition, the same is disposed of accordingly. However, the WRCNCTE shall be at liberty to take the decision afresh in view of the information furnished by the petitioner on 30.01.2019 in the light of the Regulations prevailing as on date, and in accordance with law."

8.1. As per the observation made by the Court that the injunction which was granted in favour of the petitioner has become ineffective and does not survive, so the petitioner cannot say that his recognition is continue. The Court has also observed that the respondent NCTE is at liberty to take fresh decision in view of the information supplied by the petitioner on 30.01.2019 in the light of the regulations prevailing as on date and therefore, the show-case notice was issued. It is vehemently contended that the notice cannot be challenged in the writ petition.

8.2. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has relied on the judgment of the Apex court rendered in case of Medical Council of India vs. N.C. Medical College and Hospital, wherein, it is observed as under:

"13. In the face of repeated failures on part of the Respondent College to remove the deficiencies, no permission to make admissions for the current academic session could have been granted unless and until on physical verification everything was found to be in order. A condition such as making students aware about the pendency of the matter and stating that their admissions would be subject to the result of pending litigation, is not a sufficient insulation. We have repeatedly seen cases where after making such provisional admissions the Colleges have been denied permission upon physical verification. Questions then come up as to what is the status of such students and how best their interest can be protected. Theoretically, in terms of conditions of Essentiality Certificate the concerned State Government is obliged to take care of interest of such students. But the harsh reality is such students cannot be accommodated because in normal circumstances all the seats in every Medical College are filled up. It then becomes a case of impossibility of accommodating such students in any existing College. The entire exercise may thus result in great hardship and wastage of academic years of the concerned students. It is for this reason that while granting any interim relief very cautious approach needs to be adopted. It may be possible to expedite the process of physical verification in a given case but to allow provisional admissions and make them subject to the result of the petition may entail tremendous adverse consequences and prejudice to students.

14. At this juncture we may advert to certain decisions of this Court where the issues regarding propriety and correctness of similar such interim order were put in question.

15. A. In Medical Council of India v. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences and others, it was observed:-

"14. In the normal circumstances, the High Court ought not to issue an interim order when for the earlier year itself permission had not been granted by the Council. Indeed, by grant of such interim orders students who have been admitted in such institutions would be put to serious jeopardy, apart from the fact whether such institutions could run the medical college without following the law. Therefore, we make it clear that the High Court ought not to grant such interim orders in any of the cases where the Council has not granted permission in terms of Section 10-A of the Medical Council Act. If interim orders are granted to those institutions which have been established without fulfilling the prescribed conditions to admit students, it will lead to serious jeopardy to the students admitted in these institutions."

16. B. In Medical Council of India v. JSS Medical College and another, this Court stated:-

"..12. Without adverting to the aforesaid issues and many other issues which may arise for determination, the High Court, in our opinion, erred in permitting increase in seats by an interim order. In normal circumstances the High Court should not issue interim order granting permission for increase of the seats. The High Court ought to realise that granting such permission by an interim order has a cascading effect. By virtue of such order students are admitted as in the present case and though many of them had taken the risk knowingly but few may be ignorant. In most of such cases when finally the issue is decided against the College the welfare and plight of the students are ultimately projected to arouse sympathy of the Court. It results in a very awkward and difficult situation. If on ultimate analysis it is found that the College's claim for increase of seats is untenable, in such an event the admission of students with reference to the increased seats shall be illegal. We cannot imagine anything more destructive of the rule of law than a direction by the Court to allow continuance of such students, whose admissions is found illegal in the ultimate analysis.

13. This Court is entrusted with the task to administer law and uphold its majesty. Courts cannot by its fiat increase the seats, a task entrusted to the Board of Governors and that too by interim order ."

17. C. The observations in Medical Council of India v. Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences (KIMS) and others, were:

"27. That apart, we are of the opinion that the High Court ought to have been more circumspect in directing the admission of students by its order dated 25-9-2015. There was no need for the High Court to rush into an area that MCI feared to tread. Granting admission to students in an educational institution when there is a serious doubt whether admission should at all be granted is not a matter to be taken lightly. First of all the career of a student is involved--what would a student do if his admission is found to be illegal or is quashed? Is it not a huge waste of time for him or her? Is it enough to say that the student will not claim any equity in his or her favour? Is it enough for student to be told that his or her admission is subject to the outcome of a pending litigation? These are all questions that arise and for which there is no easy answer. Generally speaking, it is better to err on the side of caution and deny admission to a student rather than have the sword of Damocles hanging over him or her. There would at least be some certainty.

28. Whichever way the matter is looked at, we find no justification for the orders passed by the High Court, particularly the order dated 25-9-2015 and order dated 4-3-2016."

18. D. Further, in Dental Council of India v. Dr Hedgewar Smruti Rugna Seva Mandal Hingoli and Others, it was observed:-

"22. From the aforesaid authorities, it is perspicuous that the court should not pass such interim orders in the matters of admission, more so, when the institution had not been accorded approval. Such kind of interim orders are likely to cause chaos, anarchy and uncertainty. And, there is no reason for creating such situations. There is no justification or requirement. The High Court may feel that while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution, it can pass such orders with certain qualifiers as has been done by the impugned order, but it really does not save the situation. It is because an institution which has not been given approval for the course, gets a premium. That apart, by virtue of interim order, the Court grants approval in a way which is the subject-matter of final adjudication before it. The anxiety of the students to get admission reigns supreme as they feel that the institution is granting admission on the basis of an order passed by the High Court. The institution might be directed to inform the students that the matter is sub judice, but the career oriented students get into the college with the hope and aspiration that in the ultimate eventuate everything shall be correct for them and they will be saved. It can be thought of from another perspective, that is, the students had deliberately got into such a situation. But it is seemly to note that it is the institution that had approached the High Court and sought a relief of the present nature. By saying that the institution may give admission at its own risk invites further chaotic and unfortunate situations.

23. The High Court has to realise the nature of the lis or the controversy. It is quite different. It is not a construction which is built at the risk of a plaintiff or the defendant which can be demolished or redeemed by grant of compensation. It is a situation where the order has the potentiality to play with the career and life of young peoples. One may say, " life is a foreign language; all mispronounce it", but it has to be borne in mind that artificial or contrived accident is not the goal of life. ."

19. In the backdrop of the law laid down by this Court, the High Court was not justified in passing interim directions and permitting the Respondent College to go ahead with provisional admissions for the Academic Session 2018-19. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the order dated 29.05.2018 passed by the High Court.

8.3. He has also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in case of Medical Council of India vs. Jodhpur National University Institution for Medical Sciences reported in : AIR 2018 SC 3114, wherein the Supreme Court has stated that there was no justification for passing interim relief and permitting the concerned college to go ahead with the provisional admission for the academic session.

8.4. It is contended that the show-cause notice cannot be challenged, the law is very settled. It is vehemently contended that the petitioner has not supplied staff profile which is required for the authentication. The petitioner has nowhere stated that whether he required show-cause notice or not. It is vehemently contended that the certificate of accreditation, which is heavily relied upon by the petitioner, is valid upto September, 13, 2020 and the validation date has already passed and the certificate cannot be said in force.

8.5. He has contended that against the show-cause notice, the writ is not maintainable. In support of his submission he has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in case of Union of India and Another vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayan, reported in : 2006 (12) SCC 28, wherein, it is observed as under:

"13. It is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge sheet or show-cause notice vide Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board vs. Ramesh Kumar Singh and others : JT 1995 (8) SC 331, Special Director and another vs. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and another : AIR 2004 SC 1467, Ulagappa and others vs. Divisional Commissioner, Mysore and others : 2001(10) SCC 639, State of U.P. vs. Brahm Datt Sharma and another : AIR 1987 SC 943 etc.

14. The reason why ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained against a mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet is that at that stage the writ petition may be held to be premature. A mere charge-sheet or show-cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. It is quite possible that after considering the reply to the show-cause notice or after holding an enquiry the authority concerned may drop the proceedings and/or hold that the charges are not established. It is well settled that a writ lies when some right of any party is infringed. A mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet does not infringe the right of any one. It is only when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, that the said party can be said to have any grievance.

15. Writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and hence such discretion under Article 226 should not ordinarily be exercised by quashing a show-cause notice or charge sheet.

16. No doubt, in some very rare and exceptional cases the High Court can quash a charge-sheet or show-cause notice if it is found to be wholly without jurisdiction or for some other reason if it is wholly illegal. However, ordinarily the High Court should not interfere in such a matter."



8.6. Relying on the said, the learned counsel has contended that there is nothing to show that the notice is without jurisdiction or otherwise wholly illegal. On the contrary, the notice is contemplated under the Act and the petitioner is continued without recruiting proper staff. It would amount to playing with the future of the students. So, this writ petition is required to be dismissed.

8.7. It is vehemently contended that it is stated in the show-cause notice that notice is issued under Section 17(1) of the Act. To substantiate his submission, he has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in case of Lekhraj Sathramdas Lalvani vs. N.M. Shah, Deputy Custodian Cum Managing Officer, Bombay and Others, reported in : AIR 1966 SC 334, wherein, it is clearly stated that:

"It cannot fail merely because it purports to be made under a wrong provision if it can be shown to be within its power under any other rule, and the validity of the impugned order should be judged on a consideration of its substance and not of its form. The principle is that we must ascribe the act of a public servant to an actual existing authority under which it would have validity rather than to one under which it would be void."



8.8. He has also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in case of Mig Cricket Club vs. Abhinav Sahakar Education Society and Others, reported in : 2011 (9) SCC 97 wherein, in para-27, it is observed as under:

"It seems that the High Court misdirected itself by considering the notification dated 10th April, 1985 to be the sanction of the Development plan under Section 37(2) of the Act and the notification dated 24th April, 1992 to be the modification of the final Development plan which has rendered its order illegal. It is trite that the validity of the order does not depend upon the section mentioned in the order. Wrong provision mentioned in the order itself does not invalidate the order, if it is found that order could be validly passed under any other provision. However in a case, like the present one, contrary to what have been mentioned in the notifications the Court cannot say that such powers were not exercised to render the notification illegal if in fact such power exists."

(Emphasis supplied)

8.9. In paragraphs 11 and 12 of the said notice, it is stated as under:

"11. And whereas, the institution has preferred an appeal at NCTE Hars. New Delhi and the Appeal Committee vide order dt. 06.11.2019 has decided as under:

"In view of the fact that the Hon'ble High Court has treated the earlier order of Withdrawal dt. 25.11.2011 as ineffective and not surviving and directed the WRC to take a decision in view of the information furnished by the appellant on 30.01.2019 and in the light of the Regulations on date, the Committee is of the opinion that the WRC should consider whether, the appellant institution, which was granted recognition for conducting B.Ed. course of one year duration on 08.10.2004 under the then prevailing Regulations, fulfils the requirements of 2014 Regulations, which not only increased the duration of this course from one year to two years and also introduced various other infrastructural and instructional requirements. For this purpose, all the necessary information may be obtained from the appellant, in addition to what has been furnished by them earlier. The WRC may thereafter take an appropriate decision and issue necessary order as per the NCTE Regulations, 2014 as amended from time to time."

12. And whereas, the matter was placed before the WRC in its 312" meeting of the WRC held on January 27" 29% 2020 and Committee decided as follows:

The Committee considered the matter keeping in view the directions of the Hon'ble Court in SCN No. 7743/2012 and also the Appellate.

Authority order dated 06.11.2019 and recommends that the institution be issued a Show Cause Notice to submit the required documents in compliance to NCTE Regulations 2014, as amended from time to time.

In view of the above, a Show Cause Notice be issued u/s. 17 of the NCTE Act to the institution to reply within 30 days."

8.10. The plain reading of the said notice clearly shows that the notice is issued on the basis of the order passed by the High Court and it is not a notice under Section 17 of the NCTE Act and merely stating a wrong provision of the law would not itself convert the said notice under Section 17 of the Act.

8.11. It is contended that the Court may not take any sympathetic view in favour of the petitioner, otherwise it would be injustice to the students. If the students get admission and thereafter they would be in a great difficulty and they would not get any further admission in the recognised college. To substantiate his submission, the learned counsel has relied on the judgment of the Apex court rendered in case of Chairman, Bhartia Education Society and Another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, reported in : 2011 (4) SCC 527, wherein, in para-15, it is observed as under:

"15. The practice of admitting students by unrecognized institutions and then seeking permission for the students to appear for the examinations have been repeatedly disapproved by this Court [See: N.M. Nageshwaramma vs. State of AP : (1986) Supp. SCC 166, A.P. Christian Medical Education Society vs. Government of AP : (1986) 2 SCC 667, and State of Maharashtra vs. Vikas Sahelrao Roundale : (1992) 4 SCC 435]. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the decision of the High Court rejecting the prayer of the students admitted in 1999 to regularize their admissions by directing the Board to permit them to appear for the JBT examination conducted by it. The two appeals (CA Nos. 1228 and 1229 of 2011) filed by the Society/Institute and the students in regard to the 1999 admissions are therefore liable to be dismissed."

8.12. It is vehemently contended that the petitioner-college is not recognised and therefore, it is rightly not in any web-site and it is clearly shown in the web-site that the college is not recognised and therefore, the students should not take admission in the said college. It is contended that the proviso in Section 17 of the Act would be applicable when the admission session is going on. During the admission session, notice under Section 17 is issued, then and then, the said proviso of Section 17 would be applicable.

8.13. In the present case, the admission session is yet not started and therefore, the said would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in case of Banas Gram Vikas Samiti vs. Vice Chancellor & 2, wherein, it is observed as under:

"11. Considering the facts stated hereinabove, no relief can be granted in favour of the petitioner-Trust. It is also found that vide a public notice dated 13.08.2011 the students were informed that recognition of the college run by the petitioner-Trust is withdrawn and even affiliation is suspended and the students were given chance to get themselves transferred to recognized colleges by way of a reshuffling, which itself shows that the respondent University had clearly informed about the said events and on inquiry from the court it was informed that about seven students have already opted benefit of transfer and they have started their studies in other recognized colleges and, therefore, the students, who have been continued with the unrecognized college run by the petitioner-Trust, cannot now be permitted to get terms for inadequate attendance as, immediately after allotment of students, as the facts reveal that within less than 15 days, recognition was withdrawn and, therefore, the students, who have still continued with the unrecognized college run by the petitioner Trust, cannot be permitted to appear in the examination.

12. At this stage it would be appropriate to refer to the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Chairman, Bharatia Education Society & Anr. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., (2011) 4 SCC 537, wherein the Apex Court has examined the very provisions and has observed thus in Paragraph Nos. 19, 20, 21 and 22:

"19. The purpose of 'recognition' and 'affiliation' are different. In the context of NCTE Act, 'affiliation' enables and permits an institution to send its students to participate in the public examinations conducted by the Examining Body and secure the qualification in the nature of degrees, diplomas, certificates. On the other hand, 'recognition' is the licence to the institution to offer a course or training in teacher education. Prior to NCTE Act, in the absence of an apex body to plan and co-ordinate development of teacher education system, respective regulation and proper maintenance of the norms and standards in the teacher education system, including grant of 'recognition' were largely exercised by the State Government and Universities/Boards. After the enactment of NCTE Act, the functions of NCTE as 'recognising authority' and the Examining Bodies as 'affiliating authorities' became crystallized, though their functions overlap on several issues. NCTE Act recognizes the role of examining bodies in their sphere of activity.

20. Section 14 of the NCTE Act requires recognition of the institution by the NCTE, before the institute could offer any course or training in teacher education. Sub-section (4) of Section 14 provides that:

"14.(4) Every order granting or refusing recognition to an Institution for a course or training in teacher education under sub-section (3) shall be published in the Official Gazette and communicated in writing for appropriate action to such institution and to the concerned examining body, the local authority or the State Government and the Central Government."

Sub-section (6) of section 14 requires every Examining Body on receipt of the order under sub-section (4),

"14. (6)(a) grant affiliation to the institution, where recognition has been granted; or cancel the affiliation of the institution, where recognition has been refused.

21. Section 16 of NCTE Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no examining body shall grant affiliation whether provisional or otherwise, to any institution, or hold examination for a course or training conducted by a recognized institution, unless the institution concerned has obtained recognition from the Regional Committee of NCTE under section 14 or permission for a course or training under section 15 of the Act.

22. Sub-section (6) of section 14 no doubt mandates every examining body to grant affiliation to the institution on receipt of the order of NCTE granting recognition to such institution. This only means that recognition is a condition precedent for affiliation and that the examining body does not have any discretion to refuse affiliation with reference to any of the factors which have been considered by the NCTE while granting recognition. For example, NCTE is required to satisfy itself about the adequate financial resources, accommodation, library, qualified staff, and laboratory required for proper functioning of an institution for a course or training in teacher education. Therefore, when recognition is granted by NCTE, it is implied that NCTE has satisfied itself on those aspects. Consequently, the examining body may not refuse affiliation on the ground that the institution does not have adequate financial resources, accommodation, library, qualified staff, or laboratory required for proper functioning of the institution. But this does not mean that the examining body cannot require compliance with its own requirements in regard to eligibility of candidates for admissions to courses or manner of admission of students or other areas falling within the sphere of the State government and/or the examining body. Even the order of recognition dated 17.7.2000 issued by NCTE specifically contemplates the need for the institution to comply with and fulfil the requirement of the affiliating body and state government, in addition to the conditions of NCTE."

13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court cannot grant the reliefs only on humanitarian ground, contrary to law and to the students of an unrecognized institute like the college run by the petitioner-Trust. Such students are not entitled to appear in the examination held by respondent No. 1-University."

9. After considering rival submissions, it would be appropriate to consider some of the provisions of the NCTE Act. The NCTE Act is enacted by the Central Government to provide for the establishment of a National Council for Teacher Education with a view to achieve planned and coordinated development for the teacher education system throughout the country, the regulation and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the teacher education system *[including qualifications of school teachers] and for matters connected therewith. [*inserted by Section 2 of the NCTE (Amendment) Act, 2011, with effect from 01.06.2012]. Clause (c) of Section 2 of the NCTE Act define 'Council' to mean the National Council for Teacher Education established under sub-section (1) of Section 3. Clause (d) define 'examining body' to mean a University, agency or authority to which an institution is affiliated for conducting examinations in teacher education qualifications. Clause (e) of Section 2 define 'institution' to mean an institution which offers courses or training in teacher education. Clause (l) of Section 2 define 'teacher education' to mean programmes of education, research or training of persons for equipping them to teach at pre-primary, primary, secondary and senior secondary stages in schools, and includes non-formal education, part-time education, adult education and correspondence education.

9.1. Section 12 of the NCTE Act deals with functions of the Council. As per Section 12, it shall be the duty of the Council to take all such steps as it may think fit for ensuring planned and coordinated development of teacher education and for the determination and maintenance of standards for teacher education and for the purposes of performing its functions under this Act, the Council may (a) undertake surveys and studies relating to various aspects of teacher education and publish the result thereof; (b) make recommendations to the Central and State Governments, Universities, University Grants Commission and recognised institutions in the matter of preparation of suitable plans and programmes in the field of teacher education; (c) coordinate and monitor teacher education and its development in the country; (d) lay down guidelines in respect of minimum qualifications for a person to be employed as a teacher in recognised institutions; (e) lay down norms for any specified category of courses or training in teacher education, including the minimum eligibility criteria for admission thereof, and the method of selection of candidates, duration of the course, course contents and mode of curriculum; (f) lay down guidelines for compliance by recognised institutions, for starting new courses or training and for providing physical and instructional facilities, staffing pattern and staff qualifications; (g) lay down standards in respect of examinations leading to teacher education qualifications, criteria for admission to such examinations and schemes of courses or training; (h) lay down guidelines regarding tuition fee and other fee chargeable by recognised institutions; (i) promote and conduct innovation and research in various areas of teacher education and disseminate the results thereof; (j) examine and review periodically the implementation of the norms, guidelines and standards laid down by the Council and to suitably advise the recognised institutions; (k) evolve suitable performance appraisal systems, norms and mechanisms for enforcing accountability on recognised institutions; (l) formulate schemes for various levels of teacher education and identify recognised institutions and set up new institutions for teacher development programmes; (m) take all necessary steps to prevent commercialisation of teacher education; and (n) perform such other functions as may be entrusted to it by the Central Government.

9.2. Section 13 of the NCTE Act deals with inspection. As per sub-section (1) of Section 13, for the purposes of ascertaining whether the recognised institutions are functioning in accordance with the provisions of this Act, the Council may cause inspection of any such institution, to be made by such persons as it may direct, and in such manner as may be prescribed. As per sub-section (2), the Council shall communicate to the institution the date on which inspection under sub-section (1) is to be made and the institution shall be entitled to be associated with the inspection in such manner as may be prescribed. As per sub-section (3), the Council shall communicate to the said institution, its views in regard to the results of any such inspection and may, after ascertaining the opinion of that institution, recommend to that institution the action to be taken as a result of such inspection. As per sub-section (4), all communications to the institution under this section shall be made to the executive authority thereof, and the executive authority of the institution shall report to the Council the action, if any, which is proposed to be taken for the purposes of implementing any such recommendation as is referred to in sub-section (3).

9.3. Section 14 of the NCTE Act deals with recognition of institutions offering course or training in teacher education. As per sub-section (1) of Section 14, every institution offering or intending to offer a course or training in teacher education on or after the appointed day, may, for grant of recognition under this Act, make an application to the Regional Committee concerned in such form and in such manner as may be determined by regulations. As per the first proviso to sub-section (1), an institution offering a course or training in teacher education immediately before the appointed day, shall be entitled to continue such course or training for a period of six months, if it has made an application for recognition within the said period and until the disposal of the application by the Regional Committee. As per the second proviso to sub-section (1), such institutions, as may be specified by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette, which (i) are funded by the Central Government or the State Government or the Union territory Administration; (ii) have offered a course or training in teacher education on or after the appointed day till the academic year 2017-2018; and (iii) fulfil the conditions specified under clause (a) of sub-section (3), shall be deemed to have been recognised by the Regional Committee.

9.4. As per sub-section (2) of Section 14, the fee to be paid along with the application under sub-section (1) shall be such as may be prescribed. As per sub-section (3), on receipt of an application by the Regional Committee from any institution under sub-section (1), and after obtaining from the institution concerned such other particulars as it may consider necessary, it shall, (a) if it is satisfied that such institution has adequate financial resources, accommodation, library, qualified staff, laboratory and that it fulfils such other conditions required for proper functioning of the institution for a course or training in teacher education, as may be determined by regulations, pass an order granting recognition to such institution, subject to such conditions as may be determined by regulations; or (b) if it is of the opinion that such institution does not fulfil the requirements laid down in sub-clause (a), pass an order refusing recognition to such institution for reasons to be recorded in writing. As per the proviso to clause (b) of sub-section (3), before passing an order under sub-clause (b), the Regional Committee shall provide a reasonable opportunity to the concerned institution for making a written representation. As per sub-section (4), every order granting or refusing recognition to an institution for a course or training in teacher education under sub-section (3) shall be published in the Official Gazette and communicated in writing for appropriate action to such institution and to the concerned examining body, the local authority or the State Government and the Central Government. As per sub-section (5), every institution, in respect of which recognition has been refused shall discontinue the course or training in teacher education from the end of the academic session next following the date of receipt of the order refusing recognition passed under clause (b) of sub-section (3). As per sub-section (6), every examining body shall, on receipt of the order under sub-section (4), (a) grant affiliation to the institution, where recognition has been granted; or (b) cancel the affiliation of the institution, where recognition has been refused.

9.5. Section 15 of the NCTE Act deals with permission for a new course or training by recognised institution. As per sub-section (1) of Section 15, where any recognised institution intends to start any new course or training in teacher education, it may make an application to seek permission therefor to the Regional Committee concerned in such form and in such manner as may be determined by regulations. As per the proviso to sub-section (1), inserted by the NCTE (Amendment) Act, 2019, with effect from 17.08.1995, the course or training in teacher education offered on or after the appointed day till the academic year 2017-2018 by such institutions, as may be specified by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette, which (i) are funded by the Central Government or the State Government or the Union territory Administration; and (ii) fulfil the conditions specified under clause (a) of sub-section (3), shall be deemed to have been granted permission by the Regional Committee. As per sub-section (2) of Section 15, the fees to be paid along with the application under sub-section (1) shall be such as may be prescribed. As per sub-section (3), on receipt of an application from an institution under sub-section (1), and after obtaining from the recognised institution such other particulars as may be considered necessary, the Regional Committee shall, (a) if it is satisfied that such recognised institution has adequate financial resources, accommodation, library, qualified staff, laboratory, and that it fulfils such other conditions required for proper conduct of the new course or training in teacher education, as may be determined by regulations, pass an order granting permission, subject to such conditions as may be determined by regulation; or (b) if it is of the opinion that such institution does not fulfil the requirements laid down in clause (a), pass an order refusing permission to such institution, for reasons to be recorded in writing. As per the proviso to clause (b), before passing an order refusing permission under clause (b), the Regional Committee shall provide a reasonable opportunity to the institution concerned for making a written representation. As per sub-section (4) of Section 15, every order granting or refusing permission to a recognised institution for a new course or training in teacher education under sub-section (3), shall be published in the Official Gazette and communicated in writing for appropriate action to such recognised institution and to the concerned examining body, the local authority, the State Government and the Central Government.

9.6. As per Section 16 of the NCTE Act, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no examining body shall, on or after the appointed day, (a) grant affiliation, whether provisional or otherwise, to any institution; or (b) hold examination, whether provisional or otherwise, for a course or training conducted by a recognised institution, unless the institution concerned has obtained recognition from the Regional Committee concerned, under Section 14 or permission for a course or training under Section 15.

9.7. Section 17 of the NCTE Act deals with contravention of provisions of the Act and consequences thereof. As per sub-section (1) of Section 17, where the Regional Committee is, on its own motion or on any representation received from any person, satisfied that a recognised institution has contravened any of the provisions of this Act or the rules, regulations, orders made or issued thereunder, or any condition subject to which recognition under sub-section (3) of Section 14 or permission under sub-section (3) of Section 15 was granted, it may withdraw recognition of such recognised institution, for reasons to be recorded in writing. As per the first proviso to sub-section (1), no such order against the recognised institution shall be passed unless a reasonable opportunity of making representation against the proposed order has been given to such recognised institution. As per the second proviso to sub-section (1), the order withdrawing or refusing recognition passed by the Regional Committee shall come into force only with effect from the end of the academic session next following the date of communication of such order. As per sub-section (2) of Section 17, a copy of every order passed by the Regional Committee under sub-section (1), (a) shall be communicated to the recognised institution concerned and a copy thereof shall also be forwarded simultaneously to the University or the examining body to which such institution was affiliated for cancelling affiliation; and (b) shall be published in the Official Gazette for general information. As per sub-section (3) of Section 17, once the recognition of a recognised institution is withdrawn under sub-section (1), such institution shall discontinue the course or training in teacher education, and the concerned University or the examining body shall cancel affiliation of the institution in accordance with the order passed under sub-section (1), with effect from the end of the academic session next following the date of communication of the said order. As per sub-section (4) of Section 17, if an institution offers any course or training in teacher education after the coming into force of the order withdrawing recognition under sub-section (1), or where an institution offering a course or training in teacher education immediately before the appointed day fails or neglects to obtain recognition or permission under this Act, the qualification in teacher education obtained pursuant to such course or training or after undertaking a course or training in such institution, shall not be treated as a valid qualification for purposes of employment under the Central Government, any State Government or University, or in any school/college or other educational body aided by the Central Government or any State Government.

9.8. Section 18 of the NCTE Act deals with appeals. As per sub-section (1) of Section 18, any person aggrieved by an order made under Section 14 or Section 15 or Section 17 of the Act may prefer an appeal to the Council within such period as may be prescribed. As per sub-section (2), no appeal shall be admitted if it is preferred after the expiry of the period prescribed therefor. As per the proviso to sub-section (2), an appeal may be admitted after the expiry of the period prescribed therefor, if the appellant satisfies the Council that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the prescribed period. As per sub-section (3), every appeal made under this section shall be made in such form and shall be accompanied by a copy of the order appealed against and by such fees as may be prescribed. As per sub-section (4), the procedure for disposing of an appeal shall be such as may be prescribed. As per the proviso to sub-section (4), before disallowing an appeal, the appellant shall be given a reasonable opportunity to represent its case. As per sub-section (6), the Council may confirm or reverse the order appealed against.

9.9. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 31 of the NCTE Act, the Central Government made the National Council for Teacher Education Rules, 1997 (for brevity, 'the NCTE Rules'). Rule 10 of the NCTE Rules deals with appeal. As per sub-rule (1) of Rule 10, any person aggrieved by a refusal order made under Section 14 or Section 15 or withdrawal order made under Section 17 of the NCTE Act, may prefer an appeal in Form I or Form II appended to the Rules, to the Council within sixty days of issue of such orders, along with a fee of Rs. 25,000/- payable online with the submission of appeal. As per the proviso to sub-rule (1), an appeal may be admitted after the expiry of the said period of sixty days, if the appellant satisfies the Council that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the period of limitation of sixty days. As per sub-rule (2), the appeal may be submitted electronically through online mode on the website of National Council for Teacher Education along with processing fee of Rs. 10,000/-. The appellant shall download the filled in online application and post two sets of hard copies accompanied with the requisite documents, to the Member Secretary, NCTE, New Delhi within two days of online submission of the appeal.

9.10. As provided in Form I, the memorandum of appeal should be accompanied by a fee of Rs. 1,000/- paid by way of crossed demand draft in favour of the NCTE, New Delhi payable at New Delhi. The fee is non-refundable and non-transferable. Memorandum of appeal received without the prescribed fee shall not be entertained. A copy of the order appealed against should invariably be enclosed to the memorandum of appeal. The appeal should be submitted in duplicate, both copies with all enclosures. Copies of the documents relied upon should be appended to the memorandum of appeal. All documents enclosed to the appeal should be duly authenticated by the appellant. The Memorandum of Appeal should be on plain paper neatly typed in double space; should be addressed to the Member Secretary, NCTE by designation only; should contain an index for list of documents indicating page numbers consecutively given; should be complete in all respects and contain all material statements and arguments on which reliance are placed. The statements contained in the appeal should be duly supported by documentary evidence, wherever necessary; should not contain any extraneous or irrelevant points; should be divided into suitable paragraphs, each paragraph containing a specific point or issue; should not contain any disrespectful or improper language; should be signed on the left hand side bottom of every page by an authorised person giving his/her official position with the office seal of the institution on whose behalf the appeal is being preferred. Corrections, if any, should be duly initialled. If there are any deficiencies in the form or content of the appeal or any other shortcomings, the appellant shall be given an opportunity to cure them within 15 days of the issue of a communication in this regard from the Council. No extension of time will be allowed for this purpose.

9.11. Rule 11 of the NCTE Rules deals with procedure for disposal of appeals. As per sub-rule (1) of Rule 11, on re

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ceipt of memorandum of appeal, the Council shall call for the records of the case from the Regional Committee concerned which passed the order appealed against and after giving the appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard pass such orders as it may deem fit. As per sub-rule (2), the appellant shall be entitled to be represented by an employer or officer of the appellant institution. As per sub-rule (3), the Council shall decide every appeal as expeditiously as possible and ordinarily every appeal shall be decided on a perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, written arguments, if any, affidavits and after hearing such oral arguments as may be advanced. As per sub-rule (4), the Council shall endeavour to dispose of every memorandum of appeal within a period of three months from the date of its filing. As per sub-rule (5), the Council shall not ordinarily allow more than three adjournments in any appeal. 9.12. In view of the provisions under sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the NCTE Act, where the Regional Committee, on its own motion or on any representation received from any person, is satisfied that a recognised institution has contravened any of the provisions of the Act or the rules, regulations, orders made or issued thereunder, or any condition subject to which recognition under sub-section (3) of Section 14 or permission under sub-section (3) of Section 15 was granted, it may withdraw recognition of such recognised institution, for reasons to be recorded in writing. As per the first proviso to sub-section (1), no such order against the recognised institution shall be passed unless a reasonable opportunity of making representation against the proposed order has been given to such recognised institution. As per the second proviso to sub-section (1), the order withdrawing or refusing recognition passed by the Regional Committee shall come into force only with effect from the end of the academic session next following the date of communication of such order. In view of the provisions under sub-section (3) of Section 17, once the recognition of a recognised institution is withdrawn under sub-section (1), such institution shall discontinue the course or training in teacher education, and the concerned University or the examining body shall cancel affiliation of the institution in accordance with the order passed under sub-section (1), with effect from the end of the academic session next following the date of communication of the said order. 9.13. In State of U.P. v. Bhupendra Nath Tripathi [(2010) 13 SCC 203], the Apex Court noticed that, as per sub-section (3) of Section 17 once the recognition of a recognised institution is withdrawn under sub-section (1), such institution shall discontinue the course or training in teacher education, and the concerned University or the examining body shall cancel affiliation of the institution with effect from the end of the academic session next following the date of communication of the said order. 9.14. In Adarsh Shiksha Mahavidyalaya v. Subhash Rahangdale [ (2012) 2 SCC 425], the Apex Court reiterated that the withdrawal of recognition becomes effective from the end of the academic session next following the date of communication of the order of withdrawal. Once the recognition is withdrawn under sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the NCTE Act, the concerned institution is required to discontinue the course or training in teacher education and the examining body is obliged to cancel the affiliation. 9.15. In Shri Morvi Sarvajanik Kelavni Mandal Sanchalit MSKM B.Ed. College v. National Council for Teachers' Education [(2012) 2 SCC 16], it was contended by the appellant that the students admitted to the college for the academic session 2011-12 could be allowed to appear in the examination to avoid prejudice to them and to save their careers. It was contended further that the order withdrawing recognition could not affect students admitted to the institution for the academic session 2011-12 as the withdrawal order could only be prospective in nature and having been passed in August, 2011 was relevant only for the academic session 2012-13. Repelling the said contentions, the Apex Court held that, the recognition of the institution stood withdrawn on 20.07.2011 which meant that while it had no effect qua admissions for the academic session 2010-11 it was certainly operative qua admissions made for the academic session 2011-12 which commenced from 01.08.2011 onwards. The fact that there was a modification of the said order of withdrawal on 24.08.2011 did not obliterate the earlier order dated 20.07.2011. The modifying order would relate back and be effective from 20.07.2011 when the recognition was first withdrawn. Such being the position admissions made for the academic session 2011-12 were not protected under the statute. Further, the Apex Court has in a long line of decisions rendered from time to time disapproved of students being allowed to continue in unrecognised institutions only on sympathetic considerations. The Apex Court held that, the institution established by the appellant is not equipped with the infrastructure required under the NCTE Act and the Regulations. It is not in a position to impart quality education, no matter admissions for the session 2011-12 were made pursuant to the interim directions issued by the High Court. 9.16. In view of the provisions under sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the NCTE Act, any person aggrieved by an order made under Section 17 of the Act may prefer an appeal to the Council within the period prescribed. As per sub-section (2), the Appellate Authority may admit an appeal filed after the expiry of the period prescribed, if the appellant satisfies that he had sufficient cause for the delay. As per sub-section (3), every appeal shall be made in the form prescribed and shall be accompanied by a copy of the order appealed against and the fees prescribed. As per the proviso to sub-section (4), before disallowing an appeal, the appellant shall be given a reasonable opportunity to represent its case. 9.17. In view of the provisions under sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 10 of the NCTE Rules, any person aggrieved by withdrawal order made under Section 17 of the NCTE Act, may prefer an appeal in Form I or Form II, through online mode on the website of NCTE, along with the fee and processing fee prescribed. As per sub-rule (1) of Rule 11, the Council shall pass such orders as it may deem fit on the appeal, after giving the appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard. As per sub-rule (2), the appellant shall be entitled to be represented by an employer or officer of the appellant institution. In view of the provisions under sub-rule (3) of Rule 11, ordinarily every appeal shall be decided on a perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, written arguments, if any, affidavits and after hearing such oral arguments as may be advanced. 9.18. Section 17 of the NCTE Act empowers the Regional Committee of the NCTE to withdraw recognition granted to an institution offering course or training in teacher education, for reasons to be recorded in writing, where the Regional Committee is satisfied, on its own motion or on any representation received from any person, that a recognised institution has contravened any of the provisions of this Act or the rules, regulations, orders made or issued thereunder, or any condition subject to which recognition under sub-section (3) of Section 14 or permission under sub-section (3) of Section 15 was granted. As per the first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 17, no such order against the recognised institution shall be passed unless a reasonable opportunity of making representation against the proposed order has been given of 2020 to such recognised institution. 10. Keeping in mind the above provisions, I am of the view that the present petition cannot be allowed on the following grounds. First, on the show-cause notice, the writ petition is not maintainable and therefore, the judgment on which the petitioner has relied upon would not squarely applicable to the facts of present case. Mere a show-cause notice or notice itself does not infringe the right of anyone. It is only when the decision is taken, then the party can have any grievance against the said order. No doubt, in a very rare and exceptional case, the High Court quashes the show-cause notice if it is found without jurisdiction or for some reason, it is wholly unreasonable. The petitioner has not made out any such case or allegation against the respondents. Under the circumstances, the writ petition is not maintainable. Second, pending the petition, the admission process has already over on 29.10.2020. Under the circumstances, I am of the view that the present petition has become infructuous. Under the circumstances, I am of the view that it would not be advisable for this court to enter into the merits and demerits of the case. In the decision in case of State of Hariyana v. Krishna Rice reported in : AIR 1982 SC 1106, the Apex Court has clearly laid down that once the petition has become infructuous, the High Court should not decide it on merits. Under the circumstances, I am of the view that the petition does not require any further consideration and requires to be dismissed as having become infructuous. Third, the appeal is provided against the order dated 4.5.2010. The NCTE Act is complete code, it provides efficacious remedy. The writ is barred by alternative remedy. For the foregoing reasons, present petition stands disposed of. In view of disposal of main writ petition, the Civil Applications do not survive. Hence, the Civil Applications stand disposed of accordingly.
O R