Doon Valley Institute of Education’s Recognition Restored by Delhi High Court, Criticizes NCTE’s Withdrawal Decision for Lack of Merit
Case Title – Doon Valley Institute of Education Vs. National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.
Case Number – W.P. (C) 6277/2024
Dated on – 10th May, 2024
Quorum – Justice C. Hari Shankar
FACTS OF THE CASE
In the case of Doon Valley Institute of Education Vs. National Council for Teacher Education & Anr., the Doon Valley Trust was initially formed and registered on the 13th of November, 2000 as a society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The Trust procured around 2 Acres of land in Karnal, Haryana, for the purpose of establishment of a teacher training educational institution. The institution was named as Doon Valley Institute of Education and was granted recognition by the National Council for Teacher Education (NRC) for the conduction of a B.Ed. course with an initial admission of 100 seats, later increased to 300 seats. In the year 2011, the Trust sought for surrendering its registration under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and acquired permission to incorporate as a private limited company under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956. The Trust was thereafter incorporated as a private limited company on the 18th of April, 2011. On the 21st of March, 2023, the NRC issued a show cause notice to the Appellant Institution, stating concerns about its change from a trust to a private limited company and questioning its compliance with the regulations of the NCTE. The Appellant responded to the show cause notice, still the NRC decided to issue another show cause notice. This decision was challenged by the Appellant, which was later disposed of by the court with the directions to respond to the show cause notice and for the NRC to decide according to the law. The Appellant, on the 8th of May, 2023, submitted its reply to the show cause notice, but the NRC decided to withdraw the recognition granted to the Appellant institution on the 15th of September, 2023, stating the reason as non-compliance with the regulations of the NCTE regarding the change in the nature of the Trust. The Appellant instituted a statutory appeal against the withdrawal order, which was dismissed on the 12th of April, 2024, by the Appellate Committee, confirming the withdrawal of recognition.
ISSUES
The main issue of the case whirled around whether the conversion of the Doon Valley Trust from a society to a private limited company complies with the regulations of the NCTE?
Whether the withdrawal of recognition by the NRC was justifiable on the basis of the change in the nature of the Trust and the compliance of the institution of the Appellant with the regulations of the NCTE?
LEGAL PROVISIONS
Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956 prescribes the Power to dispense with “Limited” in name of charitable or other company
Section 14(3) of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 prescribes the Recognition of institutions offering course of training in teacher education
Section 17(1) of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 prescribes that Once the recognition of a recognized institution is withdrawn under sub-section(1), such institution shall discontinue the course or training in teacher education, and the 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
Section 18(1) of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 prescribes that Any person aggrieved by an order made under Section 14 or 15 or 17 of the Act may prefer an appeal to the council within such period as may be prescribed
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANTS
The Appellants, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the impugned order violates the Section 17(1) of the NCTE Act, 1993, which only allows the withdrawal of the recognition if there is a contravention of the Act, Rules, Regulations, or Conditions of Recognition and that there are no such provisions prohibiting the change of management from a registered society to a company.
The Appellants, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the reliance of the Respondent on an internal communication from the NCTE to SRC is unjustifiable as it does not constitute a legal basis for the withdrawal of the recognition.
The Appellants, through their counsel, in the said case contented that there was no change in the management when the institution transitioned from a registered society to a company and that the same individuals continued to manage the institution, and both the societies and companies are eligible for recognition under the regulations of the NCTE.
The Appellants, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the Respondents could not invoke a condition from the Regulations of the 2007 which was omitted in subsequent regulations to withdraw recognition.
The Appellants, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the accusations of a change in management was only made in the Appellate order and wasn’t mentioned in the show cause notice or withdrawal order, which is unjust.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS
The Respondents, through their counsel, in the said case contented that this case involves more than just a change in the management and that it is about an entirely new entity running the institution, different from the one granted recognition by the NRC.
The Respondents, through their counsel, in the said case contented that there is no explicit prohibition on changing from a society to a company, the new entity is not the one originally granted recognition, and hence, making the withdrawal of recognition is justified.
The Respondents, through their counsel, in the said case contented that there is no provision explicitly prohibiting such a change, but since the entity running the institution changed entirely, the question of continuing the recognition does not arise.
COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT
The court in the case of Doon Valley Institute of Education Vs. National Council for Teacher Education & Anr., post hearing all the arguments from both the Appellant as well as the Respondents, examined the legal provisions and factual circumstances scrupulously. The court scrutinized the relevant regulations, especially the Regulation 4 of the 2014 Regulation, to determine the eligibility criteria for recognition. The court emphasized that the focus should be on the institution itself rather than the entity managing it. Both the Trusts and the Companies were deemed eligible to seek recognition, and a change in the managerial control did not automatically invalidate the recognition. The court conducted a scrupulous review of the show cause notice and withdrawal order issued by the NCTE and observed that the accusations pertained to the change in the status of the managing entity, rather than any violation committed by the institution itself. Thus, the withdrawal of recognition was deemed unjustifiable. The court held that the withdrawal of the recognition lacked merits and quashed the order of the withdrawal and directed the restoration of the recognition of the institution of the Appellant. Additionally, the court instructed that the NCTE to update the status of the institution on its website and inform relevant bodies accordingly.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – Sruti Sikha Maharana