- (1.) This writ petition has been filed by petitioner Shri Radhakrishna Educational Institute, Village Saint, Tehsil Kumher, District Bharatpur, seeking to challenge order dated 13/18.05.2015 (Annexure-12) passed by respondent no.3 - the Regional Director, Northern Regional Committee, National Council for Teacher Education, by which recognition granted to petitioner was withdrawn citing as many as 14 deficiencies.
(2.) Facts of the case are that petitioner submitted an application for granting recognition to run one year B.Ed. course on 31.12.2007. After due formalities, respondent no.4 issued letter of intent on 10.06.2008 in favour of petitioner. The visiting team of National Council for Teacher Education (for short, 'the NCTE') inspected petitioner institution in June, 2008. Respondent no.4, by order dated 16.09.2008, granted order of recognition. Petitioner submitted application to respondent no.2 Maharaja Surajmal Brij University, Bharatpur, for its affiliation of B.Ed. course for academic session 2008-09. Petitioner then received letter for inspection of the college under Section 17(1) of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (for short, 'the Act of 1993') on 02.07.2009. Petitioner institution was inspected by team of Inspectors on 19.07.2009. It was thereafter that the NCTE, by order dated 21.07.2010, withdrew recognition of B.Ed. course granted to petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8269/2010 before this Court, which was decided vide judgment dated 23.11.2010 with observation that petitioner should pursue his appeal under Section 18 of the Act of 1993 against aforesaid order of withdrawal of recognition, before the Appellate Authority of NCTE. The Appellate Authority, vide order dated 11.03.2011 reversed aforesaid order of withdrawal of recognition with direction to Regional Committee of NCTE to decide the matter by speaking order. The Regional Committee, by impugned order dated 18.05.2015, has withdrawn recognition of petitioner institution based on deficiencies.
(3.) Shri Rajeev Sogarwal, learned counsel for petitioner, has argued that after remand of the matter by Appellate Committee to Regional Committee with direction that matter should be decided by Regional Committee by speaking order, petitioner submitted a detailed reply to show cause notice. The Regional Committee was expected to decide the matter by speaking order, on which earlier appeal of petitioner was allowed and matter was remanded to it. In this connection, learned counsel has referred to order dated 11.03.2011 (Annexure-11) passed by Appellate Authority. Even then, Regional Committee, by impugned order dated 18.05.2015, has passed a cryptic order reiterating the earlier 14 deficiencies with respect to which petitioner submitted a detailed reply running into more than 300 pages.;