- (1.) Aggrieved by the orders dated 6- 5-2008 and 19-8-2008, the petitioner has challenged the same before this Court. By the former order, the National Council for Teacher Education (the 'NCTE' for short) has withdrawn the recognition to the petitioner institution. By the latter order, the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the appellate authority of the NCTE.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that on 4-7- 2005 the Northern Regional Committee of NCTE grarited recognition to the petitioner institution for running course of B. Ed. with an intake of 100 seats w. e. f. June, 2005. On 2-12-2006 the Committee of NCTE further granted recognition to the petitioner institution to run the STC course. According to the petitioner, the NCTE granted the recognition after inspecting the institute and after considering the reports of the visiting teams. Despite the excellent infrastructure available at the institute, but because of certain complaints made by few disgruntled students, on 16-11-2006 the NCTE sent a notice to petitioner institute under Section 17 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (the 'Act' for short). The petitioner institute was informed that a team of experts would be visiting the institute on 23-11-2007. Vide notice dated 5-2-2008 the NCTE informed the petitioner institute about certain deficiencies discovered at the institute and directed it to submit its reply thereto. In its meeting held on 27-3-2008, the Northern Regional Committee of NCTE decided to withdraw the recognition granted to the petitioner institute. According to the petitioner, at the said meeting it was not given any chance of hearing. Thus, the said decision was taken behind its back. In continuation of the decision so taken, vide order dated 6-5-2008, the NCTE withdrew the recognition granted to the petitioner institute. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority of the NCTE itself. Vide letter dated 8-7-2008, the petitioner was informed that its appeal would be considered on 23-8-2008. However, even before 23-8-2008, vide order dated 19-8-2008, the NCTE rejected the appeal of the petitioner and confirmed the order of the Northern Regional Committee dated 6-5-2008. Hence, this petition before this Court.
(3.) Mr. Madhav Mitra, the learned counsel for the petitioner institute, has vehemently raised the following contentions before this Court : firstly, according to Section 17 of the Act, although the NCTE is empowered to withdraw the recognition, but the same can be done only after giving an opportunity of hearing to the concerned institute. An opportunity of hearing is not a mere formality to be observed. A substantial opportunity of hearing should have been given to the institute in the meeting held on March 27 to 29, 2008. The petitioner institute should have been given ample opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the NCTE has failed to follow the requirement of Section 17 of the Act.;