M.K. RAI DEEP ADARSH BALIKA MAHAVIDHAYLAY BHAGWANPUR AND 18 OTHERS V. UNION OF INDIA AND 3 OTHERS

WRIC/5483/2020

AI Insights

The case revolves around a writ petition challenging a public notice issued by the NCTE, which mandated annual submission of a performance appraisal report by TEIs. The petitioners argued that this requirement was redundant as financial audits are already conducted every five years by accredited agencies, and annual submissions could lead to arbitrary use of power by the NCTE. The respondents defended the notice, emphasizing the need for regular monitoring to prevent financial mismanagement in educational institutions. The court examined the legal framework of the NCTE Act, 1993, and the 2014 Regulations, concluding that the notice was a legitimate extension of the NCTE's regulatory powers and did not violate any statutory provisions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 678344 (HC-INDIA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 14-02-2020
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: NCTE Act, 1993
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: A S G I; DHANANJAY AWASTHI; SHIV
• Assessee Lawyers: SHAMBHAVI NANDAN; SHIV SINGH
• Keywords: Audit; NCTE; Teacher Education Institutions; Performance Appraisal Report; Recognition Norms; Regulatory Examination
• Section: 17(1); 10(3); 12(j); 8(3); 33(2); 12(k)

Judgement Text

"Court No. - 39 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5483 of 2020 Petitioner :- M.K. Rai Deep Adarsh Balika Mahavidhaylay Bhagwanpur And 18 Others Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shambhavi Nandan,Shiv Bahadur Singh Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Dhananjay Awasthi,Shiv Badan Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. This writ petition is directed against a public notice issued by the Member Secretary of the National Council for Teacher Education dated 22.9.2019, as per which a performance appraisal report has to be submitted annually and would include the annual statement of accounts duly audited by the Chartered Accountant. The notice refers to Section 12(j) & (k) of the NCTE Act, 1993, which reads as under:- \"12.(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 system, norms and mechanisms for enforcing accountability on recognised institutions;\" Section 17(1) of the NCTE Act, 1993 provides as under:- \"17(1) 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: ....\" On the basis of aforesaid provisions, the public notice records that all Teacher Education Institutions running NCTE recognized Teacher Education Courses are required to annually file a performance appraisal report, which is required for regulatory examination of the physical infrastructure, teaching faculty and other stipulations as per NCTE rules, regulations or the NCTE Act. In Clause 4 of the notice, such performance appraisal report is now required to be mandatorily submitted by all TEIs online on the specially designed portal for the purpose. Cetain payment for such purposes has also been specified and the time limit has been fixed for submission of such appraisal report till 31st December, 2019. It is after expiry of aforesaid period that the present writ petition has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the grant of recognition to the educational institutions running a Teacher Education Court is regulated by the statutory regulations i.e. National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2014. These regulations have been framed in exercise of power under Section 33(2) of the NCTE Act, 1993 and supersedes the previous regulations of the year 2009. Attention of the Court has been invited to Regulation 8(3), which reads as under:- \"8(3). An institution which has been recognised by the Council shall obtain accreditation from an accrediting agency approved by Council within five years of such recognition.\" Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the accrediting agency assesses the financial accounts of each institution and its report is submitted within five years, and therefore the concern of NCTE regarding financial management (mis) is duly addressed under the regulations etc. It is further submitted that Regulation 10(3) of the Regulations otherwise requires every institution to display on its official website the statements of accounts duly audited by a Chartered Accountant. Regulation 10(3) is also reproduced hereinafter:- \"10(3). Every institution shall display on its official website, every financial year by the 30th day of September, the following statements of accounts duly certified by a Chartered Accountant :- (i) Balance sheet as on the last date of the financial year; (ii) Income and expenditure account for the financial year; (iii) Receipt and payment account for the financial year.\" On the strength of above provisions, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the regulations specifically take note of concerns expressed by the NCTE and there is no requirement of such performance appraisal report to be submitted each year to NCTE on the designed website containing the audited accounts of the institution. Learned counsel submits that the NCTE is trying to arm itself with materials on the basis of which possible arbitrary exercise of its jurisdiction cannot be ruled out, inasmuch as frivolous complaints in that regard would be entertained and the institution would be harassed. It is also submitted that the notice virtually has the effect of amending the statutory regulations and the procedure under Section 32 has not been followed, and therefore, notice is bad in law. The petition is opposed by learned counsel for the NCTE, who submits that the National Council for Teacher Education is a statutory authority created under the NCTE Act, 1993, a Parliamentary Legislation for regulating the standards of higher education in the country and the responsibility imposed upon it includes regular observance and monitoring of institutions, so that instances of financial mis-management by educational institutions could be monitored and controlled. It is further submitted that statutory audit of accounts where income exceeds Rs.10 lacs is otherwise envisaged under the Income Tax Act, 1961, and by virtue of Regulation 10(3) of the Regulations of 2014 such details have to be displayed on the website of the institution. The mere fact that such details are also required to be submitted to NCTE on a specified website would neither cause any prejudice nor can otherwise be termed to be arbitrary. Arguments of Sri Dhananjay Awasthi are adopted by the counsel for the University Sri Ajay Kumar Singh. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials brought on record. Admittedly NCTE is a statutory authority, which is entrusted with the task of regulating teacher education. The NCTE Act, 1993 is a parliamentary legislation referable to Entry 66 of the Union List. Such statutory authority is required to regulate the standards of teacher education and also monitor the dispensation of quality teacher education. It is in this context that statutory regulations of 2014 have been framed which clearly stipulates that audited accounts would be displayed on the website of the institution. By the notice under challenge the NCTE has only required such details also to be uploaded online on the designated website of NCTE. This Court fails to fathom any prejudice which may be caused to the teacher training institutions on account of the requirement introduced in the notice. The premise to challenge the notice proceeds on an assumption that this power would be misutilized. There is absolutely no basis for such apprehension on part of the petitioners. Even otherwise, any misuse of power can be got corrected before the appropriate available form in law. So far as the argument regarding non-compliance of Section 32 of the NCTE Act, 1993 is concerned, this Court is of the considered view that the plea is wholly fallacious, inasmuch as the impugned notice cannot be construed as laying down any statutory regulations or supplementing it. Regulation 10(3) of the statutory regulations otherwise specifically require audited accounts to be uploaded on the website of the institution. By the notice such details have now to be uploaded online on the website of the NCTE also. Regulation 10 (3) of the Regulations otherwise is wide enough to require the institution to submit such details. Merely because such details are now required to be uploaded online on the website of the NCTE it does not mean that the statutory regulations are amended or that Section 32 needs to be complied with before issuing such notice. In that view of the matter, this Court finds that notice under challenge does not convene any provision of the Act of 1993 or the statutory regulations of 2014 and is otherwise neither arbitrary nor unreasonable. No interference with such notice is, therefore, required. Writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. No order is passed as to costs. Order Date :- 14.2.2020 Anil "