Guru Dronacharya College Of ... vs National Council For Teacher ...

$~42
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+     W.P.(C) 2282/2020

                                                 Date of decision: 28.02.2020
      GURU DRONACHARYA COLLEGE OF EDUCATION...Petitioner

                          Through      Mr. Sanjay Sharawat, Mr. Divyank
                                       Rana and Mr. Abhishek Dhankar,
                                       Advs.
                          versus

      NATI ONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION AND ANR.
                                           ..... Respondents

                          Through      Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, Standing
                                       Counsel with Mrs. Ankita, Adv. for
                                       NCTE.
      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
                   ORDER

% 28.02.2020

1. Issue notice. Ms. Dwivedi accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

2. With the consent of counsel for the parties, the captioned writ petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that its application qua concerned course has not been processed despite compliance by the petitioner.

4. Briefly, the petitioner filed an application for being granted recognition to run D.EL.ED course.

5. It is averred that the inspection was conducted in November W.P. (C) 2282/2020 Page 1 of 3 2018.

6. A decision was taken by the Northern Regional Committee (in short "NRC") to issue a show cause notice dated 26.02.2019 (in short "SCN").

7. The petitioner responded to the SCN issued by the NRC.

8. The reply by the petitioner in the captioned matter was filed on 20.03.2019.

9. It is the petitioner's case that, thereafter, the NRC has convened 13 meetings but there has been no movement in the matter.

10. According to Mr. Sharawat, this has impacted the interest of the petitioner. Mr. Sharawat says that the application was filed in December 2012.

11. Ms. Dwivedi, on the other hand, says that the petitioner could have approached the Court earlier rather than at the nth hour when the cut-off date for academic session 2020-2021 is around the corner.

12. To my mind, the respondents are certainly at fault in not processing the application filed by the petitioner after compliance was made by the petitioner.

13. That being said, the petitioner is also at fault, if not fully, albeit, partially, as it could have approached the Court earlier and not allowed 13 meetings to pass before instituting the captioned petition.

14. In these circumstances, the captioned writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the concerned regional Committee i.e. NRC to take necessary steps in the matter as per the extant provisions of law, if possible, before 03.03.2020, which is the cut-off date fixed for academic session 2020-2021.

15. Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J FEBRUARY 28, 2020 rb W.P. (C) 2282/2020 Page 3 of 3