Himalaya College Of Education vs National Council For Teacher ...
2009 Latest Caselaw 2920 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                     Writ Petition (Civil) No.10524/2009

%                        Date of Decision: 30.07.2009

Himalaya College of Education                         .... Petitioner
                     Through Mr.Sanjay Sharawat, Advocate.

                                  Versus

National Council for Teacher Education and others   .... Respondents
                      Through Mr.V.K. Rao, Advocate

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR

1.    Whether reporters of Local papers may be               YES
      allowed to see the judgment?
2.    To be referred to the reporter or not?                  NO
3.    Whether the judgment should be reported in              NO
      the Digest?


ANIL KUMAR, J. (ORAL)

*

The petitioner has impugned in this petition the order dated 27th

July, 2009 of National Council for Teacher Education remanding back

the matter of the petitioner to the NRC for issue of a revised order

stipulating withdrawal of conditional recognition accorded to the

petitioner being effective from the academic Session 2009-2010 in the

NRC's order dated 9th June 2009.

In the appeal bearing F.No.89-473/2009-Appeal, the petitioner

had impugned order dated 9th June, 2009 of the Northern Regional

Committee withdrawing conditional recognition of the petitioner for

conducting B.Ed. course on the ground that the petitioner had not

furnished the list of faculties selected by duly constituted selection

committee as per NCTE norms, for employing a teacher on contract

basis for admitting the students without obtaining recognition.

The petitioner, which is an unaided self-financing institution, had

been accorded conditional approval for B.Ed course by communication

dated 27th August, 2006 by Northern Regional Committee (NRC) of

NCTE, conditional recognition subject to appointment of staff by a duly

constituted selection committee with requisite qualification as per

norms and standards of NCTE and affiliating university. For grant of

unconditional recognition the petitioner had to send the signed copy of

the minutes along with affidavit within 21 days.

The petitioner had also applied for additional intake in December

2006. In response to the request of the petitioner, the respondent had

demanded removal of deficiencies pointed out and for fulfilling the

conditions imposed for grant of conditional recognition by letter dated

27th August, 2006.

On account of non-compliance of the terms of the conditional

recognition, Northern Regional Committee had withdrawn the

conditional recognition by order dated 9th June, 2009 on the ground

that the list of faculty selected by a duly constituted selection

committee as per NCTE norms was not submitted and a teacher was

appointed on contract basis. While withdrawing the conditional

recognition, it was also noticed that though the petitioner was liable to

make admission of students only after obtaining unconditional

recognition from the Northern Regional Committee and affiliation from

the examining body, however, without getting unconditional recognition

but on the basis of obtaining affiliation from the affiliating university,

the petitioner admitted students for academic session 2006-2007

onward.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Sanjay Sharawat, has very

emphatically contended that an affidavit dated 15th March, 2007 in

compliance of the requirement of conditional recognition was sent. This

fact is not admitted by the respondent. Even before the Appellate

Authority on checking the record of Northern Regional Committee, it

had transpired that the said affidavit was not on the record. Learned

counsel for the petitioner has contended that the affidavit was sent

along with a letter dated 15th March, 2007 and reliance has been placed

on a photocopy of the letter dated 15th March, 2007 and a photocopy of

the postal receipt dated 20th March, 2007. In view of the specific denial

by the respondent that the said affidavit was received by the

respondent, merely on the basis of a postal receipt it cannot be

presumed that the letter dated 15th March, 2007 was received by the

respondent. The presumption of the service of registered article under

the relevant provisions of General Clauses Act had been rebutted and

the petitioner has failed to prove the receipt of the said letter and the

alleged affidavit. If the article was sent by the registered post, the

petitioner ought to have obtained an appropriate certificate about the

delivery of said article from the concerned postal authority. Merely on

the basis of postal receipt of the letter, it cannot be held that the

registered letter was delivered as the same has been denied by the

respondent.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on a

communication No.AAN03919 dated 23rd May, 2008 of the respondent

to contend that the affidavit in compliance was received by the

respondent. The said communication pertains to compliance of the

formalities for additional intake sought by the petitioner in December

2006. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that since LOI

(Letter of Intent) was issued to the petitioner, therefore, it is apparent

that the requirements for conditional recognition had been fulfilled.

The plea of the counsel for the petitioner is not acceptable as pursuant

to letter of intent (LOI) issued by the respondent, the inspection had to

be carried out in respect of additional intake requested by the petitioner

in December 2006, however, from issuance of LOI for additional intake,

it has not be demonstrated by the petitioner that the conditions for the

conditional recognition had been fulfilled. By the said letter LOI (letter

of intent) was issued for additional intake and from the fact that LOI

was issued for additional intake, in cannot be inferred that the

conditions for grant of conditional recognition were complied with.

Rather the communication dated 23rd March, 2008 reiterated

compliance of conditional requirement subject to which conditional

recognition was granted. Consequently, on the basis of the said

communication, it cannot be inferred that the respondent had received

the documents in compliance of the conditions imposed while granting

conditional recognition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has, thereafter, contended that

the affidavit in compliance was again sent by letter dated 21st June,

2007 and has filed a copy of the alleged affidavit dated 1st June, 2007.

Perusal of the copy of the affidavit reveals that it is neither notarized

nor attested by Oath Commissioner except bearing a special adhesive

stamp. The said document cannot be construed to be an affidavit in

compliance with the conditional requirement for conditional recognition.

Learned counsel for the respondent has also produced yet another copy

of the affidavit dated 23rd June, 2008, a copy of which was allegedly

sent to the counsel for the respondent by fax on 14th July, 2009. The

said affidavit is also neither notarized nor attested by Oath

Commissioner and cannot be construed as an affidavit in compliance

with the requirement of the respondent.

In the circumstances, the finding of the Appellate Authority that

the petitioner did not comply with the conditional requirement for grant

of conditional recognition cannot be faulted.

The appeal of the petitioner has also been rejected on the ground

that the petitioner was entitled to admit students only after getting

unconditional recognition whereas the petitioner started admitting the

students from the academic session 2006-2007 onward without having

unconditional recognition. This is not disputed by the learned counsel

for the petitioner that unconditional recognition was not granted to the

petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner is also unable to show

any provision which would have entitled the petitioner to admit the

students despite the petitioner not having unconditional recognition.

The petitioner is also unable to explain his right to admit students only

on account of grant of conditional recognition by the respondent.

In the circumstances, the grounds on which the appeal of the

petitioner has been rejected cannot be faulted nor the petitioner has

been able to show any such grounds which would entitle him for

interference by this court. The Appellate Authority has remanded the

matter to the Northern Regional Committee for passing a revised order

withdrawing conditional recognition from the academic session 2009-

2010. If the order withdrawing conditional recognition cannot be

faulted, the decision of the Appellate Authority to pass a revised order

specifying that the conditional recognition has been withdrawn for the

academic session 2009-2010 and directing the NRC to pass an

appropriate order, also does not suffer from any such illegality which

will require interference by this Court in exercise of its power under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The writ petition is, therefore, without any merit and it is

dismissed.

July 30, 2009                                          ANIL KUMAR, J.
'Dev'