Guru Nanak Khalsa College vs National Council For Teacher ...
2010 Latest Caselaw 3054 Del

     *     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                              W.P.(C) 4218/2010

                                              Date of decision: 2nd July, 2010

GURU NANAK KHALSA COLLEGE                    ..... Petitioner
               Through: Mr. Sanjay Sharawat, Advocate

                                     Versus

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER
EDUCATION & ANR.                        ..... Respondents
                 Through: Mr. Vaibhav Kalra, Advocate

CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

1.       Whether reporters of Local papers may
         be allowed to see the judgment?               yes

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?              yes

3.       Whether the judgment should be reported             yes
         In the Digest?

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The petitioner by this writ petition impugns the order dated 18 th

May, 2010 of the respondent no.1 National Council for Teacher Education

(NCTE), dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order

dated 25th September, 2009 of the respondent no.2 being the Northern

Regional Committee (NRC) of NCTE closing the file for grant of

recognition to the petitioner for conducting B.P.Ed. (Bachelor of Physical

Education) course, on the ground that the petitioner had not submitted the

building Plan of its Institute / College, duly approved by the competent

authority. Though notice of this petition had not been issued till now

but the petition has been listed earlier on three occasions and on all of

which the counsel for the respondent has also appeared. In the

circumstances and finding no need for requiring a counter affidavit, the

counsels have been heard finally.

2. The counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had on

28th December, 2005 applied to the NRC for recognition for conducting

two courses i.e. B.P.Ed. (with which present petition is concerned) and

C.P.Ed. (Certificate in Physical Education).

3. The NRC of the NCTE in its 139th meeting held from 10th April to

12th April, 2009, with respect to the application of the petitioner for

recognition for C.P.Ed. course recommended issuance of Letter of Intent

for inspection, subject to i) submission by petitioner of approved building

Plan from competent authority and also ii) subject to the petitioner

submitting documents to show whether its Institute / College is located in

urban or rural area.

4. With respect to the application of the petitioner for B.P.Ed. course,

in the same meeting, it was recommended that Letter of Intent for

inspection be issued subject to submission by petitioner of certificate

whether the Institute/College is located in urban area or rural area.

Significantly, with respect to the said application no condition for

producing the approved building Plan was imposed, as in case of

application for recognition of C.P.Ed. course.

5. The NRC in its 142nd Meeting held from 14th to 16th June, 2009

decided to close the file with respect to both the applications of the

petitioner on the ground that the building plans approved by competent

authority had not been submitted.

6. The petitioner preferred appeals to the NCTE against the order

aforesaid closing both its applications. The NCTE vide its order dated 8th

October, 2009 allowed the appeal with respect to the application for

C.P.Ed. course, on the basis of the statement of the petitioner before it that

the concerned Municipal Committee had approved all the building Plans

and had also issued a letter mentioning that the College is situated in an

urban area. The NCTE accordingly remanded the case back to the NRC

for inspection of the Institution of the petitioner to ascertain availability of

necessary infrastructure, instructional and other facilities in accordance

with the norms prescribed by the NCTE.

7. However, the NCTE vide order dated 26th November, 2009

dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner with respect to its

application for B.P.Ed. course on the ground that the building Plan

submitted by the petitioner was not approved by any competent authority

and also did not indicate the existing built-up area, Khasra No./ Survey

No./ Plot No. etc.

8. The petitioner preferred WP(C) No.160/2010 in this Court with

respect to the order dated 26th November, 2009 of the NCTE dismissing its

appeal for the B.P.Ed. course. Notice of the said writ petition was issued

to the respondents who filed a counter affidavit. The said writ petition

was disposed of vide order dated 6th May, 2010. The matter was

remanded to the NCTE and NCTE was directed to decide the matter

taking into consideration the duly sanctioned building Plan submitted by

the petitioner along with the appeal and the fact that the appeal with

respect to the C.P.Ed. course had been allowed.

9. Upon such remand, the NCTE has passed the order dated 18 th May,

2010 impugned in this petition. The NCTE in the impugned order has

noted that the building plans of the Institute / College of the petitioner had

been sanctioned on 13th August, 2009 but after the decision of the NRC

from 14th / 16th June, 2009. The NCTE has thus held that since admittedly

there were no sanctioned building Plans as on the date of the decision of

NRC under appeal, there was nothing wrong in the decision of the NRC.

The NCTE has also held that the appeal of the petitioner with respect to

the C.P.Ed. course had been erroneously / wrongly allowed on 8th October,

2009 but noted that since that decision had been implemented, it could not

be reviewed. The NCTE however held that the decision dated 8th October,

2009 with respect to the C.P.Ed. appeal being erroneous / wrong could not

be a precedent for allowing the appeal with respect to the B.P.Ed. course.

10. Section 14 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993

provides for obtaining recognition for offering a course or training in

teacher education. It inter alia provides that before passing an order

holding an institution to be not fulfilling the requirements for such

recognition, the Regional Committee shall provide a reasonable

opportunity for making a written representation. Section 18 of the said

Act provides for an appeal to the NCTE against an order of Regional

Committee and for it to be made in such form as may be prescribed and

for the appeal to be disposed of following such procedure as may be

prescribed.

11. Regulation 7 of the National Council for Teacher Education

(Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations 2007 provides for the

processing of the applications. The applicant institutions are required to

ensure submission of applications complete in all respects. Regulation

7(1) however provides that in order to remove / correct the inadvertent

omissions and deficiencies in documents, the office of the Regional

Committee shall point out the deficiencies within 30 days of the receipt of

the applications and which the applicants are required to remove within

90 days. Regulation 8 provides for conditions for grant of recognition.

Regulation 8(10) provides that "at the time of inspection", the building of

the institution shall be complete in the form of a permanent structure on

the land possessed by the institution and equipped with all the necessary

amenities and fulfilling such requirements as may be prescribed. Though

the said Regulations of 2007 since stand superceded by Regulations of

2009 but both counsel agree that at the relevant time the Regulations of

2007 were in force and would apply.

12. Rule 10 & 11 of the National Council for Teacher Education Rules,

1997 provide for appeals and procedure for disposal of the appeals.

13. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that NRC in its

139th meeting while recommending issuance of Letter of Intent to the

petitioner for the B.P.Ed. course did not make the same subject to the

production of the sanctioned building Plan and hence could not have

closed the file with respect to the said application on the said ground.

Relying on Regulation 7(1) (supra), it is contended that before closing the

file on said ground an opportunity ought to have been given to the

petitioner to produce the sanctioned Plan. Per contra, the counsel for the

respondents draws attention to the letter dated 28th April, 2009 of the

petitioner in pursuance to the minutes of the 139 th meeting and undercover

of which letter the petitioner also purported to enclose the approved

building plans along with the certificate of its College building being

situated in an urban area. It is thus contended that the petitioner was fully

aware of the requirement to produce the sanctioned building Plans and

there is nothing wrong in the order of the NCTE in appeal holding that the

application of the petitioner for the B.P.Ed. course being not complete as

on the date of the order of the NRC closing the said file. It is further

contended that it is always open to the petitioner to apply again to NRC.

14. The counsel for the petitioner has also contended that the NCTE is

in violation of the order dated 6th May, 2010 (supra) of this Court whereby

the NCTE was directed to decide after taking into consideration the duly

sanctioned Plans already submitted by the petitioner. It is stated that a

contempt petition in this regard has already been filed and of which notice

has already been issued. Per contra, the counsel for the respondent

contends that the NCTE has in the order impugned in this petition

considered the matter as directed by this Court.

15. The appeal before the NCTE was against the order refusing or

declining recognition on account of deficiencies in complying with the

requirements or pre-conditions for such recognition. In the opinion of this

Court, in the appeals of such nature, if the deficiencies owing whereto

application for rejection has been declined / rejected, are removed /

remedied during the pendency of appeal, the effect thereof can be seen /

noted by the Appellate Authority and if satisfied that the deficiency owing

whereto the Regional Committee had rejected the application, has been

removed / remedied, the order of Regional Committee can be set aside and

the application for recognition either allowed or ordered to be proceeded

with further, instead of requiring the applicant to apply afresh. It is the

settled principle that an appeal is a continuation of the original proceeding

and the Appellate Court is always entitled to, while deciding the appeal,

take into account the subsequent events. I have perused the Act,

Regulations and the Rules (supra) providing for appeal and procedure of

its disposal. I find nothing therein to prevent NCTE from, while

exercising such appellate powers considering the subsequent events

aforesaid. Of course, where there is any ambiguity qua the subsequent

events or such subsequent events require further examination by the

Regional Committee, the NCTE can always remand back the matter to the

Regional Committee. The order of the NCTE impugned in this petition

refusing to notice the sanction of Building Plans on a date after the order

of NRC under appeal before it is thus not found to be in accordance with

law. .

16. The contention of the counsel for the respondents that the petitioner

should be asked to apply afresh on the basis of sanctioned plan does not

take note of the fact that the application filed by the petitioner on 28th

December, 2005 came to be decided / dealt with by NRC after about four

years. If the petitioner is directed to start the procedure afresh, yet further

time may be wasted. Now when as per the petitioner it is ready to

commence imparting education in the course, there is no justification for

delaying it further. There is a dearth of educational institutions with the

number of students seeking admissions being far more. If the petitioner is

found ready and entitled to recognition, red tape of procedure or

technicalities of filing fresh application should not be allowed to come in

way. The respondents, entrusted with regulatory powers over teacher

education system ought to show expediency in all their actions rather than

indulging in legalese. Moreover when the only deficiency owing whereto

the file of the petitioner was closed or rejected, is found to have now been

removed and it is not in dispute that the building plans of the College of

the petitioner have been sanctioned, it defies logic as to why the NCTE in

appeal ought not to have directed the NRC to proceed further in the

matter.

17. The counsel for the respondents has contended that the NCTE in the

impugned order has also held that the sanctioned building plans submitted

by the petitioner do not contain Khasra No./ Survey No./ plot No. etc. It

is contended that it was for this reason that the sanctioned building plans

were not found satisfactory. The said argument is also of no avail. It is

not as if the matter was to attain finality before the NCTE. Even after the

requirement of the sanctioned building plans being met, the matter was to

be remanded to the NRC for further inspection in accordance with law.

During the said inspection, the NRC if dissatisfied in any respect could

ask for it to be fulfilled and if not fulfilled deny the recognition.

18. There is yet another factor which prevails with this Court in

deciding as aforesaid. The counsel for the petitioner on enquiry has stated

that both the course i.e. C.P.Ed. & B.P.Ed. are to be conducted in the same

building on different floors. Once the file of the petitioner with respect to

one course is being processed further in pursuance to the earlier order of

the NCTE, though labelled as erroneous by the NCTE in the impugned

order, expediency demands that the process with respect to the B.P.Ed.

course be also completed simultaneously.

19. Accordingly, this petition succeeds. The order dated 18 th May,

2010 of the NCTE impugned in this petition is set aside and the order of

the NRC closing the file of the petitioner with respect to the B.P.Ed.

course is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the NRC for

inspection of the Institution of the petitioner to ascertain the fulfillment of

the other requirements in accordance with the prescribed norms. The said

procedure be completed within sixty days from today.

20. On suggestion of this Court, the counsel for the petitioner on

instructions states that to maintain the cordiality of the relationship, the

petitioner shall withdraw the contempt petition filed against the

respondents and their officials.

The petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

                                               RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
                                                      (JUDGE)
JULY 02, 2010
gsr




W(C) No.4218/2010                                             Page 10 of