Ishan Institute Of Managemnet And ... vs National Council For Teacher ...
2010 Latest Caselaw 3145 Del

             *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                  Date of decision: 7th July, 2010.

+                           W.P.(C) No.3830/2010

%

ISHAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMNET
AND TECHNOLOGY                                    ..... Petitioner
                  Through: Mr. Saurabh Trivedi, Advocate.

                                   Versus

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION
AND ANR.                                 ..... Respondents
                Through: Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Advocate for
                NCTE.

CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1.       Whether reporters of Local papers may                 No
         be allowed to see the judgment?

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?                No

3.       Whether the judgment should be reported               No
         in the Digest?

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. Though no notice of this petition has been issued to the respondents as

yet but the counsel for the respondents was called for yesterday and has

been heard today.

2. The petitioner had applied on 30th December, 2003 to the Northern

Regional Committee (NRC) of the National Council for Teacher Education

(NCTE) established under the National Council for Teacher Education Act,

1993, for recognition for imparting educational course of Basic Training

Certificate (BTC). The NRC vide its order dated 14th November, 2006 found

the Institute of the petitioner fit for grant of recognition for imparting

education in the BTC course to 50 students, subject to the condition of

appointment of qualified staff through duly constituted selection committee

and subject to certain other conditions. It is the case of the petitioner that

notwithstanding the said order of the NRC it could not commence imparting

education in the BTC course owing to the permission thereof having not

been obtained from the State of U.P. within whose territory the Institute of

the petitioner was situated. The counsel for the petitioner adds that at the

then contemporaneous time the State of U.P. had no policy with respect to

the grant of permission to private Institutes for imparting education in the

said course. Resultantly, the petitioner did not appoint prescribed staff

through prescribed selection/appointment procedure in terms of the

condition aforesaid imposed by NRC.

3. The counsel for the petitioner had yesterday handed over in this Court

a photocopy of the communication dated 19 th May, 2010 of the Secretary of

the Basic Education Department of the State of U.P. to the Director State

Council for Education Research & Training, State of U.P. stating that such

Institutes which have been allowed affiliation by the State and which are

recognized will be entitled to impart education for the BTC course. It is

stated that now the State of U.P. has formulated a policy for permitting

private Institutes as the petitioner to impart education in the BTC course.

4. However in the meanwhile, owing to the petitioner having not

satisfied the condition of appointment of qualified staff in terms of the order

dated 14th November, 2006 (supra), the NRC vide its order contained in

minutes of 141st meeting dated 22nd May to 24th May, 2009 refused

recognition to the petitioner.

5. The petitioner preferred the statutory appeal against the aforesaid

refusal, to the NCTE. However the said appeal has been dismissed vide

letter dated 6th May, 2010 for the reason of being barred by time and the

petitioner having not shown sufficient grounds for condonation of delay.

6. Aggrieved therefrom the present writ petition has been preferred.

7. The petitioner contends that the petitioner, as per the policy now

formulated by the State of U.P. would be entitled to apply for affiliation to

the State of U.P. only if granted recognition by the NCTE. It is further stated

that the last date for application for affiliation to the State of U.P. for the

current academic year is 31st August, 2010. It is further urged that the only

ground on which recognition has been refused to the petitioner is of having

not furnished the list of faculty appointed as per NCTE norms, has since

been remedied and the faculty has already been appointed by a duly

constituted selection committee.

8. The counsel for the respondents contends that the petitioner in the

appeal before the NCTE concealed that the copy of the order aforesaid of the

NRC had been sent to the petitioner vide postal receipt dated 10th July, 2009,

copy whereof is shown on the record of the NCTE Appellate committee

produced by the counsel. It is further contended that the petitioner, in the

appeal also did not state as to on which date it noticed the order on the

website and that the pleas of the petitioner for condonation of delay in

preferring the appeal before the NCTE were vague. The counsel for the

respondent thus contends that there is nothing wrong in the order of NCTE

dismissing the appeal of petitioner as time barred. It is further contended

that the petitioner is always entitled to apply afresh to NRC for recognition.

9. NCTE has been set up/constituted to regulate the training and

education of teachers. It is concerned with granting recognition and

satisfying itself that the Institutes imparting education to the teachers who

carry with them the onus to, in turn teach and inculcate the minds of the

future generation are duly qualified and equipped to do so and that Institutes

which are not in a position to turn out duly qualified teachers do not

proliferate. Hierarchy of Regional Committees with appeal thereagainst to

the NCTE is only to eliminate human error. It is not as if on account of non

preferring the appeal, any rights are created in favour of any other party and

which ought not to be disturbed by condoning the delay in preferring the

appeal. Though a period for preferring appeal has been prescribed but with

power to the NCTE to admit and hear appeals preferred after the prescribed

period upon finding sufficient cause for delay in preferring appeal. In the

present case considering that the petitioner, notwithstanding the conditional

recognition by the NRC, was unable to commence teaching operations

owing there being no policy then of the State of U.P. for affiliation, it cannot

be said that the petitioner even if filed the appeal belatedly inspite of

knowledge of the order of the NRC, the petitioner had sufficient reason for

not preferring the appeal earlier. Till a policy as aforesaid was formulated

by the State of U.P., the recognition granted by the NCTE was of no value

to the petitioner. In fact the petitioner at one stage had itself written to

NCTE, withdrawing its application for recognition. Further the postal

receipt aforesaid on the file produced, is addressed to the petitioner at Noida

with the Pin Code No.201 when the address of the petitioner admittedly is of

Delhi or of Greater Noida and in the letter heads of the petitioner on record

the Pin Code No.201 is not to be found.

10. Considering all the aforesaid, the order of the NCTE dismissing the

appeal of the petitioner on the ground of limitation cannot be sustained and

is set aside.

11. However no purpose would be served in remanding the matter to the

NCTE to decide the appeal on merits inasmuch as considerable time has

elapsed since grant of conditional recognition as aforesaid by NRC to the

petitioner. Owing to long lapse of time, it will have to be verified whether

the petitioner has complied with other conditions imposed by NRC. It will

also have to be verified whether the claim of the petitioner of having now

appointed the faculty is correct. All this will have to be done by the NRC

only and cannot possibly be done by the Appellate Committee of NCTE. I

have in Guru Nanak Khalsa College Vs. National Council for Teacher

Education WP(C) 4218/2010 decided on 2nd July, 2010 held that subsequent

events can be taken note of. If the matter is remanded to NCTE Appeal

Committee, it will lead to waste of time and the petitioner missing the

deadline aforesaid of 31st August, 2010. It is expedient that the matter is

considered by NRC. The argument of counsel for respondent that petitioner

can apply afresh has no merit. The applications for recognition are found to

have a considerably long incubation period and petitioner ought not to be

pushed back in the queue.

12. The counsel for the respondents states that without the order of the

NRC being set aside, NRC would not be entitled to decide the matter afresh

and at this stage seeks time to file reply stating that notice even has not been

issued. He further contends that the order of the NRC is not even under

challenge in this petition and cannot be set aside.

13. As aforesaid the purpose of NCTE was only to act as a regulatory

body and not to take an adversarial stand qua the applicants. As long as

NCTE and the Regional Committees are required to perform their statutory

duties, they ought not to come in the way of such recognition sought,

specially when generally it is found that the students are more than the seats

in the teaching institutions.

14. In the aforesaid circumstances the order dated 9th July, 2009 of NRC

is also set aside and while allowing the petition, the matter is remanded to

NRC for decision in terms of above, after giving opportunity to the

petitioner. The NRC will satisfy itself as to whether the petitioner has

complied with all the conditions and/or with any subsequent

requirement/event on account of which the petitioner may now not be

entitled to recognition. In view of the urgency expressed, the NRC is

requested to dispose of the matter preferably on or before 16th August, 2010.

15. The counsel for the respondents at this stage states that since then

there has been a direction for not granting any further recognitions for

several of the courses. If there is any such subsequent event, liberty has

already given hereinabove to the NRC to act in accordance with the same.

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

The order be given Dasti.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) 7th July, 2010 bs