Saraswati College Of Education vs National Council For Teacher ...
2010 Latest Caselaw 3273 Del

              *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                             Date of decision: 15th July, 2010.

+                  W.P.(C) No.4269/2010 & CM No.8465/2010 (for stay)

%

SARASWATI COLLEGE OF EDUCATION                 ..... Petitioner
                Through: Mr. Sanjay Sharawat, Advocate.

                                                    Versus

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER
EDUCATION & ANR.                             ..... Respondents
                 Through: Mr. Ravi Sikri, Mr. Ayushya Kumar
                          & Mr. Vaibhav Kalra, Advocates.

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

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. The petitioner had applied to the Northern Regional Committee

(NRC) of the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) for

recognition for imparting education for D.Ed. course. The NRC however

issued deficiency letter and inspected the Institute and records of the

petitioner and ultimately rejected the application of the petitioner, but citing

the application for recognition of the petitioner as for B.Ed. and not for

D.Ed. It was the case of the petitioner in appeal before the Appeal

Committee of NCTE that though it had submitted the application for

recognition for D.Ed. course but the said application was pursued and

considered by the NRC for B.Ed. course and the reasons given by the NRC

for rejecting the recognition for B.Ed. were erroneous.

2. The Appeal Committee sought explanation from the NRC. NRC

clarified that the application was submitted for D.Ed. course but processed

for B.Ed. course and subsequent correspondence made for B.Ed. course

only. The Appeal Committee has held that since the original application was

for D.Ed. course, the NRC could not have processed it on its own for B.Ed.

course. The Appeal Committee has accordingly vide order impugned in this

petition while setting aside the order of the NRC, remanded the matter to

NRC for processing the application for D.Ed. course.

3. The counsel for the petitioner contends that though the application

was initially filed for D.Ed. course but on oral suggestion of NRC that the

petitioner was more suitable for B.Ed. course, the petitioner had orally

agreed to have the application treated as for recognition for B.Ed. and

accordingly all correspondence thereafter with NRC was in the context of

satisfying the recognition criteria for B.Ed. only. It is contended that the

order of the Appeal Committee directing the application to be processed for

D.Ed. course is erroneous.

4. It is further contended that upon it being suggested to the petitioner by

the NRC that it should seek recognition for B.Ed. course the petitioner had

upgraded its infrastructure to suit the requirements for B.Ed. course and the

petitioner now cannot be compelled to pursue the application for D.Ed.

course. He thus contends that the reasons given by the NRC for rejection of

the application for B.Ed. course being palpably wrong and the Appeal

Committee having failed to deal with the same, this petition should be

allowed and the petitioner be recognized for B.Ed. course.

5. The counsel for the petitioner further contends that the application

having throughout been processed for B.Ed. course, there is no other factor

required to be considered except the reasons given by the NRC for rejection

of the application qua B.Ed. course. It is further stated that the Institute and

records of the petitioner having been inspected from the point of view of

B.Ed. course, no further inspection or processing is required.

6. There is nothing to support the contention of the petitioner that the

petitioner had on the oral suggestion of the NRC or on its own converted its

application from that for recognition for D.Ed. course to that for recognition

for B.Ed. course. The particulars and information required to be mentioned

in the application for two different courses must be different. It is thus not

clear whether the Visiting Team inspected the Institute and records of the

petitioner for B.Ed. course or for D.Ed. course in as much as the application

which is presumed to have been considered by the Visiting Team was for

D.Ed. course even though in subsequent correspondence the course

mentioned was B.Ed. It is well nigh possible that B.Ed was a typographical

error and the intent was not to process for B.Ed. but for D.Ed. The counsel

for the petitioner however in this regard relies on the clarification given by

NRC in its letter dated 27th April, 2010 stating that the application was

processed for B.Ed. course. However from the said explanation also it is not

clear whether NRC and the Visiting Team applied the parameters for B.Ed.

or D.Ed and how the same could be applied when the application which was

necessary for the case to be processed was for D.Ed.

7. It has been enquired from the counsel for the petitioner whether the

petitioner is now interested in recognition for B.Ed. or for D.Ed. course. The

counsel states that the petitioner desires recognition for B.Ed. only.

8. In the circumstances, this petition is allowed to the extent that the

order of the Appeal Committee impugned in this petition be read as

remanding the case to NRC for processing the application of the petitioner

for B.Ed. course. Though the counsel for the petitioner has contended that

no further inspection and inquiry is required but for the reasons aforesaid, it

is clarified that it shall be open to the NRC to, if of the opinion that any

material or parameters qua B.Ed. course have not been examined on the

earlier occasion, call for and seek the same from the petitioner and the

petitioner would remain bound to furnish the same. Similarly, if NRC is of

the opinion that the Visiting Team earlier appointed had inspected the

infrastructure of the petitioner under any confusion, the NRC shall be

entitled to call for a fresh inspection.

9. With the aforesaid directions, the petition is disposed of. No order as

to costs. Since the issue of recognition of the petitioner has remained

pending for long, the NRC is directed to decide the application as aforesaid

within five months of today.

Copy of this order be given dasti to counsel for the parties.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) 15th July, 2010 pp