Delhi High Court
Maa Buddha National ... vs National Council For Teacher ... on 3 February, 2011
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 3rd February, 2011
+ W.P.(C) 8403/2010
MAA BUDDHA NATIONAL MAHAVIDYALAYA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjay Sharawat, Advocate
Versus
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER
EDUCATION AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Advocate.
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 petition impugns the order dated 15 th September, 2010 of the
Appeal Committee of the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE)
dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against the order dated 8 th May,
2010 of the Northern Regional Committee (NRC) closing the file of the
application of the petitioner for recognition for D.El.Ed. course. The
matter had come before this Court on 22 nd December, 2010 when the
counsel for the petitioner had contended that the controversy in the present
matter is covered by the judgment dated 1st November, 2010 of this Bench
in W.P.(C) No.6227/2010 titled ESS ESS College of Education Vs.
NCTE. The counsel for the NCTE had then sought time to take
instructions. Opportunity was also given to file counter affidavit. No
counter affidavit has been filed. The counsel for the respondents has
however argued in opposition to the petition.
2. It is the contention of the counsel for the respondents that this Court
in ESS ESS College of Education (supra) has traced two sources of
appeal, firstly through the route of Regulation 7(1) of the National Council
for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms & Procedure) Regulations,
2009 and secondly through the route of Section 14(3) of the National
Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993. He contends that since Section
14(3) of the Act provides for grant of recognition on satisfaction not only
as to financial resources, accommodation, library, qualified staff,
laboratory etc. but also that the applicant fulfills such other conditions
required for proper sanctioning of the institutions for a course or training in
teacher education and further since Regulation 7(1) has also been framed
in this regard only, the order of rejection under Regulation 7(1) is an order
under Section 14(4) only and cannot be treated separately. Though I am of
the opinion that no different view has been taken in ESS ESS College of
Education but even if the contention of the counsel for the respondents
were to be accepted, I have enquired from the counsel for the respondents
as to what difference the same would make as far as the judgment in ESS
ESS College of Education is concerned. No impact on the argument has
been disclosed.
3. Per contra, the counsel for the petitioner has contended that the
Regulations have been amended on 25 th November, 2010 and which
amendment is in consonance with view taken in ESS ESS College of
Education.
4. The application of the petitioner for recognition was rejected for the
reasons:
(1) that the same was not accompanied with the certified copies
of the land documents and the certified copies of the land
documents submitted subsequently showed the certification to
be of a date after the date of submission of the application.
The counsel for the petitioner however clarifies that the
registration of the land documents is of a date prior to the date
of submission of the application;
(2) the copy of the CLU submitted along with the application was
not notarized and the copy submitted subsequently was
notarized on a date after the date of submission of the
application. The counsel for the petitioner clarifies that the
CLU is of a date prior to the application.
Though the NRC had given a third reason also for rejection, but the
Appeal Committee was satisfied with respect to the same and upheld the
rejection on aforesaid two grounds only.
5. The question which arises is whether the rejection without giving an
opportunity under Regulation 7(1) to make up the deficiency / omission
could have been made.
6. It has been held in ESS ESS College of Education that with respect
to such deficiencies, an opportunity in terms of Regulation 7(1) has to be
given. The same has admittedly not been given.
7. Accordingly, the petition succeeds. The orders of the NRC and the
Appeal Committee impugned in this petition are set aside. The matter is
remanded to the NRC to consider the application of the petitioner in
accordance with law and in accordance with the judgment in ESS ESS
College of Education. Since the academic year for which the application
was made has already been lost, the NRC is requested to consider the
matter expeditiously.
The petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
Dasti under signature of Court Master.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
(JUDGE)
FEBRUARY 03, 2011
'gsr'
