Ess Ess College Of Education vs National Council For Teacher ...
2011 Latest Caselaw 916 Del

             *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                           Date of decision: 15th February, 2011

+                            CM No.2079/2011 in W.P.(C) 6227/2010

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

                                         Versus

    NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER
    EDUCATION & 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 petitioner by this application for clarification seeks decision on

aspects other than those decided in the judgment dated 1st November, 2010

disposing of the writ petition.

2. The writ petition was filed against the order of the Appeal

Committee of the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) holding

the application of the petitioner for recognition liable for rejection under

Regulation 7(1-A) of the National Council for Teacher Education

(Recognition Norms & Procedure) Regulations, 2009. This Court held that

the application was not liable for summary rejection and as such remanded

the matter to the Northern Regional Committee (NRC) for adjudication in

the light of the observations made in the judgment dated 1st November,

2010.

3. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, the NRC reconsidered the

application of the petitioner and vide Minutes of the Meeting held from

27th to 29th January, 2010 rejected the application.

4. The petitioner instead of taking up the matter in appeal to the Appeal

Committee has preferred this application.

5. One of the reasons given by the NRC for rejection, is the

discrepancy in the name of the petitioner in the two sets of sale deeds

before the NRC. The counsel for the petitioner contends that the Appeal

Committee had in the order challenged earlier in the writ petition also

adjudicated on the said discrepancy and the petitioner had challenged the

said finding in the writ petition. Attention is invited to para 16 of the

judgment deciding the writ petition where this Court had recorded the

contention of the counsel for the petitioner in this regard. The counsel for

the petitioner now contends that the aforesaid contention remained to be

decided and should be now decided.

6. If at all the petitioner had any grievance about any part remaining to

be decided, the petitioner should have approached this Court immediately

thereafter. The petitioner however chose to have the application

reconsidered by the NRC, in accordance with the directions in the

judgment disposing of the writ petition and has now sought this remedy by

making the application in the disposed of writ petition instead of availing

the remedies against the order of the NRC. The same cannot be permitted

and the application is found to be in abuse of the process of this Court.

7. Since the Appeal Committee had dismissed the appeal earlier

preferred by the petitioner on the ground of rejection of the application

being under Regulation 7(1-A) i.e. a summary rejection, any observations

of the Appeal Committee on the merits would not be res judicata.

Reference in this regard can be made to the decisions in:-

1. Ram Kishan Vs. Bharat Bhushan 1979 FLR 194.

2. UOI Vs. Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Ranchi (1996) 7

SCC 542.

3. Rajinder Parshad Jain Vs. Bal Gopal Das 77 (1999) DLT

478 (DB).

4. Savitri Devi Vs. Fashion Linkers 95 (2002) DLT 893.

holding that where the previous proceeding is dismissed as not

maintainable, any observations on merits of the controversy are not res

judicata. The counsel for the petitioner is thus not right in contending that

no purpose would be served in appealing against the order of the NRC to

the Appeal Committee, the matter having already been considered by the

Appeal Committee.

8. As far as the contention that this Court should decide the matter,

since the authorities constituted under the Act had not considered the

matter in the correct prospective as clarified in the judgment, the order of

remand was made, rather than this Court considering the matter in the first

instance. The relief which was then declined to the petitioner cannot now

be claimed by way of this application.

9. There is no merit in the application; the same is dismissed with costs

of `10,000/- payable to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) FEBRUARY 15, 2011 'gsr'