Mahendra College Of Education vs National Council For Teacher ...
2013 Latest Caselaw 5629 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                             Date of Decision: 05.12.2013

+                           WP(C) No.1942 of 2013

MAHENDRA COLLEGE OF EDUCATION           ..... Petitioner
            Through:  Mr. S.K. Rout, Adv.

                                   versus

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR
TEACHER EDUCATION AND ANR                 ..... Respondents
               Through:  Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN

                               JUDGEMENT

V.K.JAIN, J. (Oral)

The petitioner before this Court submitted two applications - one on 16.4.2008 and the other on 28/29.7.2008 to the Northern Regional Committee of the respondent-NCTE. The application submitted on 16.4.2008 was for JBT Course whereas the application submitted on 28/29.7.2008 was for B.Ed. Course. Vide order dated 7.6.2011, the Northern Regional Committee of NCTE, rejected the application submitted on 28/29.7.2008, seeking permission to start B.Ed. Course.

2. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before NCTE which came to be decided vide order dated 4.11.2011. The NCTE noted the submission of the petitioner that the application submitted on 16.4.2008 seeking to start JBT Course was for the academic year 2008-2009 whereas the application submitted on 29.7.2008 to start B.Ed. Course was for the academic year 2009-2010. The NCTE noted that the cut off date for submission of the application was 31 st October of the

preceding year to the academic session for which the recognition is sought and, therefore, JBT Course application submitted in April, 2008 as well as B.Ed. Course application submitted in July, 2008, both were the applications for the session 2009-2010 only. The NCTE rejected the claim of the petitioner that the application filed in April, 2008 was for the session 2008-2009. NCTE also considered clause 8(2) of the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms & Procedure) Regulations, 2009 (for short „2009 Regulations‟), which stipulates that "in the first instance an institution shall be considered for grant of recognition of only one course for the basic unit as prescribed in the norms and standards for the particular teacher education programme" and held that the Northern Regional Committee can process only one application of the Institution. The NCTE after noting the aforesaid Regulation was of the view that the petitioner was required to decide as to which would be the Course/application for further processing by NRC and thereafter NRC would inspect the Institution for ascertaining the infrastructure and instructional facilities available for the opted course. The appeal was decided accordingly.

3. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid decision of the NCTE, the petitioner filed WP (C) No.3986/2012, which came to be decided vide order dated 10.7.2012. The petition was not pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner in view of Regulation 8(2) of the 2009 Regulations and he submitted that a fresh application for the second course in accordance with law and policy framed by the respondents would be submitted.

4. It appears that in view of the order passed by this Court on 10.7.2012, the petitioner opted for processing of the application submitted for starting D.Ed. Course. The application for the B.Ed. Course came to be

rejected vide order dated 8.1.2013, which has been impunged in the present writ petition. The said order, to the extent it is relevant, reads as under:

"* Mahendra College of Education, Majra Road, Mahendragarh-123029, Haryana has been granted recognition for running D.Ed. Course by NRC, Jaipur vide its letter dated 31.07.2012.

* The fresh application of the college for B.Ed. Course may be processed only after three academic sessions of D.Ed. Course of NCTE Regulations, 2009 in the light of the observations of the Hon‟ble High Court which are mentioned below:-

"________that petitioner will make a fresh application for the second course, in accordance with law and policy framed by the respondents."

* No action is required to the contents of the letter dated 06.11.2012 of the college.

In view of the above decision of NRC, the committee decided that no action is required to the content of the letter dated 06.11.2012 submitted by the institution in the NRC office. This is for your information in compliance of above order of the Hon‟ble High Court."

5. The learned counsel for the respondent-NCTE has drawn my attention to Regulation 8(2) of the 2009 Regulations which this Court has already considered in WP (C) No.3986/2012 as well as Regulation 8(3) of the 2009 Regulations which came into force on 31.8.2009. The said Regulations read as under:

"8. Conditions for grant of recognition. -

        ....         ....        ....           ....         ....
               ....

(2) In the first instance, an institution shall be considered for grant of recognition of only one course for the basic unit as prescribed in the norms and standards for the particular teacher education programme.

(3) An institution can apply for one basic unit of an additional course or for an additional unit of the existing recognised course after completion of three academic sessions of the respective course, for which the institution shall submit application before the cut off date prescribed for submission of applications in the year succeeding the completion of three academic sessions. Maximum intake capacity of an institution taking into consideration of all courses, along with additional intake, in any case, shall not exceed 300."

It would, thus, be seen that after coming into force of the 2009 Regulations on 31.8.2009, an institution is permitted to apply for only one course and the application for the second course can be submitted only after completion of three academic sessions of the first course. It is also an admitted position that the application is to be submitted in the academic year preceding the year from which the course is sought to be started.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner states, on instructions from the Secretary of the petitioner-Society that the first course opted by the petitioner in terms of order dated 4.11.2011 passed by NCTE was D.Ed. Course and the second application which the petitioner had submitted was for B.Ed. Course. It is an admitted case that the petitioner was permitted to start D.Ed. Course vide letter dated 31.7.2012, from the academic year 2012-2013. In view of Regulations 8(2) & 8(3) of the 2009 Regulations, the application for the second course, i.e., B.Ed. Course would not lie till the petitioner has completed three sessions of the first Course, i.e., D.Ed. Course. I, therefore, find no merit in the challenge to the order dated 8.1.2013 passed by the Northern Regional Committee of NCTE, whereby it has rejected the application of the petitioner seeking permission to start the B.Ed. Course.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 2009 Regulations, which came into force on 31.8.2009, should not be applied to

the case of the petitioner since he had submitted both the applications dated 16.4.2008 & 29.7.2008 before the said Regulations came to be notified. As noted earlier this contention of the petitioner was expressly rejected by the NCTE vide order dated 4.11.2011, when NCTE gave option to the petitioner to choose one of the two courses it had applied for. Had the contention of the petitioner been accepted, the NCTE would have directed the Northern Regional Committee to process both the applications of the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner, seeking to obtain permission, for two courses in the same year was also not accepted by this Court, since the writ petition was dismissed as not pressed after noticing Regulation 8(2) of the 2009 Regulations. In fact, it was the counsel for the petitioner who in view of Regulation 8(2) of the 2009 Regulations did not press the writ petition. Therefore, the view taken by NCTE applying regulation 8(2) of the 2009 Regulations became final and it is no more open to the petitioner to contend in the present writ petition, that the 2009 Regulations do not apply to the present case.

For the reasons stated hereinabove, the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to costs.

DECEMBER 05, 2013                                             V.K. JAIN, J.
b'nesh