Delhi High Court
Meghraj Memorial Educational And ... vs National Council For Teacher ... on 29 October, 2015
Author: Rajiv Shakdher
$~14
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 9693/2015
MEGHRAJ MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL
AND SOCIAL WELFARE TRUST & ANR ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr Amitesh Kumar, Adv.
versus
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION
& ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr Anil Soni, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
ORDER
% 29.10.2015
1. Captioned petition is directed against the order dated 22.09.2015
issued by the respondents. By this order, the petitioners' application for
grant of recognition for a two-years B.Ed. course, filed under Section 14 of
the NCTE Act, 1993 (in short the NCTE Act), was rejected.
1.1 The reason for rejecting the application for recognition is simply this,
which is, that the application was not duly signed on every page.
2. The petitioner being aggrieved, has filed the instant writ petition to
assail the impugned order, inter alia, on the ground that no opportunity for
correcting the deficiency, if any, was given. It is the submission of the
petitioner that principles of natural justice were violated. In this behalf, the
petitioner relies on both, the provisions of Section 14(3)(b) of the NCTE Act
and Regulation 7(17) of the NCTE Regulations, 2014 (in short the 2014
Regulation).
3. Notice in this petition was issued on 13.10.2015. On that date,
accommodation was sought by the counsel for the respondents so that he
could revert with, necessary instructions in the matter. While respondents
were accommodated, it was made clear that in case they were desirous of
resisting the petition, they would file their counter affidavit before the next
date of hearing.
4. It is in this background that the matter has come up for hearing today.
5. Mr Soni, learned counsel for the respondents, has reverted with
instructions. He has placed on record extracts of the "corrigendum for 194th
and 195th Minutes of ERC Meeting", which is indicative of the fact that a
decision has been taken that the application for recognition filed, by the
petitioners, would be processed.
5.1 Mr Soni, based on the aforesaid, has stated that the application for
recognition will be examined afresh, on merits, in accordance with the
provisions of the NCTE Act and 2014 Regulations.
6. Mr Amitesh Kumar, who appears for the petitioner, says that in view
of the stand taken by the respondents, he does not wish to press the instant
writ petition any further as it has worked itself out. His only apprehension is
that, there may be delay in the application being processed on merits, and
thereby, the chances of the petitioner to obtain recognition for the academic
year 2016-2017, may get jeopardized.
6.1 Mr Soni, on the other hand, assures the court that the needful will be
done with due expedition.
7. Having regard to the above, the writ petition is disposed of, in view of
the stand taken by the respondents that the petitioners' application for
recognition will be processed on merits. The respondents are thus directed
to process the application on merits, with due expedition, though not later
than ten (10) weeks from today.
8. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
OCTOBER 29, 2015
kk
