Delhi High Court
Kamla Devi Sohan Raj Singhvi Jain ... vs National Council For Teacher ... on 4 December, 2017
$~52
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 04.12.2017
+ LPA 771/2017
KAMLA DEVI SOHAN RAJ SINGHVI JAIN COLLEGE OF
EDUCATION ..... Appellant
Through : Mr Mayank Manish and Mr
Ravi Kant, Advocates.
versus
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER
EDUCATION & ANR ..... Respondents
Through : Ms Arunima Dwivedi, Ms
Preeti Kumra and Ms Nirbhay
Kumar Pathak, Advocates for
R-1 & 2.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. (OPEN COURT)
CM No.44048 /2017(exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
CM No.44049/2017(delay in filing appeal for 34 days)
For the reasons stated in the application and in the interest of
justice, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The application is
disposed of.
LPA 771/2017
1. Issue notice. Ms Arunima Dwivedi, Advocate accepts notice
for the respondents.
2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the
Appeal is heard today.
3. The Appellant is aggrieved by an order of the learned Single
Judge rejecting its Writ Petition. It had approached the Court for a
direction to the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) to
grant recognition to its Institution; it imparts training and Diploma to
teachers in Bachelor in Education(B.Ed.) Course. It was established
in 2008.
4. The Single Judge rejected the Writ Petition holding that there
was no infirmity in the approach of the NCTE or its authorities in the
rejection while rejecting the application.
5. The petitioner had, on 30.05.2015, applied, through the online
procedure to the NCTE through its Regional Committee for grant of
recognition for the Elementary Education (D.El.Ed.) Course along
with the requisite documents and processing fee of Rs.1.5 lakhs.
6. The processing procedure went on, on a considerable time, and
on 22.02.2016 a show-cause notice was issued to the Appellant.
7. The subject-matter of the show-cause notice related to the
deficiency in the building plan with regard to plot number etc. The
Appellant submitted the blueprint of Building Plan indicating the plot
number, total land area, total built up area etc. This was furnished to
the respondent - NCTE on 24.02.2016. However, the Regional
Committee in its meeting held on 02.05.2016 rejected the application
of the Petitioner.
8. The Writ Petitioner approached the Appellate Authority against
the order of the Regional Committee and filed the online appeal on
11.07.2016. The Appellate Authority rejected the Appeal on
26.09.2016.
9. The learned Single Judge, after noticing the salient facts,
applied her mind to Regulation 7(1) and while dismissing the Writ
Petition, observed as follows:-
"6. The petitioner institute had made an online
application on 30.06.2015. This application has
been annexed as P-3. The column for 'plot no.' as
appearing on page 3 of the application reflects
'NA' and the address thus reads as 'street no. 6,
P.O. Cossipare, Kolkata (WB)'; clearly the
application does not mention any plot no. A show
cause notice (dated 22.02.2016) to this effect
calling upon the petitioner to submit a proper
Building plan indicating plot no., total land area,
total built up area and duly approved by any govt.
engineer on or before 29.02.2016 was issued
keeping in view that the last date for
granting/refusal of recognition for the session
2016-2017 was 03.03.2016; written representation
to be filed within 21 days of issuance of the show
cause notice. This court notes that the petitioner
had thus been granted ample opportunity to reply
to the show cause notice and to submit a valid and
acceptable building plan thereby curing the defect
qua his application. It is the case of the
respondents that after considering the
representation (dated 02.05.2016) submitted by the
petitioner, which was highly belated having been
filed on 02.05.2016 when the last date as per the
time schedule was 29.02.2016; it was also
incomplete (plot no. and name of institution not
being indicated in the reply along with blue print
building plan); the application thus rightly stood
rejected. The show cause notice was clear in its
terms, it explicitly required the petitioner to submit
a building plan indicating plot number, total land
area, total built up area duly approved by any
government engineer, but the same was not
answered either in the representation or as per the
requirement of Regulation 7(2)(b). It was the
mandate of regulations 5 and 7 of the Regulation
of 2014, that on the date of filing of the
application, the mandatory infrastructural
requirements prescribed under law had to be
complied with and these had to be specifically and
clearly mentioned in the application. Despite the
lacunae appearing in the application of the
petitioner institute, respondent no. 2 had still
afforded due opportunities to the petitioner to
rectify the same. Thus, the contention of the
petitioner that no opportunity had been granted to
him to explain the error on page 3 of the
application cannot be accepted.
10. It is urged on behalf of the Appellant that once the Appellate
Authority was seized of the grievance and had occasion to consider
the document, i.e. the blueprint of Building Plan indicating the plot
number, total land area, total built up area etc., it ought not to have
rejected the Appeal.
11. Counsel stressed that in overlooking this aspect and confining
the enquiry to the narrow framework of Regulation 7 and holding that
Original application, when furnished, was deficient and, therefore,
Regulation was not complied with, the Single Judge erred.
12. The learned counsel for the NCTE argued that the Regulations
have to be complied with strictly. It was highlighted that the Schedule
for admissions to the Institutions, is non-negotiable. She relied upon
the decision of the Supreme Court in Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila
Mahavidyalaya versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Others, 2013(2) SCC
617.
13. It is stated that once the Schedules are prescribed- the schedule
here - emanated from the cut-off date of 03.03.2017, the question of
entertaining any further applications for recognition did not arise.
14. It is not in dispute that, in the present case, the original proposal
for rejection by the Regional Committee was on 13-15.04.2016. On
its communication, the appellant filed the blueprint of Building Plan
indicating the plot number, total land area, total built up area etc..
That Building Plan was matter of record before the Appellate
Authority.
15. For unknown reasons, the Appellate Authority completely
ignored the Building Plan and did not take remedial action, either to
have the premises re-inspected or verified or remitted to the concerned
Eastern Regional Committee (ERC). Even if assuming that the
appellate authority could not corelate the Building Plan, it could have
remitted the matter to the concerned ERC. It is not in dispute that a
copy of the Building Plan with complete requisite details indicating
the plot number, total land area, total built up area etc., was filed
along with the Writ Petition.
16. Undoubtedly, for the Academic Year 2016-2017, the Appellant
had missed the bus. However, in the opinion of the Court, was only
half story. That the Appeal was kept on the file and decided three
months later, i.e. 29.09.2016 necessitated that the Appellate Authority
should have at least gone into the aspect and obtained necessary input
at the relevant time to satisfy itself after due inspection, if needed, that
the concerned deficiency had been taken care of. It is a dereliction.
This does not and cannot, in the opinion of the Court, translate into
denial of the Appellant's right to consideration at least for the next
year. The rejection of its Writ Petition, in these circumstances, has
virtually resulted in it being put back to the Regional Committee when
it has not filed its application.
17. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is hereby directed that
the blueprint of Building Plan filed shall be considered by the ERC,
which shall then proceed to make appropriate orders, after processing
all documents, to ensure that in the event the Appellant satisfies the
prescribed requirements of the National Council for Teachers
Education Act, 1993 and the Regulations framed under the Act, its
decision is communicated to it sufficiently in advance and in any
event, not later than 31.01.2018.
18. Needless to say, in the event, the NCTE or its authorities decide
that the Appellant's request/application for recognition is justified, it
would be for the coming Academic Year 2018-2019.
19. In the event the Authorities deem it necessary to inspect the
premises, the Appellant shall be notified about the formalities such as
payment/deposit of inspection fee at the earliest to ensure that the
outer time limit indicated by the Court is adhered to.
20. The Appeal is allowed in the above terms.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT
(JUDGE)
SANJEEV SACHDEVA
(JUDGE)
DECEMBER 04, 2017/'Sn'
