Saras Wati Deep College Of ... vs National Council For Teacher ...
2018 Latest Caselaw 7120 Del

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                          Date of decision: 3rd December, 2018

+        LPA 619/2018

SARAS WATI DEEP COLLEGE OF EDUCATION ..... Appellant
                  Through: Mr. Sanjay Sharawat,
                  Mr. Divank Rana and Mr. Ashok Kumar,
                  Advs.

                      Versus

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION
& ANR.                                 Respondents
                 Through: Ms. Arunima Dwivedi,
                  Standing Counsel with Ms. Preeti
                  Kumra, Adv. for R1 and R2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL)

REV. PET. 418/2018

1. This Review Petition has been filed by the petitioner

seeking review of order dated 31 st October, 2018 passed by this

court, rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner.

2. The review petition has been filed by the petitioner on the

grounds (1) that certain vital grounds / submissions urged by the

appellant in the LPA which have a significant bearing upon the

issues involved have escaped the attention of this Court while

passing the said order. The case of the appellant before the

learned Single Judge was that once NCTE has invited

applications from any State after considering the

recommendations made by the Government of that State, then

any kind of general ban subsequently imposed by the

Government on opening of new institutions shall not apply to

the pending applications. According to him, it was on the basis

of this policy decision the petitioner had urged that the

subsequent ban imposed by the State should not override the

decision of the NCTE initially taken to invite applications.

There is no dispute that the inputs of the State

Government are necessary but the authority for taking the decision

lies with the NCTE and after receiving the State inputs, if the NCTE

takes a decision to consider the pending applications, irrespective of

the subsequently imposed ban by the State Government, no fault

can be found with such a decision; (2) that the order dated 18th July,

2018 passed by the Supreme Court has no applicability to the facts

of the present case has not been considered by this Court; (3) There

is an error apparent on the face of the record as the two orders

passed by the Supreme Court have not been considered. The said

orders have a vital bearing upon the issue involved in the present

case. When the two writ petitions came to be listed before

another Bench of the Supreme Court on 06 th August, 2018, the

NCTE placed reliance upon the order dated 18 th July, 2018 to

contend that such relief has already been denied to the

Association by another Bench and thus the writ petition must be

dismissed, however when reliance was placed by the petitioner

therein on the orders passed by the NCTE on 20 th November, 2017

and 27th November, 2017 and several orders and more particularly

Three Bench decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of

Maharashtra v. Sant Dhyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra

Mahavidyalaya (2006) 9 SCC 1, such plea had been accepted

and the writ petitions were allowed by observing that such policy

decisions of the State Government have already been struck down

by this court; (4) That the law as laid down by the Supreme court

in State of Maharashtra (supra) has not been considered by this

court wherein it has been held that the final authority to grant

recognition under the NCTE Act is NCTE and absence or non-

grant of NOC was immaterial and irrelevant so far as the

power of the NCTE is concerned. Even the Judgment of the

Supreme Court in the case of Mata Vaishno Devi Mahila

Mahavidyalaya v. State of UP and Ors. 2013 2 SCC 617 has also not

been considered.

3. Having heard Mr. Sharawat on the review, we are of the view,

that attempt of Mr. Sharawat is to re-argue the writ petition. Suffice

it to state that the present appeal has been filed by the appellant

challenging the order of the learned Single Judge who has declined

to grant the interim relief on the basis of the order passed by the

Supreme Court. This Court noting the fact that the NCTE has

independently considered the application filed by the petitioner, and

by relying upon the notification issued by the Government of

Haryana, has decided to return the respective applications so

received from the respective institutions along with fee, which

according to us is a decision of the NCTE by taking into

consideration the decision of the State of Haryana, which is a

necessary input for the NCTE to take the said decision and which

decision cannot be faulted. Such a conclusion is not an error

apparent on the face of the record.

4. In so far as the reliance placed by Mr. Sharawat on the

orders passed by the Supreme Court in two writ petitions is

concerned, the facts in those cases are different inasmuch as in

W.P.(C) No. 577/2018, the Supreme Court was concerned with a

petition filed by the College where orders of affiliation have not

been passed. Surely, such a relief pre-supposes the recognition

having been granted by the NCTE. Insofar as W.P.(C) No. 966/2018

is concerned, the writ petition was filed assailing the order of the

NCTE for granting recognition in the year 2019-20. The Supreme

Court granted recognition for the academic year 2018-19. In other

words, recognition having been granted, the writ petition was filed

for a limited prayer for granting recognition from an earlier year i.e.

2018-19.

5. Suffice it to state, we have not been shown any order of the

Court where the notification of the State of Haryana, which was

relied upon by NCTE in returning the applications, has been set

aside. That apart, Mr. Sharawat relied upon the judgment of the

Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. LBS B.Ed.

College and Ors. (2016) 16 SCC 110 to contend that the Supreme

Court has upheld the processing of applications in the manner laid

down in Regulation 7 of the 2014 Regulations. There cannot be any

dispute on the law laid down by the Supreme Court in that case.

But the aid case was relatable to the State of Rajasthan and the

:

Supreme Court was not concerned with a similar notification issued by

the State of Haryana. The judgment is distinguishable.

6. In view of the discussion above, we do not find any merit in

the review petition, the same is dismissed.

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

CHIEF JUSTICE

DECEMBER 03, 2018/jg