Delhi High Court
Apex Professional University vs National Council For Teacher ... on 19 February, 2020
$~49
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 1943/2020 & CM No.6803/2020
Date of decision: 19.02.2020
APEX PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Ms. Binisa
Mohanty and Ms. Priti Kumar, Advs.
versus
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER
EDUCATION AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through : Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, Standing
Counsel with Ms. Niharika Rai and
Mrs. Ankita, Advs. for NCTE.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL):
CM No.6803/2020
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 1943/2020
2. Issue notice to the respondents.
3. Ms. Arunima Dwivedi accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.
4. Ms. Dwivedi says that she would advance the submissions in the
matter based on the record.
5. The substantive prayers made in the writ petition are as follows :
"(a) a writ of certiorari or any other suitable writ or order
quashing and setting aside the impugned decision taken by ERC in
its 278th meeting held on 16th - 18th January, 2020 rejecting
petitioners' application for integrated teacher education
programme (ITEP) i.e. [Pre-Primary to Primary (Arts Stream),
Pre-Primary to Primary (Science Stream), Upper Primary to
Secondary (Arts Stream) and Upper Primary to Secondary
(Science Stream)]; and/or
(b) writ of mandamus or any other suitable writ, order or
direction directing the respondents to process the petitioners'
application for integrated teacher education programme (ITEP)
for i.e. [Pre- Primary to Primary (Arts Stream), Pre-Primary to
Primary (Science Stream), Upper Primary to Secondary (Arts
Stream) and Upper Primary to Secondary (Science Stream)]."
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners says that the only reason that the
petitioners' application for Integrated Teacher Education Programme (ITEP)
qua the subject course was rejected was because a hard copy of the online
application had not been received by the respondents within 15 days, as
prescribed.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners says that the respondents have
misread the relevant regulation. In this behalf, my attention has been drawn
to Regulation 7(2)(b) of the National Council for Teacher Education
(Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2014 (in short "2014
Regulations"). The said regulation reads as follows :
"7. Processing of applications.-
xxx xxx xxx
(2) The application shall be summarily rejected under one or
more of the following circumstance -
xxx xxx xxx
(b) failure to submit print out of the applications made online
along with the land documents as required under sub-
regulation (4) of Regulation 5 within fifteen days of the
submission of the online application."
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the expression
"submit" in the aforementioned regulation does not necessarily exclude
other modes of submission, for example, submission made via post.
9. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that as long
as the concerned applicant has dispatched a hard copy of the online
application before the expiry of 15 days via post, his application cannot be
rejected by invoking the provisions of Regulation 7(2)(b).
10. Furthermore, learned counsel for the petitioners says that the
expression "submit" cannot be equated with receipt of the hard copy of the
online application.
11. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, the issue raised in the
instant matter is covered by a series of orders passed by co-ordinate benches
of this court. In this behalf, my attention has been drawn to the following
orders :
(i) Order dated 23.05.2016, passed in W.P.(C)No.4667/2016, titled :
Raiganj Educare v. National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.
(ii) Order dated 21.02.2018, passed in W.P.(C)No.1634/2018, titled :
Kumar B.Ed. College v. National Council for Teacher Education &
Anr.
(iii) Order dated 23.02.2018, passed in W.P.(C)No.7597/2016, titled :
Midnapore Institute of Education v. National Council for Teacher
Education & Anr.
12. In support of the aforementioned plea, it is pointed out that the hard
copy of the online application was dispatched via speed post on 14.08.2019
which was well within 15 days window provided under Regulation 7(2)(b)
as the online application filed by the petitioners was uploaded only on
31.07.2019.
12.1 Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the documents
appended on pages 113 and 129 to 131 of the paper book for this purpose.
12.2 Since the document at page 130 is illegible, a better copy of the same
has been placed before me. A perusal of this photocopy shows that the hard
copy of the online application was, apparently, dispatched via speed post on
14.08.2019.
13. Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, who appears on behalf of the respondents, on
the other hand, submits that the provisions of Regulation 7(2)(b) are
sacrosanct and once a hard copy of the online application is not received
within 15 days of the online application being uploaded, the respondents
have every right to reject the application.
14. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record,
in my view, as correctly argued by learned counsel for the petitioners, if the
regulation were to be applied everything would turn on the expression
"submission".
15. The expression "submission" is not hemmed-in as to its width and
amplitude by prescription of any mode by which submission is to be made
by the concerned applicant.
16. Learned counsel for the petitioners is right that the hard copy of the
online application can be submitted by various modes which includes
submission via speed post as also physical delivery.
17. Furthermore, I agree with learned counsel for the petitioners that the
expression "submit" cannot be equated with the word "receipt". As long as
the hard copy of the online application is dispatched via post before the
expiry of the prescribed period of 15 days, it would not fall foul of
Regulation 7(2)(b).
18. I may also note that, although, the court has expressed a prima facie
view in the order dated 23.05.2016, passed in W.P.(C)No.4667/2016 i.e.
Raiganj Educare case, that Regulation 7(2)(b) may not be valid, no final
view has been rendered by at least this court.
19. Learned counsel for the parties have not been able to place any
decision which renders a final view on the validity of Regulation 7(2)(b).
However, to my mind, there is merit in the submission of the learned
counsel for the petitioners, as was observed by the court in the very same
judgment that once an online application has been submitted, the failure to
submit a hard copy within the prescribed period can only be an irregularity
for which a drastic step such as rejection of the application cannot be taken
and that too, in my view, without any prior notice.
20. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, I am inclined to allow the writ
petition. It is ordered accordingly.
21. The impugned decision is set aside. The Eastern Regional Committee
(ERC) will reconsider the application of the petitioners, albeit, in
accordance with the extant provisions of the law.
22. Since the prescribed cut-off date is 30.04.2020, the ERC will carry out
the aforesaid exercise with due expedition, though, not later than four weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
23. Dasti.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
FEBRUARY 19, 2020
aj
