Delhi High Court
Rao Umrao Singh Teacher Training ... vs National Council For Teacher ... on 10 September, 2020
$~A-15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 10.09.2020
+ W.P.(C) 6224/2020
RAO UMRAO SINGH TEACHER
TRAINING COLLEGE ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjay Sharawat, Advocate
versus
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER
EDUCATION & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms.Arunima Dwivedi, Standing
Counsel
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
JAYANT NATH, J.(ORAL)
This hearing is conducted through video conferencing.
1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking an appropriate writ
to direct respondent No.2 to decide the application of the petitioner for B.A.
B.Ed/B.Sc. B.Ed course expeditiously for the academic session 2020-2021
by taking into account the processing fee paid by way of demand draft.
Other connected reliefs are also sought.
2. The case of the petitioner is that for the academic session 2017-2018
NCTE issued a public notice inviting applications from institutions for
seeking recognition for various teacher training courses. The petitioner
submitted an application to NRC on 06.06.2016 for seeking of recognition
of B.A. B.Ed/B.Sc. B.Ed course. Along with an application, the petitioner
paid a process fee of Rs.1.5 lacs by demand draft dated 31.05.2016, drawn
on ICICI Bank.
W.P.(C) 6224/2020 Page 1 of 5
3. The case of the petitioner is that NRC was required to process
application in a time bound manner. However, the petitioner did not receive
any communication from NRC despite repeated calls to the office or its
customer phone. Thereafter, the NCTE by notification shifted all four
Regiona l Committees to Delhi. It is stated that no activity was taking place
in NRC in March- December 2017. It is stated that several visits have been
made to the office of the respondent but no information was made available.
In March, 2020, the petitioner visited the WRC and came to know about
rejection of the application by NRC on 29.12.2016. It is stated that WRC
has handed over a copy order and the petitioner was shocked to learn that
the application has been rejected on the ground of non -submission of the
processing fee through online.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner pleads that the knowledge of the
rejection order has been received now on 20.03.2020 and hence there is no
delay or laches on the part of the petitioner. He also relies upon an order
passed by the learned Single Judge of High Court of Judicature for
Rajasthan at Jodhpur being (SB) Civil Writ Petition No.14234/2018 dated
27.05.2019, titled 'Global Teachers Training College v. NCTE & Anr.' to
plead that under similar facts and circumstances, the court had directed the
respondent to process the application as the respondent should not rest on
technicalities.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent at the outset relies upon the NCTE
Regulations 2014 to submit that it is mandatory under Regulation 6 to give
the fees online and that failure to submit the fee online results in summary
rejection of the application as stated in Regulations 7(2)(a).
6. Regulations 6 and 7 of the NCTE Regulations, 2014 read as follows:
W.P.(C) 6224/2020 Page 2 of 5
"6. Processing Fees.--
The processing fee as prescribed under rule 9 of the National
Council for Teacher Education Rules, 1997 as amended from
time to time, shall be paid by the applicant for processing of an
application for grant of recognition to an institution to conduct a
teacher education programme or addition to programme or
intake in the existing programme, online to the designated
banks as may be notified by the Council.
7. Processing of applications.--
(1) In case an application is not complete, or requisite
documents are not attached with the application, the application
shall be treated: incomplete and rejected, and application fees
paid shall be forfeited.
(2) The application shall be summarily rejected under one or
more of the following circumstance--
( a) failure to furnish the application fee, as prescribed under
rule 9 of the National Council for Teacher Education Rules,
1997 on or before the date of submission of online
application;
(b) failure to submit print out of the applications made
online alongwith the land documents as required under sub-
regulation (4) of Regulation 5 within fifteen days of the
submission of the online application.
(3) Furnishing any false information or concealment of facts in
the application, which may have bearing on the decision making
process or the decision pertaining to grant of recognition, shall
result in refusal of recognition of the institution besides other
legal action against its management. The order of refusal of
recognition shall be passed after giving reasonable opportunity
through a show cause notice to the institution."
W.P.(C) 6224/2020 Page 3 of 5
7. Hence, it follows from the above that the processing fees under Rule 9
of the Rules has to be paid online to the designated banks as notified by the
council. Under Regulation 7(2) (a)- application shall be summarily rejected
where there is a failure to furnish the application fee as prescribed under
Rule 9.
8. It is manifest in the present case that there is a flagrant violation of the
aforesaid regulations by the petitioner in not filing the concerned processing
fees online. Hence, the plea of the petitioner cannot be accepted.
9. That apart I may note that the application for recognition was filed by
the petitioner on 06.06.2016. He has now in September, 2020 chosen to
approach this court stating that he has received knowledge of rejection of the
application in March, 2020. Various explanations are given including that
follow up was done with the respondent on phone/personal visits, he was
never informed about anything and even he did not receive a copy of the
rejection order.
10. In my opinion, the present petition is also clearly hit by delay and
laches. The petitioner having filed the application on 06.06.2016 has been
complacent and did not take any meaningful follow up of his application. It
has taken four years for the petitioner to wake up and file this petition
[Reference: State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal, (1986) 4 SCC 566].
11. Heavy reliance was made by the learned counsel for the petitioner on
the order passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan in the afore-
noted case of Global Teachers Training College v. NCTE & Anr.(supra).
That is a case where the facts are somewhat identical to this case in the sense
that the Educational Institution there had applied for granting recognition on
W.P.(C) 6224/2020 Page 4 of 5
06.06.2016 and was accompanied by fees of Rs.1.5 lacs fees through
demand draft. In those circumstances the court had held as follows:-
"6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after
perusing the material available on record, this court is of the
opinion that once the respondents themselves have permitted
the institutions to submit the recognition fee through demand
draft uptil 2015, therefore, such exemption needs to be carried
forward and such technicality cannot become the basis of
rejection of application of the petitioner. However, at the same
time, this court also realises that once the clause 5 of
Regulations of 2014 came into vogue, the petitioner should
have been duly diligent and should have been deposited the
recognition fee online rather than submitting a demand draft."
12. As is obvious, the above writ petition was filed in the Rajasthan High
Court in 2018. In the present case, the petitioner has now approach this court
in 2020. Delay and laches is manifest. Hence, the above judgment does not
help the petitioner in any manner.
13. There is no merit in the petition. The same is dismissed.
JAYANT NATH, J.
SEPTEMBER 10, 2020/v
