Delhi High Court
Khatu Shyam College vs National Council For Teacher ... on 22 February, 2022
$~15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 22.02.2022
+ W.P.(C) 8568/2019&CM APPL. 5832/2022
KHATU SHYAM COLLEGE ..... Petitioner
Through Mr Sanjay Sharawat, Advocate.
versus
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION AND ANR.
..... Respondents
Through Mr Shivam Singh, Standing Counsel
with Mr Jaideep Khanna and Mr
Hamza Tariq, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL):
[Court hearing convened via video-conferencing on account of COVID-19]
1. The substantive prayers made in the writ petition are as follows:
"(a) Issue a writ of Certiorari and quash Regulation 5 [3]
of National Council for Teacher Education
[Recognition Norms and Procedure] Regulations,
2014 to the extent it requires the Petitioner to submit No
Objection Certificate [NOC] issued by the concerned
Affiliating Body as the same is ultra vires the NCTE
Act, 1993 and Article 14 and 19 of the Constitution of
India; and
(b) Issue a writ of certiorari and quash the order dated
10.08.2016 passed by the Respondent No.2 and
consequently direct the said Respondent to decide the
application of the Petitioner for grant of recognition for
B.A.B.Ed/B.Sc.B.Ed course in accordance with law; "
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:MAMTA
RANI
Signing Date:24.02.2022W.P.(C)
2. Mr Sanjay Sharawat, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, says
that the petitioner metamorphosed into a private university on 05.10.2018,
and, thus, stands recognised by the State of Rajasthan.
3. Given this position, Mr Sharawat says that the petitioner is not
required to obtain a No Objection Certificate (NOC) under Regulation 5 (3)
of the National Council for Teacher Education [Recognition Norms and
Procedure] Regulations, 2014 [in short "2014 Regulations"].
3.1. In other words, it is Mr Sharawat's contention that the petitioner
cannot obviously be put in a position where it issues an NOC to itself,
having now been recognised as a private university.
3.2. Therefore, Mr Sharawat says that the petitioner can now straightaway
approach the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) for
recognition, which was not granted earlier because it did not have an NOC.
3.3. It is in this context that the petitioner in the writ petition had laid,
inter alia, a challenge to the order dated 10.08.2016 passed by respondent
no. 2 i.e., Northern Regional Committee, NCTE. Mr Sharawat says that the
work of the Northern Regional Committee is now handled by the Western
Regional Committee, insofar as the State of Rajasthan is concerned.
3.4. Thus, it is also Mr Sharawat's contention that prayer clause (a) in the
writ petition need not be pressed.
4. On the previous date, we had asked Mr Shivam Singh to obtain
instructions in the matter. Mr Singh has reverted with instructions.
4.1. It is Mr Singh's submission that he cannot but accept the fact that
since the petitioner has been recognised as a University by the State of
Rajasthan, the requirement for it to obtain an NOC has been rendered
inefficacious in the petitioner's case.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:MAMTA
RANI
Signing Date:24.02.2022W.P.(C)
5. Therefore, the only other issue, even according to Mr Singh, which
arises for consideration of respondent no. 2 i.e., now Western Regional
Committee, NCTE would be, whether or not the petitioner should be granted
recognition.
5.1. We may note that the fact that the petitioner has been recognised as a
University, is evident from the document appended as Annexure "A-2" to
CM APPL. 5832/2022. This is a document, which establishes that the
petitioner has been recognised as a University.
6. Therefore, we are of the opinion that respondent no. 2 i.e., Western
Regional Committee, NCTE would have to re-examine the matter as to
whether or not the petitioner should be accorded recognition.
6.1. Consequently, the impugned order dated 10.08.2016 is set aside.
6.2. Respondent no. 2/Western Regional Committee, NCTE will re-
examine the matter afresh.
6.3. Respondent no. 2/Western Regional Committee, NCTE will be at
liberty to call for additional information/documents from the petitioner in
case it is deemed necessary.
6.4. Needless to add, since the issue now involved concerns recognition of
the petitioner, respondent no. 2/Western Regional Committee, NCTE will
act with due expedition.
6.5. The aforesaid exercise will be completed at the earliest, though not
later than 12 weeks from the date of the receipt of the copy of the judgement
rendered today.
7. Parties will act based on the digitally signed copy of this judgment.
8. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Consequently,
pending application shall stand closed.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:MAMTA
RANI
Signing Date:24.02.2022W.P.(C)
9. Resultantly, the date already fixed in the matter shall stand cancelled.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
TALWANT SINGH, J
FEBRUARY 22, 2022/pa
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:MAMTA
RANI
Signing Date:24.02.2022W.P.(C)
