Delhi High Court
Shekhawati Shikshak Parsikshan ... vs National Council For Teacher ... on 3 March, 2022
Via VideoConferencing
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 10.02.2022
Date of decision: 03.03.2022
+ W.P.(C) 2047/2022
SHEKHAWATI SHIKSHAK PARSIKSHAN SANSTHAN
..... Petitioner
versus
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION & ANR.
..... Respondents
with W.P.(C) 988/2021, W.P.(C) 992/2021, W.P.(C) 995/2021,
W.P.(C)996/2021, W.P.(C) 1012/2021, W.P.(C) 1031/2021,
W.P.(C)1039/2021, W.P.(C) 1040/2021, W.P.(C) 1047/2021,
W.P.(C)1203/2021, W.P.(C) 1205/2021, W.P.(C) 1212/2021,
W.P.(C)1232/2021, W.P.(C) 1327/2021,W.P.(C) 1519/2021,
W.P.(C)1676/2021. W.P.(C) 1758/2021, W.P.(C) 1764/2021,
W.P.(C)1918/2021, W.P.(C) 2022/2021, W.P.(C) 2177/2021,
W.P.(C)2656/2021, W.P.(C) 2657/2021, W.P.(C) 2663/2021,
W.P.(C)2678/2021, W.P.(C) 2829/2021, W.P.(C) 3047/2021,
W.P.(C)3050/2021, W.P.(C) 3051/2021, W.P.(C) 3052/2021,
W.P.(C)3053/2021, W.P.(C) 3054/2021, W.P.(C) 3056/2021,
W.P.(C)3057/2021, W.P.(C) 3073/2021, W.P.(C) 3100/2021,
W.P.(C)3101/2021, W.P.(C) 3169/2021, W.P.(C) 3335/2021,
W.P.(C)3342/2021, W.P.(C) 3346/2021, W.P.(C) 3363/2021,
W.P.(C)3364/2021, W.P.(C) 3474/2021, W.P.(C) 3475/2021,
W.P.(C)3478/2021, W.P.(C) 3547/2021, W.P.(C) 3562/2021,
W.P.(C)3552/2021, W.P.(C) 3553/2021, W.P.(C) 3569/2021,
W.P.(C)3570/2021, W.P.(C) 3572/2021, W.P.(C) 3575/2021,
W.P.(C)3627/2021, W.P.(C) 3637/2021, W.P.(C) 3664/2021,
W.P.(C)3674/2021, W.P.(C) 3775/2021, W.P.(C) 3905/2021,
W.P.(C)4510/2021, W.P.(C) 4511/2021, W.P.(C) 4586/2021,
W.P.(C)4595/2021, W.P.(C) 4606/2021, W.P.(C) 4856/2021,
W.P.(C)4857/2021, W.P.(C) 4874/2021, W.P.(C) 4875/2021,
W.P.(C)5031/2021, W.P.(C) 5032/2021, W.P.(C) 5034/2021,
W.P.(C)5086/2021, W.P.(C) 5092/2021, W.P.(C) 5131/2021,
W.P.(C)5148/2021, W.P.(C) 5402/2021, W.P.(C) 5411/2021,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:GARIMA MADAN
W.P.(C) 2047/2022 & connected matters Page 1 of 30
Signing Date:03.03.2022
13:09:56
W.P.(C)5545/2021, W.P.(C) 5835/2021, W.P.(C) 6681/2021,
W.P.(C)6698/2021, W.P.(C) 6951/2021, W.P.(C) 7805/2021,
W.P.(C)8839/2021, W.P.(C) 9752/2021, W.P.(C) 9900/2021,
W.P.(C)10057/2021,W.P.(C) 10058/2021, W.P.(C) 11268/2021,
W.P.(C) 11488/2021, W.P.(C) 12797/2021, W.P.(C) 14252/2021,
W.P.(C) 14717/2021, W.P.(C)140/2022, W.P.(C) 153/2022,
W.P.(C)289/2022 & W.P.(C) 2365/2022
Appearances: -
For the petitioners: -
Mr. Mayank Manish & Mr. Ravi Kant, Advs. in W.P.(C) Nos.
1203/2021, 1205/2021, 1212/2021, 1232/2021, 1519/2021, 676/2021,
1918/2021, 3073/2021, 3100/2021, 3335/2021, 3342/2021, 3346/2021,
3363/2021, 3364/2021, 3474/2021, 3478/2021, 5545/2021, 7805/2021
& 2365/2022
Mr. Kunal Jaiman, Advs. in W.P.(C) Nos. 1327/2021, 4606/2021,
5034/2021, 5148/2021 & 9752/2021
Mr. R.K. Ruhil & Mr. Sumit Bishnoi, Advs. in W.P.(C) Nos.
1758/2021 & 1764/2021
Mr.Amitesh Kumar, Mr.Binisa Mohanty & Ms. Priti Kumari, Advs. in
W.P.(C) Nos. 2427/2021, 988/2021, 992/2021, 995/2021, 996/2021,
1012/2021, 1031/2021, 1039/2021, 1040/2021, 1047/2021, 2022/2021,
2177/2021, 2656/2021, 2657/2021, 2663/2021, 2829/2021, 3101/2021,
3169/2021, 3547/2021, 3562/2021, 3570/2021, 3572/2021, 3575/2021,
3627/2021, 3637/2021, 3905/2021, 5031/2021, 5032/2021, 5086/2021,
5092/2021, 5402/2021, 5411/2021, 6681/2021, 6698/2021, 6951/2021,
8839/2021, 9900/2021, 10057/2021, 10058/2021, 12797/2021,
14717/2021, 2497/2022 & 2589/2022.
Mr.Sanjay Sharawat & Mr. Divyank Rana, Advs. in W.P.(C) Nos.
2047/2022, 3050/2021, 3051/2021, 3052/2021, 3053/2021, 3054/2021,
3056/2021, 3057/2021, 3552/2021, 3553/2021, 3569/2021, 3664/2021,
3674/2021, 4510/2021, 4511/2021, 4586/2021, 4595/2021, 4856/2021,
4857/2021, 4874/2021, 4875/2021, 5131/2021, 5835/2021,
11268/2021, 11488/2021, 140/2022, 153/2022 & 289/2022.
For respondents:
Mr. Jai Sahai Endlaw, Mr. Subhoday Banerjee, Mr. Ashutosh Rana &
Mr. Ashish Kumar, Advs. in W.P.(C) Nos. 2047/2022, 988/2021,
992/2021, 995/2021, 1012/2021, 1047/2021, 1203/2021, 1205/2021,
1327/2021, 1519/2021, 1758/202, 2022/2021, 2177/2021, 2656/2021,
2657/2021, 2663/2021, 2678/2021, 2829/2021, 3047/2021, 3050/2021,
3051/2021, 3052/2021, 3053/2021, 3054/2021, 3056/2021, 3057/2021,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:GARIMA MADAN
W.P.(C) 2047/2022 & connected matters Page 2 of 30
Signing Date:03.03.2022
13:09:56
3073/2021, 3100/2021, 3101/2021, 3169/2021, 3335/2021, 3342/2021,
3346/2021, 3363/2021, 3364/2021, 3475/2021, 3547/2021, 3562/2021,
3552/2021, 3553/2021, 3569/2021, 3664/2021, 3674/2021, 3775/2021,
3905/2021, 4510/2021, 4511/2021, 4586/2021, 4595/2021, 4606/2021,
4856/2021, 4857/2021, 4874/2021, 4875/2021, 5031/2021, 5032/2021,
5034/2021, 5086/2021, 5092/2021, 5148/2021, 5402/2021, 5545/2021,
5835/2021, 6681/2021, 6698/2021, 6951/2021, 7805/2021, 8839/2021,
9900/2021, 10057/2021, 10058/2021, 11268/2021, 11488/2021,
14252/2021, 140/2022, 153/2022, 289/2022 & 2365/2022.
Mr.Shivam Singh, Standing Counsel, NCTE with Mr.Jaideep Khanna
& Mr.Hamza Tariq, Advs. in W.P.(C) Nos. 1212/2021, 1232/2021,
1676/2021, 1918/2021, 3342/2021, 3346/2021, 3474/2021 &
3478/2021. Ms. Aakanksha Kaul, Mr. Manek Singh, Mr. Pranav Gupta
& Mr.Aman Sahani, Advs. in W.P.(C) 14717/2021.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
REKHA PALLI, J
JUDGMENT
1. The present batch of petitions preferred under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India assails the respondents' decision to return the
applications submitted by the petitioner institutes in the year 2008-09 seeking
grant of recognition for conducting teacher training courses, without
considering the same on merits. It is the petitioners' case that these
applications were invited by the respondent no.1 through a public notice, but
were returned unactioned, on account of a subsequent ban imposed by the
government of Rajasthan on opening of new educational institutes.
Brief factual matrix
2. On 02.10.2008, the respondent no.1/The National Council for Teacher
Education (hereinafter referred to as 'NCTE'), a statutory authority
responsible for the regulation and maintenance of norms and standards in the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:GARIMA MADAN
Signing Date:03.03.2022
13:09:56
teacher education system, issued a public notice inviting applications for
recognition of various teacher training courses, including B.Ed from different
states across the country, including the State of Rajasthan. The petitioners
being desirous of conducting various courses at their respective educational
institutes, submitted their applications along with all the necessary documents
and the requisite fees.
3. After the applications were submitted, the Government of Rajasthan
vide its letter dated 17.11.2008, recommended to the respondent no.1, not to
grant permission for commencement of any new B.Ed/STC/Shiksha Shastri
course in the State of Rajasthan for the academic session 2009-10 (hereinafter
be referred to as the 'state ban'). Based on this communication, the
respondent no.1, vide its letter dated 19.11.2008, directed the respondent
no.2/Northern Regional Committee (hereinafter referred to as 'the regional
committee') to return all applications.
4. Acting on this directive from the respondent no.1, the regional
committee/respondent no.2, in its 134th meeting held from 20th-22th
November, 2008, decided not to consider any applications for these courses
from institutes in Rajasthan for the academic year 2009-10. Consequently, it
decided to return all these applications, without processing them on merits.
5. Being aggrieved, some educational institutions preferred writ petitions
before the High Court of Rajasthan, assailing the respondents' decision to
return the applications on the basis of a subsequent state ban. This batch of
petitions was allowed by the High Court on 07.01.2009 with a direction to the
respondents to take a final decision whether to process these applications or
not, by considering all relevant factors. In issuing these directions, the Court
relied on the decision in 'State of Maharashtra vs. Sant Dyaneshwar
Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya & Ors,' (2006) 9 SCC 1, wherein the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:GARIMA MADAN
Signing Date:03.03.2022
13:09:56
Apex Court had upheld the decision of the Bombay High Court permitting
opening of new educational institutions in Maharashtra, on the basis of the
recognition granted by the NCTE, despite objections from the state
government.
6. In compliance with the decision of the High Court of Rajasthan dated
07.01.2009, the respondent no.1 considered the issue afresh and vide its
communication dated 27.01.2009, informed the regional committees about its
decision not to grant recognition for B.Ed/STC/Shiksha Shastri Courses to
any institute in the state of Rajasthan for the academic year 2009-10.
7. This decision of the respondent no.1 was once again assailed before the
High Court of Rajasthan by way of a number of petitions, wherein the Court
vide its judgment dated 13.08.2009 in 'Sampat STC Mahavidyalya vs State
of Rajasthan &Ors.' (2009) SCC OnLine Raj 5627, while declining to
interfere with its decision dated 27.01.2009, directed the respondent no. 1 to
take a fresh decision for grant of recognition for the next academic session of
2010-11, to the petitioners therein. Even though this decision was assailed by
way of an intra Court appeal in 'Dau Baba IT College & Ors. vs. State of
Rajasthan &Ors.' (2010) SCC OnLine Raj 4550, the Division Bench, after
noticing that the NCTE was not aggrieved by the directions issued by the
learned Single Judge for a fresh consideration for the next academic session
2010-11, vide its judgement on 23.12.2010 reiterated those directions qua the
petitioners therein. However, since by then the academic session 2010-11 was
almost over, the respondent no.1 was now directed to process those
applications for grant of recognition for the next academic session, i.e., 2011-
8. At this stage, it may also be noted that during the period when the
appeal in Dau Baba (supra)was pending before the High Court, the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:GARIMA MADAN
Signing Date:03.03.2022
13:09:56
respondent no.1, vide its letter dated 01.10.2009,directed the respondent no.2
to process for recognition those applications where inspection had been
conducted and show cause notices issued before 31.08.2009. Consequently, it
was directed that all other pending applications, other than those covered by
this clarification, be returned.
9. Soon thereafter, the respondent no.1, on 06.10.2009, partially modified
its letter dated 01.10.2009 by clarifying that the applications for the academic
year 2009-10, which had been received on or before 31.10.2008, but had been
returned to the institutions, would now be processed on merits for the next
academic session 2010-11. This was on the premise that these applications
having been received on or before 31.10.2008 were made in terms of the
NCTE Regulations, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as 'NCTE Regulations'),
required to be processed before 31.08.2009 but had been wrongly returned
and therefore, could now be considered only for the next academic session
2010-11; since the applications were not processed for granting recognition
for the academic session 2009-10,within the stipulated time, the respondent
no.1 was directed to consider the aforesaid applications for the academic
session 2010-11 on merits.
10. The respondents again considered the issue regarding the rejection of
applications on account of the state ban, and on 31.08.2010, directed the
regional committees to process all the pending applications of the eligible
institutions on merits, without considering the ban imposed by the state
government. It may be noted that even the regional committee/respondent
no.2, in its 238th meeting held from 20-31st May, 2015 took a decision to
process the applications received for the academic session 2015-16,by
ignoring the negative recommendations of the state government, which had
been received after applications for recognition of courses had already been
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:GARIMA MADAN
Signing Date:03.03.2022
13:09:56
invited. The respondent no.1 categorically observed that the state
governments were expected to issue policy changes well in advance, and no-
mid way policy changes imposing a state ban would be considered. A similar
decision to process all the applications without considering the subsequent
ban imposed by the state government was reiterated by the respondent no.2 in
its meetings held on 20.11.2017 and 19.12.2017.
11. However, despite the aforesaid decisions taken by the respondents, a
number of applications were still rejected on the basis of negative
recommendations made by the state Governments in 2012-2013, for opening
of new educational institutes in Rajasthan and Haryana. These rejections
were assailed before this Court, by way of a number of writ petitions which
were allowed from time to time, by taking into account the respondents' own
decision to process all applications received before the imposition of the state
ban. However, in October 2018, one of these petitions came to be rejected by
a learned Single Judge of this Court in Saraswati Deep College of Education
vs. NCTE and Ors., (2019) SCC Online Del 10857, by accepting the
respondents' plea that even a subsequent state ban would be a ground for
returning the applications. A challenge to this decision was negated by the
Division Bench. However, the Apex Court vide its order dated 29.07.2019 set
aside the decisions, both of the learned Single Judge as also of the Division
Bench, by observing that the rejection of the applications on the basis of a
ban on setting up of new educational institutes fell foul of its earlier
decisions, dated 06.08.2018 in W.P.(C) No. 564/2018 'Kanya Gurukul
College of Education vs. NCTE and Ors.' and 10.09.2018 in W.P.(C)
966/2018 'Gyan Deep College of Education vs. NCTE and Ors.' The
respondents were accordingly directed to process the applications of the
appellants therein on merits.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:GARIMA MADAN
Signing Date:03.03.2022
13:09:56
12. During this period, once again, when the matter was pending before the
Apex Court in Saraswati Deep (supra), some more educational institutes in
the states of Haryana and Rajasthan, whose applications had also been
rejected on account of a subsequent ban imposed by the state government,
approached this Court. These petitions came to be allowed by this Court in
two batches, the first being, Sir Chhotu Ram Jat College of Education vs.
NCTE and Ors.', 2019 SCC Online Del 10857, and the other being W.P(C)
7921/2018, Maharana Pratap Manav Vikas Samiti & Anr. vs. NCTE and
Ors. The batch pertaining to Maharana Pratap (supra) also contained
petitions relating to those institutions who had, like the petitioner in the
present case, applied for recognition for the academic session 2008-09.
13. Following the decision of the Apex Court in 'Saraswati Deep College
of Education vs. NCTE and Ors. (supra), this Court vide its judgment dated
18.10.2019, allowed the batch of petitions in Sir Chhotu Ram (supra). The
respondents were accordingly directed to consider the applications submitted
by the petitioners without taking into account the subsequent ban imposed by
the state government. It may be noted that the Court, while allowing this
batch of petitions, directed that the said decision would be treated as an order
in rem, and the concerned regional committees were specifically directed to
consider on merits, the applications of all those institutes that were similarly
situated and had filed their respective applications before the imposition of
the state ban. Based on this decision, the other batch of similar petitions, i.e.,
Maharana Pratap (supra) was also allowed on 20.11.2019, which, as noted
hereinabove, included a number of cases pertaining to the academic year
2008-09.
14. However, despite the directions issued to the regional committees by
this Court in Sir Chhotu Ram(supra) to consider applications of all similarly
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:GARIMA MADAN
Signing Date:03.03.2022
13:09:56
placed institutions, the respondents still did not consider the applications of
the petitioners, compelling them to approach this Court by way of the present
petition.
Submissions of the petitioners
15. In support of the petitions, Mr. Amitesh Kumar and Mr. Sanjay
Sharawat, learned counsel for the petitioners, at the outset submit that, the
petitioners' case is squarely covered not only by the decision of the Apex
Court in Saraswati Deep College (supra), but also by the decision of this
Court in Sir Chhotu Ram (supra). They submit that the judgement in Sir
Chhotu Ram (supra) was declared as a judgment in rem, with the Court
specifically directing the respondents to consider on merits, all applications
which had been rejected on account of a subsequent ban imposed by the state
government. They therefore, urge that the Court was clearly of the opinion
that all applications submitted prior to the ban coming into force ought to be
processed on merits, and not merely those which had been rejected on the
basis of the ban imposed by the State Government in 2012, as is sought to be
contended by the respondents. Moreover, in Maharana Pratap(supra)the
Court by following the decision in Sir Chhotu Ram(supra), had allowed a
batch of petitions, which included cases relating to the ban imposed by the
Government of Rajasthan in 2008.He therefore, contends that the respondents
cannot now urge that the judgment in Sir Chhotu Ram(supra)was applicable
only to the ban imposed in 2012, and not to the cases pertaining to the state
ban of 2008.
16. He further submits that even though, the respondent no.1 itself has
issued repeated directions to the respondent no.2 for processing of
applications on merits without taking into account the state ban, the
petitioners' cases have not been considered, compelling them to approach this
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:GARIMA MADAN
Signing Date:03.03.2022
13:09:56
Court. By drawing my attention to the communications dated 31.08.2010 and
20.11.2017 issued by the respondent no.1, he submits that a categoric
direction was issued to the regional committees to process on merits, all the
applications received before the imposition of the state ban. He therefore,
contends that it was incumbent upon the respondent no.2 to process the
applications of the petitioner which had been admittedly received before the
imposition of the ban by the Govt. of Rajasthan on 17.11.2008. The
respondent no.2has not only failed to act in accordance with the repeated
directions issued by respondent no.1 from 2010 onwards, but has also failed
to comply with the decisions of this Court. He therefore, contends that the
writ petitions deserve to be allowed on the basis of directions issued in Sir
Chhotu Ram (supra) itself.
17. While denying the respondents' plea that the issue regarding the non-
processing of the applications submitted in the year 2008 had already attained
finality in Sampat STC (supra), Mr.Kumar submits that this plea overlooks
the directions issued by the Court in para 30 of the said decision, wherein the
Court, while declining to interfere with the decision to return the application
at that stage, had directed the respondents to consider the same for the next
academic year 2010-11. This direction was reiterated by the Division Bench
of the Rajasthan of High Court in Dau Baba (supra), which once again
directed the respondents to process the applications for the next academic
session of 2011-12. Moreover, this Court has, after the decision of the High
Court of Rajasthan in Sampat STC (supra), allowed a number of writ
petitions pertaining to same year, many of them without any objection from
the respondents. He, therefore, contends that the respondents' plea that the
petitioners' claim for consideration of their applications for the next academic
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:GARIMA MADAN
Signing Date:03.03.2022
13:09:56
session already stands finally rejected in Sampat STC (supra), is wholly
misconceived.
18. Mr. Sharawat, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that despite
the decision in Sampat STC(supra), not only have similar petitions been
subsequently allowed both by the Apex Court and by this Court, but also by
the High Court of Rajasthan in 2018. In support of his plea, he draws my
attention to the order passed by the High Court of Rajasthan in 'Murli Singh
Yadav Parikshan Sansthan vs. NCTE &Ors.' (2018) SCC Online Raj 300,
wherein the respondents were, as recently as in 2018, directed to consider the
application, pertaining to the year 2008, of a similarly placed institute. He,
therefore, contends that the respondents' plea that the issue regarding the
return of the applications in 2009 cannot be examined at this stage, is wholly
misplaced.
19. Mr. Amitesh Kumar and Mr. Sharawat then submit that the
respondents' refusal to process the applications on account of any purported
delay overlooks the fact that as per the directions issued by this Court in Sir
Chhotu Ram (supra), respondents were obliged to consider all the
applications on merits and cannot be permitted to urge that the applications
should not be considered on account of delay. The respondents themselves
having failed to act in accordance with the directions in rem issued in Sir
Chhotu Ram (supra)issued in November, 2019,cannot now claim that the
petitioners are guilty of any delay or laches.
20. They contend that once the issue remained under active consideration,
not only of the respondents themselves, but also before this Court as also the
High Court of Rajasthan, the mere fact that the present petitions were filed in
the year 2020-21 would not amount to any laches or acquiescence on the part
of the petitioners. Moreover, the petitioners are seeking recognition only for
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:GARIMA MADAN
Signing Date:03.03.2022
13:09:56
the next academic session, and not for the year 2009-10, for which the
applications were initially submitted by them after creation of the necessary
infrastructure by utilising their own resources. They therefore, pray that the
writ petitions be allowed and the respondents be directed to expeditiously
consider the petitioners' application for recognition for the next academic
session.
Submissions of the respondents
21. Per contra, Mr. Jai Sahai Endlaw, learned counsel for the respondents
vehemently opposes the petition on the ground of delay and laches. He
submits that the petitioners having approached this Court after 12 years of the
return of their applications, are guilty of gross delay and laches and,
therefore, contends that the petitions are liable to be rejected on this ground
alone. Once the applications of the petitioners seeking grant of recognition
had been rejected way back in 2009, their failure to approach this Court for
12 long years clearly shows that they had acquiesced to the decision of the
respondent to not grant them recognition. By relying on the decision of the
Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh &Ors. vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava
&Ors.' (2015) 1 SCC 347, he submits that the petitioners having not been
diligent in approaching the Court in time, are not entitled to any relief at this
belated stage.
22. Mr.Endlaw next submits that even otherwise, the respondents' decision
dated 27.01.2009 to return the applications received in 2008, on account of
the subsequent ban imposed by the government of Rajasthan, already stands
approved by the High Court of Rajasthan in Sampat STC (supra) and Dau
Baba (supra), which decisions have attained finality. Moreover, the direction
of the Division Bench in Dau Baba (supra) for consideration of their
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:GARIMA MADAN
Signing Date:03.03.2022
13:09:56
applications for the next academic session was specifically confined to the
parties before the Court and therefore, the present petitioners cannot now
claim that their applications should, at par with the petitioner in the said case,
be also now considered for the next academic session. He, therefore,
contends that the petitioners not having assailed the respondents' decision
dated 27.01.2009, cannot now urge that the said order was erroneous in any
way, or pray that their applications returned in 2009 should now be
considered on merits.
23. Mr.Endlaw further submits that the decision in Sir Chhotu
Ram(supra), on which heavy reliance has been placed by the petitioners, is
not applicable to the facts of the present case as the said judgement dealt with
a situation where the applications for recognition pertaining to the year 2012
were returned on account of the state ban imposed in 2012-13. However, in
the present case, the applications which were submitted in the year 2008 were
returned in the year 2009 itself, and therefore, the petitioners' claim that their
applications ought to be considered on account of the directions issued in Sir
Chhotu Ram(supra)is wholly misconceived. Furthermore, the respondents
have considered all the applications pertaining to the year 2012 and have,
accordingly, complied with all the directions issued by the Court in Sir
Chhotu Ram (supra) and therefore, prays that the writ petitions be dismissed.
Findings and analysis
24. From the rival submissions of the parties, what emerges is that they are
basically ad idem on the aspect that every application for recognition of a
course received prior to a negative recommendation from the State
Government has to be considered on its own merits and cannot be returned
unactioned on account of a subsequent state ban.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:GARIMA MADAN
Signing Date:03.03.2022
13:09:56
25. The petitioners have therefore, urged that once it is an admitted
position that the applications in each of these cases were received by the
NCTE before the issuance of the ban by the Government of Rajasthan on
opening of new institutions for the B.Ed/STC/Shiksha Shastri Courses in the
state, they are entitled to have their applications processed as per the NCTE
regulations. Per contra, the respondents have opposed the petitions on the
ground of delay and latches, and have urged that their decision to return all
these applications on 27.01.2009 pursuant to the ban imposed by the
government of Rajasthan on 17.11.2008 has attained finality, as a challenge
thereto stood rejected by the High Court of Rajasthan on 13.08.2009 by the
learned Single Judge as also by the Division Bench in 2010.
26. Thus, evidently the respondents' opposition to these petitions is on two
counts, the first being on the ground of delay on the part of the petitioners in
approaching this Court; the second being that their decision dated 27.01.2009
to return the applications, on account of the state ban, has already been
upheld by the High Court of Rajasthan, which decision has attained finality.
27. In the light of this limited opposition by the respondents, I need not
delve into the aspect as to whether every application received by the
respondents, a statutory authority for granting recognition for running teacher
training courses, is required to be considered on merits, if received prior to
the imposition of a state ban. This question in my view, already stands
decided in favour of the petitioners by the Apex Court in Saraswati Deep
(supra), which decision was followed by this Court in Sir Chhotu Ram
(supra).The respondents have therefore, rightly not urged anything to the
contrary. Therefore, only two issues arise for my consideration in the present
case. The first being as to whether, in light of the decision of the High Court
of Rajasthan rejecting the challenge to the order dated 27.01.2009, the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:GARIMA MADAN
Signing Date:03.03.2022
13:09:56
petitioners are barred from praying that their applications should be
considered for the next academic session 2021-22. The second being whether,
the petitions are liable to be dismissed on account of the delay on the part of
the petitioners in approaching this Court.
28. As the answer to the first issue hinges on the decision of the High
Court of Rajasthan in Sampat STC(supra), it may be apposite to note the
relevant extracts of this decision of the learned Single Judge, which reads as
under-
"30. In view of the discussion made above, I do not find any
substance in this bunch of the writ petitions so preferred by the
petitioner institutions, hence, all the writ petitions are liable to
be dismissed and accordingly dismissed with no order as to
costs. It is, however, observed that respondent-NCTE will take
fresh decision for grant of recognition to petitioner institutions
for the year 2010-2011 if they find that institution should be
given recognition in the State of Rajasthan, then subject to
fulfilment of conditions of the provision of law petitioner
institutions may be given priority for grant of recognition."
29. The directions issued by the learned Single Judge in Sampat STC
(supra) were approved by the Division Bench in Dau Baba IT (supra) but
since the next academic session was also over by that time, the Division
Bench directed the respondents to consider the applications submitted by the
petitioners therein for the subsequent academic session 2011-12. The relevant
extracts of the directions as contained in para 12 of the decision of the
Division Bench, read as under:-
"12. The NCTE is not aggrieved by aforesaid part of order and
it has been decided to process pending cases for grant of
recognition. Hence, in view of the order of Single Bench, the
cases of the Appellants-institutions are to be treated as pending
and they are required to be decided on merits in terms of the
order passed by the Single Bench of this Court, which has not
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:GARIMA MADAN
Signing Date:03.03.2022
13:09:56
been appealed against to by the NCTE/NRC. We are of the view
that in the matter of grant of recognition, the pending cases
cannot be distinguished merely on the basis of the stage they
reached under the regulations.
It is for the respondents to consider the pending cases and such
pending cases of petitioners have to be treated on priority as
per order of Single Bench and at least on the same footing. We
hold so in view of the order passed by the Single Bench and also
in view of the decision taken in 166th Meeting held by the NRC
on 9.9.2010. We are not impressed by this submission that only
those cases were required to be considered, where the stage of
regulation 7(9) or 7(11) had reached. The pending applications
of Appellants cannot be left out in view of order of Single
Bench.
However, on merits, it is for the concerned committee to take
considered decision in the interest of education considering
how many institutions are to be allowed at a particular place
and whether the basic infrastructure is possessed by the
institution alongwith requisite faculty. These are the aspects
which are to be taken into consideration on objective basis by
the concerned Regional Committee. Only thereafter, decision
has to be taken for the academic session 2011-12.
In these cases, applications for recognition have to be treated
as pending, particularly in view of the order passed by Single
Bench of this Court, we have issued the aforesaid direction.
This direction is confined to the consideration of petitioners'
cases. It is also agreed to that the necessary formalities which
may be necessitated, will be complied with in terms of rules and
on fulfilment of the formalities by the institutions and decision
shall be taken by the concerned Regional Committee on or
before 15.6.2010 for recognition for session 2011-12."
30. I find that the learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to
deny that both the learned Single Judge, and the Division Bench, of the High
Court of Rajasthan, while upholding the respondents' decision dated
27.01.2009, had directed that the applications of the petitioners therein be
considered afresh for the next academic session. He has however, urged that
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:GARIMA MADAN
Signing Date:03.03.2022
13:09:56
these directions for consideration of the applications for the next academic
session were specifically confined to the petitioners, who were parties before
the High Court of Rajasthan and cannot, therefore, be extended to the
petitioners in this batch of petitions. This plea undoubtedly, appears to be
attractive on the first blush, but when the same is considered in the light of
the subsequent decisions taken by the respondents themselves, both, before
and after the decisions in Sampat STC (supra) and Dau Baba (supra) of the
High Court, it has to necessarily fail. Before I delve further on this aspect, I
may note the respondents' own decisions on this aspect, which are contained
in its communication dated 31.08.2010, and the minutes of its meeting held
on 28.05.2015 and on 20.11.2017. A reference may first be made to the
communication dated 31.08.2010, which reads as under: -
"F.No.48-6/2010/PT-III/NCTE(N&S)/ August 31, 2010
The Regional Director, The Regional Director
Eastern Regional Committee. Western Regional Committee
National Council for Teacher National Council for Teacher
Education, Education
E·15, Neelkhant Nagar, Manas Bhawan ,Shyamla
Nayapalli, Bhubaneshwar - Hills
751012, Near AIR, BhopaI-462002,
Orissa Madhya Pradesh
The Regional Director, The Regional Director,
Northern Regional Southern Regional Committee
Committee, .
National Council for Teacher National Council for Teacher
Education, Education
A-46. Shanti Path, TIlak 1st Floor, CSD Building.
Nagar, HMT Post, Jalahalli
Jaipur-302004. Bangalore - 560031.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:GARIMA MADAN
Signing Date:03.03.2022
13:09:56
Subject: Issue of recognition orders under section 7(11) or 7(9) of the
NCTE Regulations, in cases where issuing of such order was held up
in view of the earlier ban imposed in 2009.
Sir,
'I am directed to refer to the subject mentioned. above and to say that
the matter regarding issue of recognition order under clause 7(9) or
7(11) of NCTE Regulations to the institutions which were found
eligible for grant of recognition orders on merit 'but where orders
could not be issued due to the ban imposed by NCTE on 26th July.
2009 has been considered by the Council and it is clarified that such
pending orders now be issued. This is due to the consideration that
the present ban is only on fresh receipt of application for the
academic session 2011-12 and therefore the old pending cases are to
be disposed on merit without any reference to the ban."
31. A reference may also be made to the minutes of the 238th Meeting of
the respondent no.2/Northern Regional Committee held from 20.08.2015-
31.08.2015. The relevant extracts thereof read as under-
The matter regarding processing of applications from the State of
Haryana for grant of recognition / permission for the academic
session 2015-16 was considered by the Northern Regional
Committee. The Committee decided that the letter dated
04.05.2015 sent by Director Secondary Education, Haryana,
Panchkula, has been received very late and several cases from
Haryana have already been dealt with on the basis of letter
received on 16.01.2015. This letter should therefore be ignored.
Every Government is expected to decide its policy in advance
for the following academic years as it creates discrimination if
the policy changes take place frequently. Based on this letter,
the processing of pending applications for 2015-16 cannot be
stopped midway. The State Govt. should have communicated its
decision well in time and only once for a particular year.
In view of this, the Committee decided that all the applications
from the State of Haryana for D.EI.Ed. course be processed as
per the earlier letter dated 06.01.2015. The Committee also
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:GARIMA MADAN
Signing Date:03.03.2022
13:09:56
decided that the applications submitted by the institutions with
court order only and pertaining to D.EI.Ed. course be processed.
The same line of action should be taken for other states which
should be advised that their policy for a particular year should
be conveyed to the NRC well in advance. Any policy change
midway will not be considered. (emphasis supplied)
32. I may now refer to the minutes of the meeting of respondent no.1
held on 20.11.2017. The relevant extracts whereof read as under:
"Whereas the appeal of G.R. College of Education, Namaul,
Mahendragarh, Haryana dated 25/10/2016 is against the Order
No. NRC/ NCTE/ NRCAPP- 6992/ 255U1 Meeting/ 2016/
156922 dated 30/0812016 of the Northern Regional Committee,
refusing recognition for conducting D.EI.Ed. course on the
grounds that "The reply of the applicant institution to show cause
notice of the NRC dt. 08/0612016 was considered by the NRC
and the Committee decided to refuse recognition as the Govt. of
Haryana vide its order dt. 23/0212016· has banned any fresh
opening/recognition/increase intake of any D.El.Ed. course In
the State of Haryana for the academic session 2017-18.
XXXX
AND WHEREAS Appeal Committee is also of the view that when
recommendations of the State Government under Clause 7 (4),
(5) & (6) of the NCTE Regulations. 2014 are sought by the
Regional Committee, the State Government should assess the
institution on individual merit basis and wherever it is not in
favour of recognition, shall provide detailed reasons and
grounds with necessary statistics. Appeal Committee noted that
when the appellant applied in 2012, there was no ban by the
State Government.
Further the Appeal Committees of the view that the blanket
general ban imposed by the State Government can be taken into
account by NCTE only before issuing any notification inviting
applications for teacher education courses in a particular State
for the prospective academic year(s).
Once applications are invited, the Regional Committee has no
right to reject it on grounds of ban imposed subsequently by the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:GARIMA MADAN
Signing Date:03.03.2022
13:09:56
State Government. Moreover, in the above case, the appellant
was required to pay the processing fee afresh under the new
Regulations. While reprocessing the application, the Regional
Committee is free to ensure that the Norms and Standards as
prescribed in 2014 Regulations for the teacher education
programme applied for are complied with by the appellant before
grant of recognition."
(emphasis supplied)
33. A reference may finally be made to the minutes of the 278th meeting
of the respondent no.2/the Northern Regional Committee held from
19.12.2017 to 20.12.2017, wherein while dealing with the case of a similarly
placed institute, i.e. Royal Institute of Science and Management, the
respondent no.2 noted the decision of the respondent no.1 that the state ban
could be taken into account only if the same was imposed prior to issuing any
notification inviting applications for teacher education courses in a state for
the prospective academic year. It was also emphasised that, once applications
were invited, the regional committee had no right to reject the same on the
ground of a subsequent state ban. The relevant extract of the minutes of the
meeting read as under:
31 NRCAPP- Royal Institute or D.El.Ed. The original file of the Institution
8734 Science alongwith other related
And Management. documents, NCTE Act, 1993,
Plot No.- Regulations and Guidelines issue
67114. 17, 13/2. by NCTE from time to time, were
Village-Wazirpur, carefully considered by NRC and
Post office - following observation was made:
Wazirpur,
TehsiliTaluka- In compliance of the Order of the
Gurgaon, Appeal Committee, NRC issued
Town/City- letter to the Government of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:GARIMA MADAN
Signing Date:03.03.2022
13:09:56
Gurgaon, Dblt.- Haryana on 26.09.2017, followed
Gurgaon, by two reminders dated
Haryana -122505. 02.11.2017 and 28.11.2017 to
provide decision of Government
of Haryana with regard to ban on
opening of new D.EI.Ed. Colleges
for the Academic Session 2018-
19. However, the State
Government did not respond so
far.
NRC further noted that the Appeal
Committee in its various Orders in
tiles bearing No. NRCAPP·6992,
6881, 7024, 6603 and 5290 made
the following
observations: -.
AND WHEREAS Appeal
committee is also of tile view that
When recommendations of tile
State Government under Clause
7(4), (5) & (6) of tire NCTE
Regulations. 2014 are
Sought by the Regional
Committee, the State Government
should assess tile institution on
individual merit basis and
wherever it is noting in favour of
recognition, shall provide details
reasons and grounds with
necessary statistics. Appeal
Committee noted that when the
appellant applied in 2012, there
was no ban by the State
Government. Further, the Appeal
Committee is of the view that the
blanket general ban imposed by
the State Government can be
taken into account by NCTE only
before issuing any notification
inviting applications for teacher
education courses in a particular
State for the prospective
academic year(s). Once
applications are invited, the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:GARIMA MADAN
Signing Date:03.03.2022
13:09:56
Regional Committee has no right
to reject it on grounds of ban
imposed subsequently by the State
Government. Moreover, in the
above case, the appellant was
required to pay the processing fee
afresh under the new Regulations.
While reprocessing the
application, the Regional
Committee is free to ensure that
the Norms and Standards as
prescribed in 2014 Regulations for
the teacher education programme
applied for are complied with by
the appellant before grant of
recognition.
Since this case also falls under the
same category, the NRC decide
that VT be constituted in order to
ascertain and scrutinize the
essential documents such as land
documents, building plan, CLU,
BCC, Non- Encumbrance
Certificate and all required
documents in original and verify
its authenticity with reference to
NCTE Regulations, 2014 and
mention the status/ position of
these documents.
In addition, the VT shall verify the
infrastructure and instructional
facilities created by the institution
so as to assess preparedness of the
institution as per provisions of the
NCTE Regulations, 2014.
34. From the aforesaid, it clearly emerges that the respondent no.1 has
been consistently taking a stand that all applications received prior to the
issuance of a subsequent state ban are required to be considered on merits
and, in case, the institute meets the criteria laid down in the NCTE
regulations, recognition ought to be granted to the institute. It is now time to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:GARIMA MADAN
Signing Date:03.03.2022
13:09:56
refer to the decisions both of the Apex Court, and of this Court, on this
aspect.
35. I may first note the decision of the Apex Court in Saraswati
Deep(supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners. In the said
decision, the Supreme Court, while setting aside this Court's decisions
rejecting a claim for consideration of an application, which had been returned
unactioned on account of a subsequent state ban, directed the respondent to
dispose of the application on merits. The said order reads as under-
"Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view
that the impugned orders passed by the High Court dismissing the
appellant's case on the basis of a ban on setting up new Colleges
falls foul of our earlier orders dated 96.98.2918 in W.P.(C)No.
564 of 2918 and 19.99.2918 in W.P. (C)No. 966 of 2918. As a
result, these impugned orders stand set aside.
The appellant's application that is pending before the authorities
may now be disposed of on merits. The appeals stand disposed
of."
36. At this juncture, a reference to the decision of this Court in Sir Chhotu
Ram (supra) is essential. The relevant observations and directions, as
contained in paras 12 to 17 thereof, read as under: -
"12. As observed above, the issue which arises for consideration
in the present proceedings was squarely placed for adjudication
before a Single Judge and Division Bench of this Court in
Saraswati Deep College of Education vs. National Council for
Teacher Education &Anr. Both the Single Judge as well as the
Division Bench while declining relief to the petitioner/appellant
relied upon the judgment dated 18.7.2018, passed in Maa
Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya, however, despite this
situation obtaining the Supreme Court in Saraswati Deep
College of Education case set aside both the orders i.e. the order
of the Single Judge and the order passed by the Division Bench.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:GARIMA MADAN
Signing Date:03.03.2022
13:09:56
13 I have already extracted the order of the Supreme Court
passed in Saraswati Deep College of Education case. I am of the
opinion that the judgement of the Supreme Court in the
aforementioned matter covers the issue raised in the captioned
writ petitions. Insofar as this Court is concerned, it is bound by
the order of the Supreme Court in Saraswati Deep College of
Education vs. National Council for Teacher Education &Anr.
14 Thus, for foregoing reasons, the captioned writ petitions will
have to be allowed. The concerned Regional Committees will
reconsider the applications of the petitioners in the captioned
matters without being burdened by the fact that various State
Governments have imposed a ban on setting up of new
institutions and granting recognition to new courses.
15. Needless to add, the applications will be considered by the
NCTE on their own their merit as expeditiously as possible,
though, not later than twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt
of a copy of the order.
16. The petitioners will render all assistance so that the timeline
fixed by the Court is adhered to.
17. Since this is an order in rem, the concerned Regional
Committees will consider on merit the applications of even
those who are similarly circumstanced and have filed their
respective applications before the ban kicked-in as per the
extant provisions of law."
(emphasis supplied)
37. This decision in Sir Chhotu Ram(supra) was followed in Maharana
Pratap(supra), which batch of petitions also included a number of institutes
who, like the present petitioners, had applied for recognition pursuant to the
public notice dated 02.10.2008 issued by respondent no.1. Their applications
had, also like those of the present petitioners, been returned without being
processed on merits, on account of the ban imposed by the Government of
Rajasthan on 17.11.2008. The directions issued by the Court in Maharana
Pratap (supra) read as under-
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:GARIMA MADAN
Signing Date:03.03.2022
13:09:56
"1. It is common ground that the issue which arises in these
matters is covered by the judgment of this Court dated 18.10.2019,
passed in W.P.(C) NO.8820/20 19, titled Sir Chhotu Ram Jat
College of Education Vs. National Council for Teacher Education
& Anr.
2. Accordingly, the captioned writ petitions are allowed. The
directions contained in Sir Chhotu Ram Jat College of Education'
case will apply mutatis mutandis to these matters as well."
38. Thus, the position that emerges is that the High Court of Rajasthan in
2009, while declining to interfere with the respondents' decision not to
process the applications at that stage on account of the state ban,
simultaneously issued a direction to consider the applications of the
petitioners therein, for the next academic session. It is an undisputed position
that the applications of the petitioners before the High Court of Rajasthan
were ultimately processed on merits, though not for the year 2009-10 but for
the subsequent academic sessions 2010-11 and 2011-12.
39. The respondents have however refused to consider the petitioners'
applications by urging that the direction of the High Court of Rajasthan for
consideration of those applications for the next academic sessions, was
confined only to the petitioners before it. In my view, this stand of the
respondents, besides being discriminatory and arbitrary, is in the teeth of its
own communications and minutes of the 278thmeeting, as noted hereinabove,
wherein a categoric decision was taken to process all those applications
which were received prior to the ban imposed by the state government. The
respondents have also, without any basis, tried to contend that the decision in
Sir Chhotu Ram(supra) was intended to apply only those cases where
applications had been returned on account of the state ban imposed in 2012. I
am unable to find anything to this effect in the said decision. On the other
hand, I find that the Court while declaring the decision to be in rem,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:GARIMA MADAN
Signing Date:03.03.2022
13:09:56
specifically directed the regional committees to process on merit the
applications of all those who were similarly circumstanced, and had filed
their respective applications before the imposition of the state ban. The Court
did not in any manner curtail the relief only to those cases where the
applications had been rejected on account of the state ban imposed in 2012.
Moreover, following the decision in Sir Chhotu Ram (supra) a batch of
petitions was allowed on 20.11.2019 in Maharana Pratap (supra). The
respondents have not denied that pursuant to the decision in Maharana
Pratap (supra), a number of applications which had been returned pursuant
to the decision dated 27.01.2009, on account of the ban imposed by the
government of Rajasthan, in the year 2008, have now been processed on
merits for the academic session 2019-2020.
40. The petitioners are similarly placed as the petitioners in Maharana
Pratap (supra) and their applications were also admittedly returned pursuant
to the same state ban imposed in 2008. I, therefore, do not find any merit in
the respondents' plea that, on account of the earlier decisions in Sampat STC
(supra) and Dau Baba (supra), the applications pertaining to the state ban
imposed by the government of Rajasthan, cannot be now considered for the
next academic session.
41. Now, I may deal with the second issue as to whether the present
petitions are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay. Even though, the
petitioners have approached this Court after almost 10 years from the date of
submitting their applications, the fact remains that this Court in Sir Chhotu
Ram (supra), after considering all the relevant factors, including the decision
of the Apex Court in Saraswati Deep (supra) with the intention to bring
under the umbrella, all similarly placed institutes, had directed that its
decision be treated as an order in rem. In fact, specific directions, in this
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:GARIMA MADAN
Signing Date:03.03.2022
13:09:56
regard were issued to the regional committees for consideration of all
similarly placed applications which had been rejected on account of a
subsequent state ban. This direction, which was issued in November, 2019,
has admittedly not been followed qua the petitioners on the specious ground
that the said decision was applicable only to the cases relating to the ban
imposed in 2012. This plea of the respondents, as already held hereinabove,
is meritless as the decision in Sir Chotu Ram (supra) was in no way confined
to any particular state ban, and were therefore, directed to be considered in
rem for all applications which had been returned on account of a subsequent
state ban.
42. Though learned counsel for the respondents, has by referring to the
decision in Arvind Kumar Srivastava (supra) sought to urge, that the Apex
Court has held that persons who do not challenge an unlawful action in time,
are deemed to have acquiesced to the same. He has therefore, contended that
the petitioners having not assailed the action of return of their applications in
2009, ought to be presumed to have acquiesced to the same, and are
therefore, precluded from seeking consideration of their application at this
belated stage. A perusal of this decision shows that, the cases relating to
orders passed in rem are to be treated in a different category. I am therefore,
of the view that this decision instead of forwarding the case of the
respondents, supports the petitioners' case, as the petitioners are relying on
the directions issued in rem in Sir Chhotu Ram (supra). It may be apposite to
refer to para 22 of Arvind Kumar (supra), wherein the Apex Court, while
culling out the principles which should be applied while dealing with the
cases where there is a delay in approaching the Courts, held as under-
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:GARIMA MADAN
Signing Date:03.03.2022
13:09:56
"22. The legal principles which emerge from the reading of the
aforesaid judgments, cited both by the appellants as well as the
respondents, can be summed up as under
22.1 The normal rule is that when a particular set of employees
is given relief by the court, all other identically situated persons
need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so
would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article
14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied
in service matters more emphatically as the service
jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time-to-time postulates
that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly.
Therefore, the normal rule would be that merely because other
similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier,
they are not to be treated differently.
22.2 However, this principle is subject to well-recognised
exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as
acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful
action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up
after long delay only because of the reason that their
counterparts who had approached the court earlier in time
succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that
the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of similarly
situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated as
fence-sitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence,
would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim.
22.3 However, this exception may not apply in those cases
where the judgment pronounced by the court was judgment in
rem with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated
persons, whether they approached the court or not. With such a
pronouncement the obligation is cast upon the authorities to
itself extend the benefit thereof to all similarly situated persons.
Such a situation can occur when the subject-matter of the
decision touches upon the policy matters, like scheme of
regularisation and the like (see K.C. Sharma v. Union of India
[K.C. Sharma v. Union of India, (1997) 6 SCC 721: 1998 SCC
(L&S) 226]). On the other hand, if the judgment of the court was
in personam holding that benefit of the said judgment shall
accrue to the parties before the court and such an intention is
stated expressly in the judgment or it can be impliedly found out
from the tenor and language of the judgment, those who want to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:GARIMA MADAN
Signing Date:03.03.2022
13:09:56
get the benefit of the said judgment extended to them shall have
to satisfy that their petition does not suffer from either laches and
delays or acquiescence."
43. In the present case, it is undisputed that in Sir Chhotu Ram(supra),
directions were issued for treating the said judgment to be in rem, with
specific directions to the Regional Committees to process all applications
which had been rejected on account of the subsequent state ban. Thus, when
the petitioners are relying on the directions in rem issued in Sir Chhotu
Ram(supra) for processing of all pending applications on merits, the present
case would squarely fall within the ambit of the observations of the Apex
Court in para 22.3 of Arvind Kumar Srivastava (supra). In fact, once such
directions were issued, it was incumbent on the respondents to consider all
the applications which were not processed on account of the subsequent state
ban. The respondents, having failed in their duty to do so, have in fact, acted
in breach of the obligations imposed on them by this Court in Sir Chhotu
Ram (supra) and cannot, therefore be permitted to urge that the petitions
should be dismissed on the ground of delay. Moreover, the petitioners, who
had already created the basic infrastructure way back in the year 2009-10, are
seeking recognition only from the next academic session and not from any
earlier year. Thus, even on this count, the respondents' objection to the
petitions on the ground of delay deserves to be rejected. The petitioners, in
my considered view, are entitled to consideration of their applications by the
respondents on merits, at the earliest.
44. This Court can also not lose sight of the fact that all the petitioners had
submitted their applications only pursuant to the notices issued by the
respondents inviting applications for grant of recognition to conduct
B.Ed/STC/Shiksha Shastri Courses, and would therefore have spent huge
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:GARIMA MADAN
Signing Date:03.03.2022
13:09:56
amounts for creation of the necessary infrastructure. In a country like ours,
where we are still striving to achieve the goal of 100% literacy, in my view, it
would be against public interest to allow such infrastructure to be wasted.
Moreover, the consideration of the petitioners' applications for the next
academic session will not in any manner cause any prejudice to any party;
and on the other hand, will only help in increasing the availability of
recognised educational institutes to the citizens. I am therefore, of the view,
that looked at from any angle, the petitions deserve to be allowed.
45. The writ petitions are, accordingly, allowed. The respondents are
directed to process all the pending applications of the petitioners on merits as
per the laid down procedure within a period of four months from today.
(REKHA PALLI)
JUDGE
MARCH 3, 2022
kk
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:GARIMA MADAN
Signing Date:03.03.2022
13:09:56
