[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Shanti Niketan College Of Special ... vs Rehabilitation Council Of India on 9 April, 2026
$~J-1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on: 04.04.2026
Judgment Delivered on: 09.04.2026
+ W.P.(C) 11178/2024 & CM APPL. 46223/2024
SHANTI NIKETAN COLLEGE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION
& ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Ms. Priti
Kumari and Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advs.
versus
REHABILITATION COUNCIL OF INDIA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Manish Kumar, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN
JUDGMENT
VIKAS MAHAJAN, J
1. The present petition has been filed by petitioners assailing the
impugned order 24.06.2024 whereby petitioners' proposal for B.Ed. Spl. Ed.
LD (Course) and B.Ed. Spl. Ed. (ID) Course has not been considered on the
ground of identical deficiencies pointed out therein.
2. The case of the petitioners is that Petitioner No. 1 is an institution and
was desirous of running Special Education Courses with the approval of
Rehabilitation Council of India [RCI]. RCI issued circular dated 30.05.2013
inviting fresh proposals from institutions for grant of approval to conduct
RCI approved training programmes from academic session 2024-25. Again
another circular dated 11.08.2023 was issued by RCI inviting fresh proposal
(fresh & extension) for academic session 2024-25. Thereafter RCI issued a
guidelines dated 18.08.2023 for submission of application, consideration
thereof and grant of approval.
3. Pursuant to above, the petitioner no.1 applied for commencement of
two courses, namely (i) B.Ed. Special Education (Learning Disability) and
(ii) B.Ed. Special Education (Intellectual Disability), for imparting special
education.
4. The applications of petitioner no.1 was returned by RCI without
consideration, in terms of circular dated 04.01.2024 whereby the RCI had
notified its decision not to grant new approvals to any institution for running
two (02) years B.Ed. (Special Education) programmes from the academic
session 2024-25 on the pretext that it is in the process of developing a new
programme on the pattern of NCTE soon as per National Education Policy-
2020 (NEP-2020). The circular dated 04.01.2024 was followed by another
circular dated 08.03.2024 wherein it was mentioned that it has been decided
not to grant new approval to any institution for running two years running
two (02) years B.Ed. (Special Education) programme from the academic
session 2024-2025.
5. Feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid two circulars dated 04.01.2024
and 08.03.2024, petitioners filed writ petition being W.P.(C) 5679/2024
titled as Shanti Niketan College of Special Education and Anr., v.
Rehabilitation Council of India. The said writ petition was decided by the
Coordinate Bench of this Court along with other batch of matters vide
common judgment dated 31.05.2024 [annexure P-18], whereby the writ
petitions were allowed. The court observed that the petitioners therein had
clearly acted on the basis of representation held out by respondent/RCI to all
of them, and believing said representation, petitioners therein altered their
position and had created an infrastructure. Consequently, the court quashed
the circulars impugned therein, i.e., circulars dated 08.03.2024 as well as
dated 04.01.2024 to the extent it returns petitioners' application. It was
further directed that the proposal made by petitioners would be processed in
accordance with law.
6. It appears that petitioners' application was processed by
respondent/RCI, and vide impugned order dated 24.06.2024 the petitioenrs
were informed that the institute has failed to meet the requisite documents,
as per the norms & guidelines for the fresh proposals, therefore, the fresh
proposals of B.Ed. Spl. Ed. (LD) and B.Ed. Spl. Ed. (ID) is not considered.
The reason given for not considering the proposal were identical for both the
proposals, and were three-fold:
(i) PwD Certificate not submitted is valid till 2023
(ii) List of 30 students attached without mentioning disability
and UDID
(iii) No details of faculty mentioned, no consent submitted.
7. Mr. Amitesh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
petitioners submits that before taking the impugned decision, the petitioners
were not afforded any opportunity to cure and explain the deficiencies
pointed therein. He submits that had an opportunity in the form of show-
cause notice or otherwise, been granted to the petitioners, they would have
explained that no deficiency as pointed out in the impugned order exists.
8. Elaborating on his submission, Mr. Kumar has invited attention of the
Court to the certification of registration in terms of the Persons with
Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full
Participation) Act, 2016 [in short 'PwD Act'] (Annexure R-1) to contend
that certificate which was submitted was valid for a period of three years
commencing from 10.12.2020 to 09.12.2023 when the applications for
approval was submitted by the petitioners with regard to the said two
courses on 29.09.2023 and 20.10.2023. He submits that before the expiry of
said certificate, petitioners had also applied for its revalidation and the same
was revalidated on 15.12.2023 for a period of another three years. In
support of his contention, he has drawn attention of the Court to the
certificate dated 15.12.2023 (Annexure P-11) whereby the validity was
extended.
9. As regard the objection that list of 30 students attached does not
mention disability and UDID of the students, attention of the Court has been
brought to the list of such 30 students to contend that apart from mentioning
the disability therein, UDID certificate number has also been conspicuously
stated.
10. In respect of the deficiency that no details of faculty are mentioned,
Mr. Kumar has invited attention of the Court to the list of faculty members
which contain their qualification, the post, as well as, salary drawn by them.
He, therefore, contends that the deficiencies pointed out in the impugned
letter dated 24.06.2024 are not factually correct, thus untenable.
11. He submits that in the additional affidavit dated 30.07.2025 filed by
respondent/RCI, a stand has been taken that petitioners' application could
not be considered for the academic session 2025-2026 since the two year
course has been discontinued in view of the circular dated 01.12.2023. He
submits that such a stand could not be taken by respondent/RCI inasmuch
similar circular dated 04.01.2024 was quashed by this Court vide judgment
dated 31.05.2024.
12. He further contends that the stand taken in the additional affidavit is
not a ground on which impugned order is predicated. He submits that
additional affidavit is in excess of the ground taken in the impugned order.
In support of his submission, Mr. Kumar has placed reliance on the decision
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill and Anr. v. The
Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Ors., (1978) 1 SCC 405,
particularly Para 8 thereof.
13. Per contra, Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of respondent/RCI submits that the certificate submitted by petitioners along
with the proposal was not a valid PwD certificate, inasmuch as the same was
not valid for a period of three years as required by the norms.
14. He submits that insofar as the policy notified vide circular dated
04.01.2024 is concerned, the same continues to be in vogue. Justifying his
contention, he submits that this court vide judgment dated 31.05.2024 in
Para 83, had quashed the said circular and set aside the same only to the
extent it returns petitioner's application, however, the policy decision to
discontinue the two year courses remained undisturbed.
15. He further submits that in deference to the direction given by the
Court in the said judgment, the applications of petitioners were duly
processed and the same was found deficient, therefore, the proposal was
rejected.
16. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court notes that
the controversy in the present petition dates back to the Circulars issued by
the respondent/RCI, in response to which the petitioners applied for
commencing two courses namely, (i) B.Ed.Spl.Ed.(LD) and (ii)
B.Ed.Spl.Ed.(ID).
17. The Respondent/RCI issued circular dated 30.05.2023 inviting fresh
proposals from institutions for grant of approval to conduct RCI approved
training programmes from academic session 2024-25, which reads thus:
"F. No. 8-A/Policy (Recog)/2009/RCI 30th May, 2023
CIRCULAR
Sub: Invitation of Fresh Proposals for the Academic Session 2024-25:-reg.
The Council invites fresh proposals from the institutions for grant of
approval to conduct RCI approved training programme (s) for the academic
session 2024-25. The prescribed last dates for submission of proposals are as
under:
Fresh proposals:
(i) Opening date for submission of fresh proposals 01/08/2023
through online portal
Last date of submission of fresh proposals 30/09/2023
(ii) Last date of submission of fresh proposals with 15/10/2023
late fee of Rs.10000/-
It is also to be informed that separate circular will be issued in respect of
proposals for extension of approvals.
(Vineet Singhal)
Member Secretary
Copy to:
Computer Section, RCI to uploading on the website"
18. Thereafter another circular dated 11.08.2023 was issued by RCI
inviting fresh proposal (fresh & extension) for academic session 2024-25,
which reads as under:
"F. No. 8-A/Policy (Recog)/2009/RCI 11th Aug, 2023
CIRCULAR
Sub: Invitation of Proposals (fresh & Extension) for the Academic Session
2024-25: reg.
This in continuation of Council Circular of even number dated 30.05.2023, it
is for information to all concerned that the online portal will now open from
17.08.2023 for invitation of online proposals for grant of approval to conduct RCI
approved training programme (s) for the academic session 2024-25. The prescribed
last dates for submission of online proposals are as under:
(i) Opening date for submission of fresh and 17/08/2023
Extension proposals through online portal
(ii) Last date of submission of fresh and Extension 30/09/2023
proposals through online portal
(iii) Last date of submission of fresh and Extension 15/10/2023
proposals through online portal with late fee of
Rs.10000/-
(Dr. Honnoreddy N.)
Member Secretary
Copy to:
i. Computer Section, RCI to uploading on the website.
ii. All RCI approved institutions."
19. Thereafter RCI issued the guidelines dated 18.08.2023 for submission
of application, consideration thereof and grant of approval.
20. Again vide circular dated 22.08.2023 the Respondent/RCI conveyed
the decision of RCI to invite proposals for the Diploma Level Courses in
Special Education from the academic session 2024-25. The circular reads as
under:
"REHABILITATION COUNCIL OF INDIA
A Statutory Body of Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment
Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (Divyangjan),
Government of India
F.No.8-A/Policy/(Recog)/2009/RCI 22.08.2023
CIRCULAR
In continuation of the Council‟s Circular of even number dated 27.04.2023
(copy enclosed) it is for information to all concerned that the Council has
decided that Diploma courses in Special Education will continue till further
decision and accordingly, Council will invite proposals for diploma level
course in special education from the academic session 2024-25. However, if
a diploma course in special education is already being conducted in a
district, then special inspection as deemed appropriate will be carried out
for the same new course applied by other institution in the same district.
(Dr. Honnareddy. N. )
Member Secretary
Encl: As above
Copy to:
Computer Section, RCI to upload on the website."
21. Pursuant to various circulars of the RCI inviting proposal for the two
year courses, the petitioner made applications for two courses on 29.09.2023
and 20.10.2023.
22. Again, vide circular dated 01.12.2023, RCI decided to cancel the
circular dated 22.08.2023 and upheld the decision dated 27.04.2023 for
discontinuation of Diploma Level Courses in Special Education. The
circular dated 01.12.2023 reads thus:
"REHABILITATION COUNCIL OF INDIA
A Statutory Body of Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment
Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (Divyangjan),
Government of India
F.No.8-A/Policy/(Recog)/2009/RCI 01.12.2023
CIRCULAR
This is for information to all concerned that the Council vide Circular of
even number dated 27.04.2023 decided to discontinue inviting fresh
proposals in respect of special education courses from the academic session
2024-25. Further,
the Council vide Circular of even number dated 22.08.2023 invited
proposals for diploma level courses in special education
for the academic session 2024-25 (copies enclosed).
Now, the Council has upheld the decision taken on 27.04.2023 for
discontinuation of diploma courses in special education and accordingly the
Circular of even number dated 22.08.2023 stands cancelled.
This issue with the approval of the competent authority
(Dr. Honnareddy. N. )
Member Secretary
Encl: As above
Copy to:
1. PS to Chairperson, RCI
2. RCI approved institutions
3. Computer Section, RCI to upload on the website"
23. Sequel to above, respondent/RCI issued circular dated 04.01.2024
whereby it informed that it had decided not to grant new approvals to any
institutions for running two year courses for providing special education
from the academic session 2024-25. It was further informed that the
institutions who desire to run integrated B.Ed Special Education of 04 years
of duration may apply afresh for the academic session 2024-25. The circular
dated 04.01.2024 reads thus:
"REHABILITATION COUNCIL OF INDIA
A Statutory Body of Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment
Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (Divyangjan),
Government of India
F.No.8-A/Policy/(Recog)/2009/RCI 04 January, 2024
CIRCULAR
In order to upgrade the competency of teachers, the National Council for
Teacher Education (NCTE) has launched the Integrated Teacher Education
Programme (ITEP) under the New Education Policy (NEP) 2020 in which
the duration of B.Ed. programme has been increased from two years to four
years and discontinued giving approval of two years B.Ed. programme from
the academic session 2023-24.
This Council has decided not to grant new approvals to any institutions
for running two year B.Ed. (Special Education) programme(s) from the
academic session 2024-25. The Council
is in the process of developing a new training programme on the pattern
of NCTE soon, as per NEP 2020.
All the institutions/colleges/universities who desire to run the. Integrated
B.Ed. Special Education of 4 year duration (in line of the Integrated
Teacher Education Programme-ITEP of NCTE) may apply afresh for the
next academic session once the online portal is opened.
Sd/-
(Vikas Trivedi)
Member Secretary
(emphasis supplied)
24. This was followed by two more circulars of even date 08.03.2024.
One circular of 08.03.2024 informed the decision taken by RCI to enhance
the seats in existing institutions to bridge the gap of special educators
whereas the other circular of the even date returned the fresh proposals
received from the institutions for 02 year courses and proposed to refund the
process fee of all such institutions detailed in Annexure A. The details of
two applications of the petitioners' college have been mentioned at Serial
Nos. 360 and 361 in the said list of institutions (Annexure A).
25. Feeling aggrieved by the Circular dated 04.01.2024 and the two
Circulars dated 08.03.2024, the petitioners as well as other similarly situated
institutions filed separate writ petitions. The writ petition filed by the
petitioners was numbered as W.P (C) 5679/2024 titled as Shanti Niketan of
Special Education and Anr. Vs. Rehabilitation Council of India. The said
petition of the petitioner along with batch matters were decided by the
coordinate bench of this court vide judgment dated 31.05.2024.
26. The court observed that not only proposals were notified by the RCI
from the interested institutions; detailed guidelines were also framed and
circulated. This guidelines required the institutions to possess specific
infrastructural and financial resources. Acting on the promise held out by
the RCI, the petitioners therein had invested considerable amount in setting
up their institutions and making them approval friendly. Thus, the
petitioners had clearly acted on the basis of representation held out by the
RCI to all of them. It was further observed that the decision not to consider
the fresh proposals for the D.Ed Special Education and B.Ed Special
Education were not impelled by any consideration of supervening public
equity, therefore, the respondent/RCI could not have refused to consider the
fresh proposals submitted by the petitioners for D.Ed.Spl.Ed and
B.Ed.Spl.Ed courses for the academic sessions 2024-25.
27. The court held that the petitioners therein having clearly altered their
position to their disadvantage on the basis of the representation held out by
the respondent/RCI, which position cannot be reversed to restore the status
quo ante to bring them back to the position in which they were.
28. The court also noted that para 5.2.1 of the National Education Policy
2020 (hereinafter NEP), coupled with the impugned enhanced seat circular
dated 08.03.2024 pertaining to existing institutions indicates that there is a
dearth of special educators and an urgent need to augment the available
strength of such educators. Accordingly, the writ petitions were allowed and
the impugned circulars dated 04.01.2024 and the two circulars of even date
08.03.2024, were quashed. The relevant extract from the said decision reads
thus:
"75. In these circumstances, I am in agreement with Mr. Sharawat
that in the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the
respondents could not have refused to consider the fresh proposals
submitted by the petitioners for commencing the D.Ed.Spl.Ed. and
B.Ed.Spl.Ed. courses for the academic session 2024-2025.
76. This is not, therefore, a case in which the decision to resile on
the representations, held out to the public, that fresh proposals for
all Special Education Courses, including D.Ed.Spl.Ed. and
B.Ed.Spl.Ed., could be submitted for consideration, can be said to
have been prompted by supervening public equity or public interest.
Xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
78. ............. The petitioners have invested considerable amounts in
setting up their institutions and marshalling the requisite
infrastructure to satisfy the prescribed norms for conducting the
D.Ed.Spl.Ed. and B.Ed.Spl.Ed. courses. The assertions to this
effect in the writ petition filed by the petitioners are not traversed
by the respondents in their counter-affidavit. Even otherwise, it is
obvious that setting up an educational institution involves a
considerable amount of financial outlay, and investing of
extensive resources. The petitioners have therefore clearly altered
their position to their disadvantage on the basis of the
representation held out by the respondent. It cannot be said that
the petitioners are now in a position to restore the status quo ante
or bring themselves back to the position in which they were before
the impugned circulars had been issued by the RCI. The
petitioners' institutions cannot be razed to the ground.
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
80. The reliance, by Ms. Jauhari, on the NEP 2020, is also not
wholly convincing. Mr. Sharawat is correct in his submission that
Special Educators are specifically dealt with in para 5.21 of the
NEP 2020 which expressly recognizes the urgent need to augment
the strength of Special Educators. This fact, coupled with the
impugned Enhanced Seat Circular dated 8 March 2024, indicates
that the dearth of Special Educators and the urgent need to
augment the available strength of Special Educators was a
consideration to which all were alive. It is for this purpose that
existing institutions were permitted to enhance their seat intake for
the D.Ed.Spl.Ed. and B.Ed.Spl.Ed. courses. As the urgent need for
additional Special Educators stands thereby expressly expressed
and recognized, even considerations of public interest cannot justify
return of the petitioners‟ applications seeking starting of new
D.Ed.Spl.Ed. and B.Ed.Spl.Ed. courses.
xxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
83. The Circulars dated 4 January 2024 and 8 March 2024, which
conveyed the decision to return the petitioners' proposals, is
quashed and set aside to the extent it returns the petitioners'
applications. The proposals would therefore be processed in
accordance with law."
(emphasis supplied)
29. Pursuant to the aforesaid judgment, the respondent/RCI was under the
obligation to process the application of the petitioners in accordance with
law. However, it appears that the respondent/RCI vide its impugned letter
dated 24.06.2024 informed the petitioners that it has re-scrutinised the
proposals submitted by the them for - (i) B.Ed. Spl. Ed.(LD) (ii) B.Ed. Spl.
Ed.(ID) courses along with all the documents in light of the norms and
guidelines and following three common deficiencies are noted in both
courses:
(i) PwD certificate submitted is valid till 2023,
(ii) List of 30 students attached without mentioning disability
and UDID; and
(iii) No details of faculty mentioned, no consent submitted.
30. Thus, the fresh proposals submitted by the petitioners for both the
courses were not considered by the RCI observing that the petitioners have
failed to meet the requisite documents, as per the norms and guidelines for
the fresh proposals.
31. As regards the deficiency pertaining to PwD certificate purportedly
valid till 2023, this court finds that when the applications for approval were
submitted by the petitioners with regard to the two courses on 29.09.2023
and 20.10.2023, the certification of registration (Annexure R-1) under the
PwD Act was valid for a period of three years commencing from 10.12.2020
to 09.12.2023. Further, before the expiry of said certificate, the certificate
was revalidated on 15.12.2023 (Annexure P-11) for a period of another three
years and the said renewal is valid till 14.12.2026.
32. In respect of the deficiency pointed out in the list of 30 students,
which allegedly does not contain disability and UDID, the list of such
candidates dated 25.09.2023 which has been placed on record reveals that
the disability and UDID certificate has been specifically mentioned.
33. On a query posed by the Court that since the list is of September,
2023 and whether the said students are still available, Mr. Kumar, on
instructions, stated that good number of students are still available for taking
up the special education courses, the details of which can be furnished to the
respondent/RCI in the event, fresh inspection is carried out.
34. In so far as the deficiency pertaining to non-furnishing of details of
faculty or their consent is concerned, attention of the court was drawn by
Mr. Amitesh Kumar to the list of 08 teaching faculty and 02 staff members.
On being queried as to the availability of such faculty as on date, on
instructions, he stated that the faculty is still available with the institute and
necessary details could be furnished, as and when inspection is undertaken
by the RCI, if so ordered by the court.
35. Be that as it may, respondent/RCI could not have rejected the
petitioners' proposal without affording them an opportunity to cure or justify
the said defects. Thus, respondent/RCI has flouted the principles of natural
justice. Reliance in this regard may be had to the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Mrs. Meneka Gandhi v. Union of India & Anr., (1978) 1
SCC 248 wherein it was held that even in the absence of an express statutory
provision, where an administrative action entails civil consequences or
prejudicially affects a person, the duty to act fairly and afford a reasonable
opportunity of being heard must be read into the exercise of such power.
The Court emphasized that any authority vested with the power to take a
decision affecting rights is under an implicit obligation to act judicially, and
failure to observe the basic tenets of natural justice, particularly the right to
be heard, renders such decision arbitrary and liable to be set aside. The
relevant extracts from Meneka Gandhi (supra.) are reproduced below:
"221. It is well established that even where there is no specific
provision in a statute or rules made thereunder for showing cause
against action proposed to be taken against an individual, which
affects the rights of that individual, the duty to give reasonable
opportunity to be heard will be implied from the nature of the
function to be performed by the authority which has the power to
take punitive or damaging action. This principle was laid down by
this Court in the State of Orissa v. Dr (Miss) Binapani Dei [AIR 1967
SC 1269, 1271 : (1967) 2 SCR 625 : (1967) 2 LLJ 266] in the
following words:
"The rule that a party to whose prejudice an order is intended to be
passed is entitled to a hearing applies alike to judicial tribunals and
bodies of persons invested with authority to adjudicate upon
matters involving civil consequences. It is one of the fundamental
rules of our constitutional set-up that every citizen is protected
against exercise of arbitrary authority by the State or its officers.
Duty to act judicially would, therefore arise from the very nature of
the function intended to be performed : it need not be shown to be
superadded. If there is power to decide and determine to the
prejudice of a person, duty to act judicially is implicit in the
exercise of such power. If the essentials of justice be ignored and an
order to the prejudice of a person is made, the order is a nullity.
That is a basic concept of the rule of law and importance thereof
transcends the significance of a decision in any particular case."
36. The aforesaid position stands further reinforced by the decision of this
court in Madhu Vachaspati Institute of Pharmacy v. Pharmacy Council of
India, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 282, wherein in an analogous factual matrix
involving rejection of institutional approval on alleged deficiencies, in
essence it was observed that the authority is under an obligation to
specifically communicate the deficiencies along with the inspection report
and afford the concerned institution an opportunity to rectify the same
before taking a final decision.
37. Fairness in administrative action mandates prior disclosure of
deficiencies by the regulatory authority and grant of reasonable and
meaningful opportunity to cure them. This court finds that vide impugned
letter dated 24.06.2024, the respondent/RCI notified the deficiencies and at
the same time rejected the proposals of the petitioners, without giving any
opportunity, whatsoever, to the petitioners to justify or cure the same.
38. In the writ petition, particularly in para 35 thereof, the petitioners
have given detailed explanation and specifically averred that petitioner
institution does not suffer from deficiencies pointed out by respondent/RCI.
Para 35 of the writ petition is reproduced hereunder:
"35. That it is submitted that respondent has issued impugned
communication on three grounds namely (i) PwD Certificate not
submitted is valid till 2023, (ii) List of 30 students attached
without mentioning disability and UDID and (iii) No details of
faculty mentioned, no consent submitted. So far as requirement of
PWD certificate is concealed, the petitioner has submitted the
PWD certificate dated 15.12.2023 which is valid for a period of
three year from the date of issue. Thus the first observation of
respondent in the impugned communication is factually incorr6ct
and cannot be sustained. So far as list of 30 students attached by
Petitioners without mentioning disability and UD ID is concerned,
the petitioner has the required number of students alongwith their
UD ID. If the respondent would have pointed out above
deficiency, the petitioner would have submitted the same within
the stipulated time. Further the petitioner also has the requisite
faculty members for running proposed two courses. Thus, it is
apparent that petitioner institution does not suffer from
deficiencies pointed out by respondent and the petitioners are
entitled for consideration and processing of their application in
accordance with norms & standards laid down by RCI. It is
submitted that norms notified by RCI i.e. manual on assessment of
training institutions as well as communication dated 18.08.2023
does not contemplates submission of consent of faculty, therefore,
RCI is not justified in returning the applications on the above
ground. However, without prejudice to its rights and contentions,
petitioners are willing to submit consent of faculty members. . A
true copy of list of faculty for both courses and list of students with
details of their disability and UD ID are annexed herewith and
being marked as ANNEXURE P-20 (Colly)."
39. Incidentally, in the corresponding Para 35 of the counter-affidavit,
respondent/RCI has pointed out only one deficiency to the effect that along
with the application / proposal submitted by petitioners, no valid PWD
certificate was submitted. Para 35 of the counter-affidavit is reproduced
hereunder:
"35. That the contents of paragraph 35 are denied for want of
knowledge. It is humbly submitted that the Petitioner be put to
strict proof. It is humbly submitted that the Petitioner at the time
of submitting the its Application/proposal failed to submit a valid
PwD certificate. It shall be essential to mention that the certificate
was only valid till 9-12-2023."
40. As noted above, the petitioners were possessing valid certificate under
the PwD Act at the time when proposals for new courses were submitted and
the same is still valid till 14.12.2026. Had an opportunity been provided to
the petitioners, they could have furnished all relevant material and details to
the satisfaction of the RCI and, if necessary, could have rectified the
defects/deficiencies pointed out in the impugned order, which by their very
nature appear to be curable. Intriguingly, the said course was not resorted
to.
41. The action of RCI in rejecting the petitioner's proposal without prior
disclosure of defects and without affording an opportunity to cure the same
is manifestly arbitrary, contrary to the principles of natural justice, and
therefore unsustainable in law.
42. In its additional affidavit dated 30.07.2025, the respondent/RCI
departed from its original stand and stated that it has discontinued the two
years B.Ed Courses vide circular dated 01.12.2023. Incidentally pursuant to
circular dated 01.12.2023 another circular dated 04.01.2024 was issued
whereby it informed that RCI has decided not to grant new approvals to any
institutions for running two year courses for providing special education
from the academic session 2024-25. This circular of 04.01.2024 has already
been quashed by this Court vide judgment dated 31.05.2024, therefore, the
RCI cannot justify its stand to discontinue the two year special education
courses on the anvil of circular dated 01.12.2024, which in essence conveys
the same decision which was reiterated in the quashed circular dated
04.01.2024.
43. The submission that the circulars which were quashed vide judgment
31.05.2024, were set aside only to the extent it returns the petitioners'
application, whereas the decision taken therein with regard to
discontinuation of two years course remains undisturbed, is noted to be
rejected. The operative part of the said judgment whereby the circulars
impugned therein have been quashed, is predicated on the finding that the
petitioners have invested considerable amounts in setting up their
institutions and marshalling the requisite infrastructure to satisfy the
prescribed norms for conducting special education courses and thereby
clearly altered their position to their disadvantage on the basis of the
representation held out by the RCI and the restoration of status quo ante is
also not possible nor the decision of the RCI to resile from the
representations, held out to the public, appears to be permissible by
supervening public equity or public interest.
44. In the backdrop of above findings, it cannot be concluded by any
stretch of imagination that the decision in the impugned circular dated
04.01.2024 not to grant new approvals to any institutions for running two
years special education courses for the academic session 2024-25 has not
been quashed and remains undisturbed. The expression „to the extent it
returns the petitioners‟ application only signifies that other decisions taken
in the quashed circulars viz. decision to enhance the seats in existing
institutions, as well as, the invitation of proposals for integrated B.Ed.
Special Education for 4 year duration for the next academic session, remains
intact.
45. In view of the above discussion, the petition deserves to be allowed
and the impugned letter dated 24.06.2024 (Annexure P-1) is quashed and set
aside with the following directions:
(i) the respondent/RCI shall carry out inspection of the
petitioners' institution and point out defect/deficiencies, if any,
within a period of 04 weeks from today, and
(ii) if any defects/deficiencies are found by the respondent/RCI,
it shall notify the same to the petitioner, affording two weeks time
to cure the same,
(iii) thereafter, a final decision shall be taken by the
respondent/RCI by passing a speaking order within a period of one
week.
46. The petition, along with pending applications, if any, stands disposed
of.
VIKAS MAHAJAN, J
APRIL 9, 2026/jg/dss
