Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.rC^ 5475/2015 VIKASH COLLEGE OF EDUCATION Petitioner
W.P.rC^ 5475/2015 VIKASH COLLEGE OF EDUCATION Petitioner
VERSUS
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION &ANR... Respondents
W.P.rC^ 5477/2015 BABA BOHKA WALA COLLEGE OF EDUCATION Petitioner
W.P.rC^ 5477/2015 BABA BOHKA WALA COLLEGE OF EDUCATION Petitioner
VERSUS
EDUCATION &ANR... Respondents W.P.rC^ 5490/2015
CHOUDHARY SOHAN LAL COLLEGE OFEDUCATION Petitioner
CHOUDHARY SOHAN LAL COLLEGE OFEDUCATION Petitioner
VERSUS
EDUCATION & ANR... Respondents Pr: Mr Sanjay Sharawat and Mr Ratish Kumar, Advocates for petitioner in item Nos. 42, 43 & 47.
Mr ArjunHarkauli, Advocate withMr Satyawan Shekhawat, Advocates for respondents in item Nos. 43,47.
Mr ArjunHarkauli, Advocate withMr Satyawan Shekhawat, Advocates for respondents in item Nos. 43,47.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
27.05.2015 The petitioner in W.P.(C) 5475/2015 has filed the present petition.
2015:DHC:11050 <r sJ>
•j'-
9- inter alia, praying as under:- ! "[a] Issue a writ of certiorari and quash the communication/instruction dated 20.03.2013 issued by
Respondent No.l as the same is contrary to NCTE Act, Rules and Regulations and law declared by Hon'ble
.Supreme Court of India in State of Maharashtra vs Sant
Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya & Ors
;(2006) 9 see 1]; and b] Consequent upon grant ofprayer [a] above, issue a writ ofcertiorari and quash the order dated 19.09.2013 passed by the Respondent No.2 and direct said Respondent to process and finally decide application of petitioner for D.El.Ed course for academic session 2015-16 in accordance with law."
Similar prayers have been made by the petitioners in W.P.(C)
5477/2015 and W.P.(C) 5490/2015.
The learned counsel for the petitioners points out that several similar petitions were disposed of by an order dated 19.05.2015 and prays that similar orders be also passed in these petitions. The learned counsel for the respondent states that these petitions may be rejected as they are barred by latches. He points out that the order rejecting the application was passed in
2013 and more than two years have since elapsed. The learned counsel for the petitioners disputes that the petitions are barred by latches and points out that by an order dated 10.09.2013, blanket order had been passed by the
Supreme Court in SLP 4247-48/2009 directing National Council for Teacher
Education (NCTE) to process the pending applications as per new regulations which were directed to be framed. The New Regulations -
National Council ofTeacher Education (Recognition, Norms and Procedure)
Regulations, 2014 - were notified on 01.12.2014 and in interregnum period
!3 no application could be processed. In the circumstances the petitioners had not approached this Court at the material time.
I am inclined to accept the contention advanced by the petitioners that in view of the directions passed by the Supreme Court, applications could not be processed before notification of the New Regulations. It is also relevant to note that NCTE had approached the Supreme Court on more than one occasion for enhancement of time to frame the New Regulations. The respondent has also not pointed out as to how the delay in approaching this
Court has prejudiced any party. In the circumstances, the contention that these petitions are barred by latches is not sustainable, s/ In the circumstances, the present petitions are also disposed of in terms ofthe order dated 19.05.2015 passed in W.P.(C) 4414/2015 captioned
"Education Culture Society v. National Council for Teacher Education and Anr." and other connected matters.
Accordingly, it is directed that the applications filed by the petitioners be reconsidered for the academic session 2016-17 in accordance with law.
The petitioners are directed to resubmit their applications along with the requisite fee on or before 31.05.2015.
^ Dasti under the signature ofCourt Master.
VIBHU BAKHRU,J MAY 27, 2015 pkv
27.05.2015 The petitioner in W.P.(C) 5475/2015 has filed the present petition.
2015:DHC:11050 <r sJ>
•j'-
9- inter alia, praying as under:- ! "[a] Issue a writ of certiorari and quash the communication/instruction dated 20.03.2013 issued by
Respondent No.l as the same is contrary to NCTE Act, Rules and Regulations and law declared by Hon'ble
.Supreme Court of India in State of Maharashtra vs Sant
Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya & Ors
;(2006) 9 see 1]; and b] Consequent upon grant ofprayer [a] above, issue a writ ofcertiorari and quash the order dated 19.09.2013 passed by the Respondent No.2 and direct said Respondent to process and finally decide application of petitioner for D.El.Ed course for academic session 2015-16 in accordance with law."
Similar prayers have been made by the petitioners in W.P.(C)
5477/2015 and W.P.(C) 5490/2015.
The learned counsel for the petitioners points out that several similar petitions were disposed of by an order dated 19.05.2015 and prays that similar orders be also passed in these petitions. The learned counsel for the respondent states that these petitions may be rejected as they are barred by latches. He points out that the order rejecting the application was passed in
2013 and more than two years have since elapsed. The learned counsel for the petitioners disputes that the petitions are barred by latches and points out that by an order dated 10.09.2013, blanket order had been passed by the
Supreme Court in SLP 4247-48/2009 directing National Council for Teacher
Education (NCTE) to process the pending applications as per new regulations which were directed to be framed. The New Regulations -
National Council ofTeacher Education (Recognition, Norms and Procedure)
Regulations, 2014 - were notified on 01.12.2014 and in interregnum period
!3 no application could be processed. In the circumstances the petitioners had not approached this Court at the material time.
I am inclined to accept the contention advanced by the petitioners that in view of the directions passed by the Supreme Court, applications could not be processed before notification of the New Regulations. It is also relevant to note that NCTE had approached the Supreme Court on more than one occasion for enhancement of time to frame the New Regulations. The respondent has also not pointed out as to how the delay in approaching this
Court has prejudiced any party. In the circumstances, the contention that these petitions are barred by latches is not sustainable, s/ In the circumstances, the present petitions are also disposed of in terms ofthe order dated 19.05.2015 passed in W.P.(C) 4414/2015 captioned
"Education Culture Society v. National Council for Teacher Education and Anr." and other connected matters.
Accordingly, it is directed that the applications filed by the petitioners be reconsidered for the academic session 2016-17 in accordance with law.
The petitioners are directed to resubmit their applications along with the requisite fee on or before 31.05.2015.
^ Dasti under the signature ofCourt Master.
VIBHU BAKHRU,J MAY 27, 2015 pkv
JUDGMENT