Full Text
W.P.(C) 1252/2015
SARASWATI COLLEGE OF EDUCATION & ANR Petitioners
EVERGREEN COLLEGE OF EDUCATION & ANR Petitioners
DR. S RADHAKRISHNAN COLLEGE OF EDUCATION Petitioner
G.R. COLLEGE OF EDUCATION Petitioner
Mr Arjun Harkauli, Advocate for respondent/NCTE in all the items.
2015:DHC:10985
••
26.02.2015 The petitioners have filed the above petitions challenging the return of their applications for recognition of D.El.Ed. and B.Ed courses. The recognition sought for by the petitioners was rejected as the State of
Haryana had given a general direction to return such applications, .^-he petitioners also impugn a communication dated 20.03.2013 issued by the
National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE).
The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decision of a
Coordinate Bench of this Court in Divine Mission Society /Regd;,) v.
National Council for Teacher Educaiton and Anr.: W.P.(C) 2889/2013 and other connected matters, which were disposed of by an order dated
24.11.2014. This Court had set aside NCTE's order dated 20.03.2013 (which is also impugned in the present petitions) and held as under:-
"6. This Court is of the view that after filing of an application, an institution is legally entitled to have it processed by the statutorily designated authority strictly, in accordance with the statutorily prescribed procedure. The input of the State Government as a stake holder under the current rules is certainly relevant but it cannot be accepted as
'gospel truth' and that too, without giving an opportunity 6^ hearing to the petitioners.
ORDER
7. Keeping in view the aforesaid as well as the judgment/orders of the Madhya Pradesh and Punjab & Haryana High Courts as well as the order dated 10th September, 2013 passed by Supreme Court in SLP No. 4247- 4248/2009, present writ petitions are disposed of with a direction that the petitioners shall apply afresh in accordance with new regulations, if required and the same shall be considered by the NCTE/NRC for the year 2015-16, in accordance with new regulations which are to be notified in compliance with the directions ofthe Supreme Court. If any deficiency is found, the same shall be communicated to the petitioners, who shall remove the deficiency within the given time. In case, the deficiencies are removed within the given time, the application shall be processed in accordance with Rules and Regulations. If the deficiencies are not removed, the applications shall stand rejected. With the aforesaid observations, the present batch of writ petitions is disposed of but without any order as to costs." • In the aforesaid view, the petitioners are liable to succeed. This Court had also disposed of other similar matters by an order dated 09.01.2015 whereby it was directedthat the applications ofthe petitioners in those cases be considered for the academic year 2015-16 in accordance with the new regulations. However, the learned counsel appearing for NCTE states that the petitioners have delayed approaching this Court and now it would not be possible to process their applications for the academic year 2015-16. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also drawn the attention of this Court to the new regulations, namely. National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedures) Regulations, 2014 (hereafter '2014 Regulations') which specify that all the applications would be filed online from 1^^ March to 31®^ May of the year preceding the academic session. Regulation 5(5) ofthe 2014 Regulations reads as under:- "(5) Duly completed application in all respects may be submitted to the Regional Committee concerned between March to 31^^ May of the preceding year from the academic session for which recognition is sought: Provided that the aforesaid period shall not be vy /" applicable for submission of application to innovative programmes of teacher education." The learned counsel for NCTE has also referred to the Schedule which indicatesthe various stages for processingthe applications. I am inclined to accept the contention of the respondents that it would be difficult for NCTE to process these applications for the academic session 2015-16. Thus, although the petitioners are liable to succeed, the relief of directing their applications to be considered for the academic session 2015- 16, is not feasible. Accordingly, the relief is moulded by directing that the petitioners are at liberty to apply as per the 2014, Regulations. The -T respondents shall consider their applications in accordance with law for the academic session 2016-17. It would not be open for the respondents to reject the applications on the ground that applications for the academic year 2016- 17 have not been invited. The petitions are disposed of with the aforesaid direction. f VIBHUBAKHRU, J FEBRUARY 26, 2015 MK