5fac44086eaac2b120b7aa3848e08e80107814f9c5db47a5e07942ca8f13a135

2. The grievance raised by the petitioners is that all these petitioners had submitted their apphcations well before the said banning order and their applications were duly processed and even in all these cases inspection was also carried out by the inspecting team after the said banning order. The petitioners also submitted that the 2011:DHC:17277 -J Appeal Committee has not considered all these cases on merits and simply rejected their cases based on the banning order.

3. Mr. Amitesh Kumar counsel for the respondent no.l has drawn attention of this court to the order dated 25.5.2011 passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Review Petition No. 259/2011 filed by the applicants in LPA No. 830/2010. The Hon'ble Division Bench while deciding the review apphcation of the applicant has set aside the order passed in LPA 830/2010 and gave directions to the Appeal Committee to adjudicate the contentions raised by the apphcant therein afresh. Counsel further states that the Division Bench also gave directions to the Appeal Committee that it shall address all submission by giving cogent and germane reasons and also keep in view the concept of parity. Based on the said order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in the said review petition, counsel submits that similar directions can be given by this court to the Appeal Committee to take a decision on these petitions.J J after first deciding the issue of appUcability of ban. In response to the said submission of Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Mr. Sanjay Sahrawat counsel for the petitioners submits that in fact pursuant to the said directions of the Hon'ble Division Bench the Appeal Committee has decided the case of the G.D. Memorial College of Education vide order dated 5.7.2011 reiterating their earlier decision of rejecting the appeal of the said institute. Counsel further submits that despite the directions given by the Hon'ble Division Bench in the said review petition, the Appeal Committee failed to give any categorical finding on the issue of apphcability of ban and therefore the said issue of ban still remains inconclusive. Counsel submits that directions may be given by this court to the Appeal Committee to give a categorical finding on the said issue of apphcability of ban.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. Vide order dated 4.5.2011, this court gave directions to the Member Secretary of the respondent NCTE to file an additional affidavit taking a specific stand on the J J issue of applicability of ban after taking into consideration the policy decision taken by the NCTE through their letter dated 31.8.2010, which was also referred to in one of the meeting of the Regional Committee i.e. NCTE, Jaipur held on 9.9.2010 and also the decision taken by the Appeal Committee in their order dated 11.3.2011 in the case of G.C. College of Education. This issue i.e. apphcability of ban was also under consideration before the Hon'ble Division Bench of this court in LPA Nos. 743/2010, 830/2010 and 833/2010. All the said three appeals were decided by the Hon'ble Division Bench vide order dated 24.2.2011. In para 17 ofthe said order dated 24.2.2011, it was observed bythe Division Bench that it would be difficult to put the clock back and say that the application should be considered in accordance with 2007 Regulations and therefore the application can only be processed after the ban is lifted or for that matter for 2012-13 depending upon the change of pohcy. The said para is reproduced as under: "17. Astand has also been taken that there has been a ban regarding acceptance of application for recognition of teacher training courses for the academic session 2011-12 in various States for specific courses and so far as State of Haryana is concerned, there is a ban on D.EI. B.Ed., D.P. Ed. And B.P. Ed. Even if the submission of the leaned counsel for the respondent is accepted, it is difficult to put the clock back and say that the application should be considered in accordance with 2007 Regulations and application should be processed. The application can also be processed after the ban is lifted or for that matter for 2012-13, depending upon the change of policy."

6. Feeling aggrieved with the said directions given by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this court two of the petitioners had moved a review petition i.e. R.P. No. J 259/2011 in LPA NO. 830/2011 and on the said review petition the Hon'ble Division Bench gave the following directions. This is an application for review of the order dated 20.4.2011 passed in LPA No.830/2010. Vide order dated 3rd May, 2011, notice was issued on the review application in view of the contention that the principle of ban was not applied by the NCTE to pending applications. NCTE has filed an affidavit in reply stating that principle of ban was applied to pending application but not in case of minority institutions or cases where inspection had been conducted before the date of ban. Learned counsel for the applicant institute has argued to the contrary and stated that the principle of ban should not be applied in the present case. He pleads that inspection was f conducted and delay in any case cannot cause prejudice. Having heard, Mr.Sanjay Sharawat, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr.Amitesh Kumar, learned counsel for the NCTE-respondent the order passed in LPA No.830/2010 and the writ petition are set aside and the matter is remitted to the appeal committee to be adjudicated afresh. It is open to the applicant to raise all contentions before the appeal committee and it is expected that the appeal committee shall address all submission by giving cogent and germane reasons and also keep in view the concept of parity. Needless to say, the adjudication has to in accordance with law. Mb To cut short delay, it is directed that the applicant or Its authorized representatives shall appear before the appeal connmittee on 7th June, 2011."

7. The plea taken by the apphcant in the said review petition was that the principle of ban should not be applied to their cases as the said institutions had filed their appUcations much prior to the banning order issued by the respondent no.l and inspection of their premises had already been carried out. Although a specific direction was given by the Hon'ble Division Bench to the Appeal Committee that they will address all the submissions raised by the petitioners by giving cogent and germane reasons and also keep in view the concept of parity, but yet the respondent no.l Appeal Committee has not given any categorical finding on'the said vexed issue of apphcability of ban as it would be evident from the order dated 5.7.2011 passed by the NCTE, copy of which has been produced by the counsel for the petitioners. 8- In all the present five petitions the recognition of these institutions for conducting D.Ed course has been declined based on the said pubhc notice dated 1.10.2008 issued by the respondent NCTE, without taking into consideration the case of the petitioners on merits. Since already the Hon'ble Division Bench of this court has given directions to the Appeal Committee to decide the said issue, therefore, this court deem it appropriate to remand these matters back to the Appeal Committee for deciding the said issue. The Appeal Committee is directed to give a categorical finding on the said issue of applicability of ban. If the Appeal Committee comes to the conclusion that the order of the ban would not be applicable to these petitioners, then the case of all these petitioners shall be considered by the Appeal Committee on merits after taking into consideration all the contentions raised by the petitioners in their respective ^ appeals. The petitioners, if feel aggrieved by the order of the Appeal Committee will be at liberty to take appropriate remedy against the said order of the Appeal Committee as per law. The petitioners shall be at liberty to give proper and effective assistance to the Appeal Committee by placing 7^^ on record all the relevant judgments of various High Courts and any prior decision, if any, given by the Appeal Committee itself on the said issue. The parties are directed to appear before the Appeal Committee on 12.07.2011. The Appeal Committee is expected to decide the appeals of the petitioners within a period of two months from the date of this order.

9. With these directions the present petitions stand disposed of. Dasti f\ /I July 06, 2011 KAILaM^MBHIR, T Mg