Delhi High Court - Orders
Shree Swaminarayan B Ed College & Anr vs National Council For Teacher Education ... on 24 December, 2020
Author: Jayant Nath
Bench: Jayant Nath
$~A-17
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 11103/2020
SHREE SWAMINARAYAN
B ED COLLEGE & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through Mr.Amitesh Kumar, Ms.Priti Kumari
and Ms.Binisa Mohanty, Advs.
versus
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER
EDUCATION & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Ms.Kartika Sharma, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
ORDER
% 24.12.2020 This hearing is conducted through video conferencing.
1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking the following relief:-
"a) issue a writ of mandamus or any other suitable writ, order or direction directing the Respondents to issue revised recognition order for remaining one basic unit (50 Seats) of B.ED. course to petitioner institution under NCTE Regulations, 2014."
2. The case of the petitioners is that it was granted recognition on 14.02.2005 for running B.Ed. course with an intake of 100 students. The NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2014 was notified on 01.12.2014. Thereafter, NCTE vide its letter dated 24.12.2014 notified the Guidelines for processing of pending applications and for the existing institutions in terms of NCTE Regulations, 2014. The para 1 of the explanatory note notified by aforesaid NCTE letter dated 24.12.2014 provides as under:-
"The NCTE Regulations, 2014 contemplate enhanced duration of B.Ed., M.Ed. and B.P.Ed. programmes from one to two years. The existing institutions offering these programmes will be given revised Recognition order if they choose to come under New Regulations. No fresh application is necessary and they will be issued revised order of recognition w.e.f. 2015- 2016 provided they furnish the affidavit in the prescribed format. A copy of the revised order shall be endorsed to the affiliating university for their information and record."
3. It is stated that in terms of aforesaid requirement, the petitioner Institution submitted affidavits dated 30.12.2014 & 12.01.2015 in the prescribed format for the purpose of revised recognition order. It is stated that though the respondent Western Regional Committee issued the revised recognition order on 31.05.2015, but inadvertently referring to the affidavit dated 12.01.2015, the said revised recognition order was issued only for one basic unit (50 seats) in place of two basic units (100 seats) for existing B.Ed. course. It is stated that despite repeated representations submitted by petitioners and despite lapse of too much time, the revised recognition order for remaining one unit of 50 seats has not been issued till date.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the recognition of the petitioner Institution continues for 100 seats (two basic units) and as the revised recognition order has been issued inadvertently only for 50 seats (one basic unit), therefore, the affiliating university is not permitting the admissions for the entire 100 seats (two basic units).
5. A plea has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondents that the present writ petition is hopelessly barred by delay and laches as the admission in question allegedly refused on 13.10.2015 and the writ petition has now been filed after almost four years.
6. I have heard learned counsels for the parties.
7. I may note that the petitioner is an old recognized institution which was granted recognition for B.Ed. course on 14.02.2005 for 100 seats. After notification of NCTE Regulations, 2014, the petitioners submitted the requisite compliance of affidavit in prescribed proforma on 30.12.2014 & 12.01.2015. In both affidavits, the petitioner has stated about its intake of 100 seats and as required by NCTE, the following statement has been made in para 2 of the affidavit:-
"Further, I have been authorised by the Management to state that the institution shall fulfil the revised Norms relating to infrastructure, instructional facilities, enhanced amount of Endowment and Reserve Funds. Number of qualifications of Teaching Staff, Curriculum and implementation strategies in view of the change in duration/intake of the programme(s) offered in the institution within the time limit allowed by NCTE."
8. Thus, revised recognition order dated 31.05.2015 issued by WRC only for one basic unit (50 seats), referring to the affidavit dated 12.01.2015 appears to be prima facia incorrect.
9. As the learned counsel for the respondent has raised the plea of delay and laches, I may note that it is a matter of fact that no prejudice is caused to the respondents in this case by the delay in filing this petition except the burden of having to process the issuance of revised recognition order for remaining one unit. The respondents can be compensated for the same by imposing costs. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.50,000/- to NCTE. Needful be done within one week.
10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it would be in the interest of justice that the petitioner institution is allowed to participate in the counselling for the current academic year 2020-21. The respondents will take all consequential steps forthwith including correcting the status of the petitioner institution on the website, informing the Department of Higher Education, State of Gujarat and affiliating university/ concerned authority.
11. In the meantime, in view of the above, the respondents will take action on the request of the petitioner for the issuance of revised recognition order of the petitioner Institution for remaining one basic unit (50 seats) expeditiously, preferably within six weeks from today.
12. In view of the above, the petition stands disposed of. All pending applications also stand disposed of.
JAYANT NATH, J.
DECEMBER 24, 2020/v