Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Vidyasagar Primary Teachers Training ... vs National Council For Teacher Education ... on 4 March, 2010
Author: Tapen Sen
Bench: Tapen Sen
4.3.2010
W.P. No. 23820 (W) of 2009
Vidyasagar Primary Teachers Training Institute & Anr
... Petitioner
-Vs-
National Council for Teacher Education & Ors.
... Respondents
For the Petitioners : Mr. Ashok De, Mr. Avijit Chakraborty For the N.C.T.E. : Ms. Asha Gutgutia In this Writ Petition the Petitioners have prayed for an order commanding upon the respondents and particularly, the National Council for Teacher Education, Eastern Regional Committee ( Respondent Nos. 3 and 4) not to give effect to the impugned letter dated 28.10.2009(as contained in AnnexureP-6) whereby and whereunder, they refused to allow the application filed the petitioners seeking grant of recognition for B.Ed. Programme on the ground that the Institution had not submitted the application electronically through the On- line mode. It is not necessary for this Court to go into the details of the matter save and except the record that the petitioners have admitted that they sent their application seeking grant of recognition for B.Ed. Course for the Academic year 2010-2011 starting from 1.07.2010 attaching therewith all relevant documents in terms of the guidelines issued by the National Council for Teacher Education and the said application was duly received in the office of the Council on 16.10.2009. This part of the submission has not been disputed by Ms. Asha Gutgutia , learned Counsel appearing for the said National Council for Teacher Education. 2 However, her principal submission is that since the petitioners did not send the application On-line, there was no question of considering the application that was received by the office of the Council on 16.10.2009. She relies upon Rule 5 as well as Rule 7 of the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2009, a photocopy of which was handed over to the Court and which is being ordered to be retained with the records of this case. Rule 5 of the said Rules reads as follows :
5. Manner of making application and Time Limit.-
(1) An institution eligible under Regulation 4, desirous of running a teacher education programme may apply to the concerned Regional Committee of National Council for Teacher Education for recognition in the prescribed form in triplicate along with processing fee and requisite documents.
(2) The prescribed form may be downloaded from the website of the National Council for Teacher Education namely www.ncte-india.org.
(3) The application may be essentially submitted electronically through on-line mode available on the website of National Council for Teacher Education along with the processing fee. However, while submitting the application through on-line mode, the application and requisite documents in triplicate shall have to be submitted or send by registered post separately to the office of the Regional Committee concerned, immediately after on-line submission of the application.
(4) Duly completed applications in all respect may be submitted to the Regional Committee concerned during the period from the 1st day of September till 31st day of October of the preceding year to the academic session for which recognition has been sought.
Provided further that the condition of last date for submission of application shall not apply to any innovative programme of teacher education, for which separate guidelines have been issued by National Council for Teacher Education.
(5) All applications received on-line on or before the 31st day of October of the year shall be processed for the next academic session and 3 final decision, either recognition granted or refused, shall be communicated to the applicant on or before the 15th day of May of the succeeding year". Upon a perusal of the aforementioned Rule 5(3) of the said Rules, two things stand out very clearly. They are - firstly, an application has to be "essentially" submitted electronically through the On-line mode, and secondly, while submitting such an application, a hard copy thereof in triplicate along with all requisite documents shall have to be submitted or sent by Registered Post after On-line submission.
There is no dispute that the petitioners submitted only hard copies of the application but did not submit the same On- line. Upon going through the provisions of Rule 5, this Court does not, however, find any stipulation as to what would be the penal consequences in the event an application is not submitted On-line or an applicant submits an application only through the other alternative method of filing hard copies and not electronically. If there had been such a penal clause, then perhaps this Court would have proceeded to hold such a requirement as being mandatory; but in the absence of such a penal clause and in the prevalence of a specific clause conferring an option to submit hard copies simultaneously, this Court proceeds to hold that mere non-submission of an application through the On-line mode cannot attract the consequence of rejection. Moreover, under Rule 7(1A), there is a Clause which lays down that if an application submitted on-line is not followed by despatch of hard copies, then in that event, the application would be rejected summarily and the same returned to the applicant. But no such stipulation was brought to the notice of this Court in so far as non-submission of an application through the On-line mode.
4
There is yet another aspect to the whole issue and that is, that admittedly, the last date for receiving the application was fixed as 31.10.2009. In the instant case, the petitioner's application in the alternative mode was accepted and received in the office on 16.10.2009. The order rejecting the application dated 28.10.2009 was itself despatched on 31.10.2009 (which was the last date for receiving the applications) as would be evident from the postal receipt brought on record at page 133 of the writ petition. This action of the respondent was contrary to the provisions of Rule 7 which lays down that the Office shall point out any omissions or deficiencies within 45 days from the date of receipt of the applications so that the Applicants can remove such deficiencies within 60 days from the date of communication of the deficiencies. In other words, if the Commission had intimated such deficiencies much prior to 31.10.2009, the petitioners could have had an opportunity to remove the said deficiency by filing the application on-line. But instead of giving such an opportunity to them, the Commission chose to despatch the order of rejection itself on the last date, i.e 31.10.2009 thereby depriving the petitioners from even having an opportunity to comply with the provisions of Rule 7 pertaining to removal of the defect. This, in the opinion of this Court, was uncalled for and was in total violation of the principles of natural justice, apart from being illegal.
Consequently and considering the fact that this case relates to recognition of a B.Ed Programme for the Session 2010-2011 and considering that this case involves the aforementioned point only as to whether non-submission of an application through the On-line mode deserved the penalty of rejection, without there being such a penal clause, this Court, in the larger interests of the Institution and the students, is not interested in keeping this writ petition pending before this Court and, therefore, is inclined to dispose it of by directing 5 the Council concerned to accept the Application that they have returned within one week from the date of receipt of this Order and give seven days' time thereafter to the petitioners in writing so that they can remove the defect by filing an application in the On-line mode.
However, after this order was passed, it was informed to this Court that the Council has locked the process of receiving the On-line applications after 31.10.2009 and even if the Petitioners had the intention of sending such an application On-line, they cannot do so because of the locking of the website.
Under such circumstances, this Court gives an opportunity to the Council to either, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, to waive the requirement of submitting the application On-line as observed earlier or to find out such other alternative solution so that the petitioners are able to submit the on-line application within such time as may be fixed by the Commission. The impugned communication dated 28.10.2009 as contained in Annexure P-6, therefore stands set aside.
In order to facilitate the compliance of this order by the Council, the Petitioners are given liberty to transmit the returned copy by Registered Post along with Acknowledgement Due which will be accompanied by a copy of this order.
This Order has been passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case alone and will therefore not be cited as a precedent.
Subject to an application for certified copy being made, and proof thereof being furnished, let a plain photocopy of this Order, duly countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court), be handed over to the parties, on usual undertakings.
6
( Tapen Sen, J. ) SKS