Green Valley College Of Education v. National Council For Teacher Education And ANR.

$~59 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ GREEN VALLEY COLLEGE OF EDUCATION ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Sanjay Sharawat, Mr. Divyank Rana and Mr.

Ashok Kumar, Advocates.

versus NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION AND ANR. ..... Respondent Through Ms.

Arunima Dwivedi, Standing Counsel along with Ms.

Preeti Kumra, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL

O R D E R

% 25.07.2018 The present petition instituted on behalf of the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, prays as follows: "a Pass an appropriate order and permit the petitioner to resubmit its application for D.El.Ed course with the respondent No. 2 which was returned by the said respondent vide its letter dated 28.08.2013; and b Consequentially issue a writ of mandamus and direct the respondent No. 2 to decide application of the petitioner for grant of recognition for D.El.Ed course strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the NCTE Act, 1993 read with NCTE Regulations, 2014."

Issue notice.

Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the official respondents, accepts notice. It is an admitted position that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the relief prayed for, is covered by an order dated 22.05.2018, in W.P. (C) 5454/2018, titled as 'Roa Deena Ram Vidya Vihar Shiksha Samiti Haluhera and Anr. vs. National Council For Teacher Education And Anr.', passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court.

A perusal of the averments made on behalf of the petitioner reflects that the application submitted on behalf of the petitioner for grant of recognition of the D.El.Ed course was returned without consideration by the official respondents, in view of a ban imposed by the State of Haryana in relation to the opening of such institutes. This Court vide the said order dated 22.05.2018 in 'Roa Deena Ram Vidya Vihar Shiksha Samiti Haluhera and Anr.', (supra) directed as follows:

"Subject to the petitioner meeting all other prescribed eligibility criteria, the respondents are directed to reconsider the petitioner's application dated 26.12.2012 and dispose of the same by passing a reasoned and speaking order within twelve weeks from today.

It is made clear that the petitioner's application would not be rejected on the ground of subsequent ban imposed by the State of Haryana on opening of such educational Institutions."

The above directions were predicated on the admitted position that the official respondents had, prior to the imposition of the State ban, taken a decision to process the applications of institutes, who had submitted the same before the imposition of the said State ban. In view of the foregoing, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned letter dated 28th August, 2013 of the Regional Director, Northern Regional Committee is quashed and the same is disposed of with a direction to the official respondents to reconsider the petitioner's application dated 27th December, 2012 and dispose of the same by passing a reasoned and speaking order within twelve weeks from today. It is also made clear that the petitioner's application would not be rejected on the ground of subsequent ban imposed by the State of Haryana on opening of such educational Institutions. The petitioner is, however, directed to deposit Rs.75,000/- with the Delhi High Court Advocates Welfare Trust. SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J JULY 25, 2018 RS