Late Ishdutt Smarak Mahavidyalaya v. National Council For Teacher Education & ANR

$~29 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 11995/2018 LATE ISHDUTT SMARAK MAHAVIDYALAYA..... Petitioner Through:

Mr. Mayank Manish with Mr. Ravi Kant, Advs.

versus NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION & ANR ..... Respondent Through:

Mr. Mohit Siwach with Mr. Karan Sharma, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

O R D E R

% 21.01.2020 The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that though initially it was granted recognition for running two units having an intake of 50 students each qua D.El.Ed. Course, the said recognition order was revised and the recognition was, thereafter, granted only for one unit. 2.

For this purpose, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to Annexure P-4 appended on page 40 of the paper book. A perusal of this order would show that the petitioner was given recognition for two units.

2.1 The revised recognition order, which is, dated 28.6.2016 is marked as Annexure P-5 and is appended on page 45 of the paper book. 2.2 A perusal of this order would show that the earlier order was revised and thus, as contended on behalf of the petitioner, recognition qua Dl.Ed course obtains only vis.-a-vis. one unit.

W.P.(C) 11995/2018 1/2

3.

The petitioner asserts that despite representations dated 16.6.2017 and 16.11.2017 to the Northern Regional Committee (NRC), there has been no movement in the matter. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the second order passed by the NRC dated 28.6.2016 provides no reasons for the u-turn.

4.

Mr. Mohir Siwach, who appears for the respondents, cannot but accept that no reasons are set out in the order dated 28.6.2016. 5.

Accordingly, the order dated 28.6.2016, which is pivoted on the decision taken in the 253rd meeting of the NRC held between 30.5.2016 and 3.6.2016 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the NRC for a fresh consideration.

6.

The NRC will pass a speaking order after giving due opportunity to the authorized representative of the petitioner. 7.

The writ petition is disposed of in the aforementioned terms. RAJIV SHAKDHER, J JANUARY 21, 2020/pmc W.P.(C) 11995/2018 2/2