Rajendra Academy For Teachers Education v. National Council For Teacher Education And ANR

$~25 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 8885/2017 RAJENDRA ACADEMY FOR TEACHERS EDUCATION ..... Petitioner Through Mr.Amitesh Kumar, Adv.

versus NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION AND ANR ..... Respondents Through Ms. Sonali Malhotra, Adv

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

O R D E R

% 10.10.2017 C.M. No.36321/2017 (exemption) Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions. Application disposed of.

W.P.(C) 8885/2017 & C.M. No.36220/2017 Petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that although he had applied for recognition of two units in the D.El.Ed. course (100 seats) he had been considered only for one unit and no order was passed qua the second unit.

Learned counsel for the respondent points out that the order of the Regional Committee clearly states that the petitioner had applied for only one unit; his submission that he had applied for two units is in fact incorrect. This position is disputed by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to the application which had been made by the petitioner along with his

affidavit of June-July, 2015 (pages 157 and 158 of the paper book). A perusal of these documents clearly shows that the petitioner institute had sought recognition/permission for conducting a course for teacher education (D.El.Ed.) with additional intake of 100 students. The fact that 50 students are comprised in one unit is not in dispute. The very fact that this affidavit clearly speaks of an additional intake of 100 students indicates the intent of the petitioner which intent was for recognition of two units. This is also borne out in the order (dated 21.8.2017- page 63 of the paper book) passed by the Appellate Authority of the respondent. Thus the submission of the respondent that the petitioner had not applied for two units is factually incorrect.

Learned counsel for petitioner points out that in similar facts, this Court has been passing orders wherein after the petitioner had been granted recognition for one unit, qua the second unit this petition be treated as a representation by respondent no.2. This Court notes the earlier orders passed by this Court. Accordingly, this writ petition be treated as a representation and the application of the petitioner qua the second unit be considered independently. The same shall be disposed of by respondent no.2 within a period of two months in accordance with law.

Petition disposed of.

INDERMEET KAUR, J OCTOBER 10, 2017 ndn