The court emphasized the lack of statutory bar for the writ court to entertain the writ application if it is satisfied about the illegality of the decision in question.

Heard learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioners and learned counsel representing the National Council for Teacher Education.

2. The conduct of the respondent NCTE is writ large in the manner in which they approach their litigation before the High Court. Writ was filed by the petitioners way back on 18.3.2011 when two copies of the writ application were also served on the Standing Counsel for National Council for Teacher Education, Bhubaneswar on 10.3.2011. No counter affidavit has been filed till date and prayer for further adjournment of four weeks is being made.

3. The Court is not inclined to give such an indulgence because the respondents do not have the privilege to litigate according to their convenience and respond when they feel like. The prayer for adjournment is rejected.

4. A limited submission has been made on behalf of the petitioners, which prima facie shows arbitrariness in the conduct and decision-making of the respondents. A communication dated 22.1.2011, contained in Annexure-3, has been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ application on the ground that the submission of hard copy by the petitioners in furtherance to the on-line submission of the application was barred by Regulation 7(1-A).

5. Regulation 7(1-A) is quoted herein below:- ' "The application submitted on-line but not followed by dispatch, through registered post or by hand with the documents mentioned at (i) to (vii) above within 7 days shall be considered as incomplete and shall be summarily rejected with the reasons recorded in writing and returned to the applicant alongwith the processing fees within 30 days of the receipt of application."

6. Reading of the above only shows that• an on-line application has to be followed by dispatch, through registered post of a hard copy of the application alongwith the documents. Petitioners have produced proof that the on-line submission of application was made on 28.9.2010 and hard copy dispatched by Speed Post on 29.9.2010. The said regulation does not talk in terms of this fact that the hard copy has to be received within seven days. It only talks of dispatch. This is the primary reason for summary rejection of the application of the petitioners.

7. If the statement made in the writ application is duly supported by evidence of dispatch brought before this. Court, then obviously people sitting in Bhubaneswar and running the affairs of the body in question are either blind or have no mind to apply to the issue. Obviously petitioners are being harassed at their hands for extraneous considerations, which is evident from series of cases coming to the Court. These institutions are not created for profit making, it is meant to ensure that the education imparted to students meet the standards laid down under law. The object should not be to reject applications at the drop of a hat which looks the case in the present writ.

8. Annexure-3 is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the authorities to take a fresh decision within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of a copy of this order. Any failure will be viewed seriously by this Court.

9. A preliminary objection was raised by the Standing Counsel representing National Council for Teacher Education that there is right of appeal. Right of appeal by itself does not bar this Court from entertaining the writ application as there is no law which prevents the writ court while exercising power under Article 226 to entertain the writ application if it is satisfied about the illegality of the decision in question. It is a self-imposed restraint and not a statutory bar. Looking at the conduct as well as the reasons for rejection by the respondents no purpose would be served by sending the petitioners in appeal because that will be an appeal from Caesar to Caesar's wife.

10. Writ is allowed.