RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. -- The petitioner by this writ petition impugns the order dated 14th May, 2010 of the Appeal Committee of the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against the order dated 11/16th March, 2010 of the Northern Regional Committee (NRC) withdrawing the recognition given to the petitioner for imparting education in B.Ed. course. Notice of the petition was issued by the Division Bench of this Court on 4th June, 2010. Vide order dated 14th July, 2010, the Division Bench directed the petition to be listed before Single Bench for today. The petition is accompanied with an application for interim relief. The senior counsel for the petitioner informed that the University of Delhi while inviting applications for admission to the B.Ed. programme commencing in the year 2010 in Institutions affiliated to the University had mentioned the name of the petitioner also as an Institution where the said programme is offered, subject to the outcome of the present proceedings. It was thus contended that if the present petition was to succeed and the orders withdrawing recognition of the petitioner are to be set aside/quashed, the petitioner would be entitled to admit students for the B.Ed. course for the year 2010-11 also. It was contended that any delay in hearing of the petition will make the petition infructuous. In the circumstances, though the counter affidavit stated to be filed by the respondents was not on record, a copy of the same was handed over in the Court and taken on record and the senior counsels for the parties heard.

2. The petitioner is a multidisciplinary Constituent College of the University of Delhi imparting education in 12 courses and having a strength of nearly 2500 students in the year 2009-10. One of the courses in which the petitioner College has been imparting education is Bachelor of Elementary Education (B. El.Ed.). The petitioner in or about June, 2007 applied to the NCTE (NRC) constituted under the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 for recognition for imparting education in B.Ed. The NCTE vide its order dated 21st March, 2009 granted recognition / permission to the petitioner for conducting B.Ed. course of Secondary (level) of one year duration with an annual intake of 100 students, from the academic session 2009-10. The NCTE however vide its order dated 19th June, 2009 stating that a complaint had been received on 3rd June, 2009, that the petitioner’s institution was not having adequate infrastructure facilities for running the B.Ed. course separately, directed the effect of the recognition order dated 21st March, 2009 (supra) to be kept in abeyance. The petitioner was directed not to admit students for the academic session 2009-10 until further orders. It is the case of the petitioner that the matter was again considered in detail and whereupon the respondents were satisfied of the complaint made being baseless and vide order dated 3rd July, 2009 revoked the earlier order dated 19th June, 2009 (keeping the recognition granted in abeyance). It is the case of the petitioner and not controverted by the respondents that the petitioner admitted 100 students in the said course in the academic session 2009-10.

3. One Ms. Shubha Parmar, a lecturer in the Department of History in the petitioner College filed WP(C) No.10150/2009 in this Court averring lack of necessary accommodation and infrastructural facilities and funds in the petitioner College to conduct B.Ed. classes and seeking directions to the respondents herein to ensure that the B.Ed. classes were not commenced in the College. The said writ petition was disposed of on 2nd December, 2009. While it was the case of the College that the classes had already commenced and there was no shortage of accommodation and infrastructure, the counsel for the respondents herein submitted that the premises of the petitioner had been re-inspected and a communication dated 20th October, 200