The requirement of timely appeals under the NCTE Act emphasizes institutional diligence; failure to demonstrate sufficient cause for delay results in dismissal.

JUDGMENT

Prateek Jalan, J. (Oral)

The proceedings in the matter have been conducted through video conferencing.

1. The petitioner assails an order dated 27.04.2017, by which the Northern Regional Committee ("NRC") of the National Council for Teacher Education ("NCTE") rejected an application for recognition of its B.A.B.Ed./B.Sc.B.Ed. courses. The petitioner also challenges an order dated 26.09.2019, by which the Appellate Committee of the NCTE dismissed the petitioner's application on the ground of delay.

2. The petitioner filed the application for recognition on 29.05.2016. A show cause notice was issued by the NRC on 19.03.2017, to which it replied on 18.04.2017. The NRC rejected the petitioner's application by an order dated 27.04.2017. The contention of the petitioner is that this order was never received by the petitioner.

3. In the meantime, on 06.05.2017, the Secretary of the petitioner's parent body, which is a registered society (hereinafter, "the Society"), met with a road accident, which necessitated his hospitalisation for approximately 15 months. He was discharged from hospital only on 23.07.2018. The petitioner claims that the Secretary of the Society was the only person looking after the application for recognition, and no one else in the Society knew about the user ID or password in order to access the online portal of the NCTE.

4. According to the petitioner, the Secretary of the Society was able to apprise other members about the status of the application only in March, 2019, at which point the petitioner came to know about the order dated 27.04.2017 issued by the NRC.

5. The petitioner filed an appeal under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 on 11.07.2019, which was rejected by the impugned order of the Appellate Committee dated 26.09.2019.

6. The Appellate Committee having rejected the petitioner's application on the ground of delay, reference may be made to Section 18 of the NCTE Act, which provides as follows:

"18. Appeals (1) Any person aggrieved by an order made under section 14 or section 15 or section 17 of the Act may prefer an appeal to the Council within such period as may be prescribed.

(2) No appeal shall be admitted if it is preferred after the expiry of the period prescribed therefor:

Provided that an appeal may be admitted after the expiry of the period prescribed therefor, if the appellant satisfies the Council that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the prescribed period.

(3) Every appeal made under this section shall be made in such form and shall be accompanied by a copy of the order appealed against and by such fees as may be prescribed.

(4) The procedure for disposing of an appeal shall be such as may be prescribed:

Provided that before disallowing an appeal, the appellant shall be given a reasonable opportunity to represent its case.

(5) The Council may confirm or reverse the order appealed against."

(Emphasis supplied)

7. The period of limitation for filing of an appeal is, in turn, prescribed by Rule 10 of the NCTE Rules 1997, which is in the following terms:

"10. Appeals Any person aggrieved by an order made under section 14, section 15 or section 17 may prefer an appeal in Form I appended to these rules, to the Council within sixty days of issue of such orders, along with a fee of Rs.10,000 payable with the memorandum of appeal in the form of crossed demand draft drawn in favour of the Council:

Provided that an appeal may be admitted after the expiry of the said period of sixty days, if the appellant satisfies the Council that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the period of limitation of sixty days."

(Emphasis supplied)

8. The relevant observations in the impugned order of the Appellate Committee dated 26.09.2019 are as follows:

"AND WHEREAS the Committee noted that the submission of the appeal has been delayed by 2 years and 14 days beyond the prescribed period of sixty days. The appellant submitted that the dela