Timely appeals are critical in administrative decisions, and educational institutions must have proper leadership rather than depend on a single individual, which can impact their operational capacity.

JUDGMENT

Prateek Jalan, J. (Oral)

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

1. The petitioner has approached this Court against a decision dated 02.05.2017 taken by the Northern Regional Committee ["NRC"] of National Council for Teacher Education ["NCTE"], by which the petitioner was granted recognition for one unit for the D.El.Ed. course. According to the petitioner, it had the necessary infrastructure for two units, which had been approved by the Inspection Committee of the NCTE. The petitioner has also assailed an order dated 15.05.2019, by which the Appellate Committee of the NCTE rejected its appeal against the aforesaid order dated 02.05.2017.

2. The petitioner's application for recognition was made sometime in the year 2015, pursuant to which a letter of intent dated 08.07.2016 was issued to it. Neither the application nor the letter of intent clearly stated the number of units for which the application was made. Mr. Mayank Manish, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that, at the relevant time, an applicant was not required to disclose this information in the application, and the assessment of infrastructure for the required number of units was undertaken at the stage of inspection. Be that as it may, it is clear from the impugned recognition order dated 02.05.2017 that the petitioner was ultimately granted recognition only for one unit.

3. Mr. Manish has drawn my attention to three letters - dated 05.06.2017, 20.07.2017 and 12.12.2018 - by which the petitioner requested the NRC to rectify its order, and grant recognition for two units. According to Mr. Manish, the aforesaid communications elicited no response, following which the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993 ["the Act"] before the Appellate Committee on 15.01.2019. The petitioner's appeal has been rejected by the Appellate Committee vide the second impugned order dated 15.05.2019 on the ground of delay.

4. Although Section 18 of the Act read with Rule 10 of the NCTE Rules, 1997 ["the Rules"], provides for a limitation period of 60 days within which an appeal can be filed, subject to condonation of delay by the Appellate Committee for sufficient cause, the Appellate Committee found that the petitioner's appeal had been filed with a delay of approximately 20 months. The justification of the petitioner centered around the fact that the Chairman of the society which had established the petitioner's institution ["the Society"] suffered a road accident. In support of its contentions, the petitioner has filed a doctors' report dated 23.08.2017 [at page 65 of the writ petition] and an undated medical certificate of a different doctor, which certifies that the petitioner was on bed-rest from August, 2017 to November, 2018.

5. This explanation has not found favour with the Appellate Committee, which has observed in its order as follows:

"AND WHEREAS Appeal Committee noted that appeal preferred by appellant is delayed by more than a year and 8 months for which appellant has submitted a medical certificate dated 04/12/2018. The medical certificate dated 04/12/2018 is from a private medical practitioner without having registration number. Medical Certificate from a general physician for 15 months without any supporting evidence of medical tests and prescriptions is not found to be acceptable by the Appeal Committee. Appeal Committee, therefore, decided not to accept the appeal which is delayed by more than 18 months and appellant had almost 90 days to appeal against the impugned order before he met with an accident in August, 2017 as stated in the Medical Certificate."

6. Mr. Ja