SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Prateek Jalan, J.
Smt Maniba Mahila B.ed College - Appellant
Versus
National Council for Teacher Education - Respondent
W.P.(C) 5788 of 2021
Decided On : 03-06-2021




An institution's clear and unequivocal option under recognition regulations prevents subsequent claims of error in basic unit selection.

Headnote:(A) National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 - Article 226 of the Constitution - NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2014 - The petitioner challenged the NCTE's refusal to grant a second basic unit for its B.Ed. course, arguing a prior choice was made due to clerical error - The NCTE confirmed regulations allowed for existing institutions to opt for either one or two basic units based on compliance - The Court found no justification for appeal as the clear choice for one unit was evidenced in communications, rejecting the claim of error. (Paras 9, 10, 11, 14, 18)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a teacher training institute, sought second-unit recognition after previously affirmatively opting for one basic unit under the NCTE Regulations. Subsequent communications raised ambiguity but did not substantiate a clear error.

Findings of Court:
The Court upheld the NCTE's decision indicating the original choice was clear, and therefore dismissal of the petition was warranted, stating no exceptional circumstance called for intervention.

Issues: Main issues revolved around the interpretation of the institution's choice between units and the adequacy of responses from authorities regarding prior representations.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court determined that acknowledgment of an option was unambiguous despite later claims of typographical errors, establishing that institutional choices directly affect recognition outcomes.

Result: Petition dismissed with costs.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's application for additional b.ed. seats. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. petitioner challenges ncte decision. (Para 8)
3. court finds no need for intervention. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
4. petitioner's claim of typographical error rejected. (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
5. court distinguishes related case law. (Para 15 , 16 , 17)
6. petition dismissed with costs. (Para 18 , 19)

JUDGMENT

Prateek Jalan, J. (Oral)

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

CM APPL. 18145/2021 & CM APPL. 18147/2021 (Exemption)

Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

The applications stand disposed of.

W.P.(C) 5788/2021 with CM APPL. 18146/2021 (for direction)

1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner assails an order dated 26.09.2019 passed by the Appellate Committee of the National Council for Teacher Education ["NCTE"]. The petitioner also seeks a direction upon the NCTE to issue a revised recognition order for a second basic unit [50 seats] of its B.Ed. course.

2. The petitioner, a teacher training institute, was originally granted recognition by the Western Regional Committee ["WRC"] of the NCTE on 23.04.2005, for an intake of 100 seats. After the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2014 ["2014 Regulations"] came into force, the petitioner and all other existing institutions were required to submit compliance affidavits, following which the NCTE issued revised recognition orders to them.

3. On 24.12.2014, the NCTE issued guidelines to its Regional Committees for processing of pending applications and for existing institutions, alongwith an Explanatory Note. This document has been relied upon in the writ petition, and a copy has been annexed thereto as Annexure P-6. The following provisions of the Explanatory Note are relevant, insofar as the B.Ed. programme of existing institutions is concerned:

    "1. The NCTE Regulations, 2014 contemplate enhanced duration of B.Ed., M.Ed. and B.P.Ed. programmes from one to two years. The existing institutions offering these programmes will be given revised Recognition Order if they choose to come under New Regulations. No fresh application is necessary and they will be issued revised order of recognition w.e.f 2015-2016 provided they furnish the affidavit in the prescribed format. A copy of the revised order shall be endorsed to the affiliating university for their information and record.

    The existing teacher education institutions, wherever necessary as per the revised Norms and Standards, shall provide additional built up area, create additional infrastructure, appoint additional staff and furnish additional Reserve Fund per unit per programme by October 31, 2015. However, if the institution is not willing to fulfil the norms prescribed in the New Regulations as mentioned above, its Recognition will automatically become invalid as the old Regulations have already been superceded.

    xxxx xxxx xxxx

    3. In the new Regulations, the size of one basic unit for B.Ed. has been reduced to 50 from 100. The institutions are eligible to have two basic units of 50 each initially. In order to have two basic units of 50 each, they need to construct additional built up area, appoint additional staff, furnish additional Endowment and Reserve Fund.

    The institution shall opt for one or two basic units in the undertaking enclosed with the covering letter. Based on the undertaking, revised recognition order will be issued accordingly. In case the institution opts for two basic units of 50 each, they will be permitted to admit students for two basic units from 2015-2016 onwards, but they shall construct additional built up area, create additional infrastructure and pay additional Endowment and Reserve Fund by October 31, 2015. If they fail to adhere to this condition, the recognition for additional unit will be withdrawn from 2016-17 onwards.

    In case the institution does not opt for two basic units and choose to have only

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top