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
Rajiv Shakdher, Jasmeet Singh, JJ.
Gyandeep Shikshak Prashikshan Mahavidyalaya - Appellant
Versus
National Council for Teacher Education - Respondent
W.P.(C) 4285 of 2022 & CM No. 12744 of 2022
Decided On : 25-03-2022




The requirement of a No Objection Certificate for recognition applications was found to be regulated and subject to the petitioner obtaining such a certificate, affirming procedural compliance.

Headnote:(A) National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 - Recognition Norms and Procedure Regulations, 2014 - Quashing of Regulation 5(3) requiring No Objection Certificate (NOC) for recognition applications - Writ petition disposed of after petitioner obtained NOC from the relevant authority. (Paras 5 and 7)

(B) Writ of certiorari - The petitioner claimed that the requirement of submitting NOC was ultra vires the NCTE Act, 1993, which was not pursued after obtaining the NOC. (Paras 5 and 6)

(C) Procedural issuance of directives - The court directed a reconsideration of the recognition application in light of the new NOC obtained. (Paras 7(i) and 7(ii))

Table of Content
1. court acknowledges respondents and hears petition. (Para 2 , 3)
2. petitioner seeks quashing of ncte regulations. (Para 4)
3. petitioner obtained noc, thus not challenging regulation. (Para 5 , 6)
4. court quashes prior rejection and directs re-examination. (Para 7)
5. pending application closed after court order. (Para 8)

JUDGMENT

[Physical Court Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request]

Rajiv Shakdher, J. (Oral)--Issue notice to the respondents.

2. Mr Shivam Singh accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

3. With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal, at this stage itself.

4. The substantive prayers made in the writ petition read as follows:

    "(a) pass a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing and setting aside the impugned Regulation 5 (3) of the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2014 to the extent it requires the petitioner to submit No Objection Certificate issued by the concerned affiliating body along with online application and its Hard Copy, however, the same is ultra vires the NCTE Act, 1993; and

    (b) pass a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 14.10.2016 issued by the Respondent No.2 refusing application of the petitioner institution seeking recognition for conducting B.A. B.Ed./B.Sc. B.Ed. course due to non submission of No Objection Certificate by the petitioner institution along with online application and its Hard Copy; and

    (c) pass a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction directing the Respondent No.2 to process and decide the application of petitioner institution for grant of formal recognition order under clause 7 (16) of national council for teacher education (recognition norms and procedure) regulations 2014 for conducting the B.A. B.Ed./B.Sc. B.Ed. course for the ensuing academic session 2022-23 de-hors the requirement of no objection certificate of the affiliating university along with online application or its Hard Copy."

5. Mr Mayank Manish, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, says that in view of the fact that the petitioner has been able to obtain a No-Objection Certificate [in short "NOC"] from the affiliating university, the petitioner, for the moment, does not need to challenge Regulation 5(3) of the National Council for Teacher Education [Recognition Norms and Procedure] Regulations, 2014.

5.1. In other words, the relief sought in prayer clause (a) need not be pressed.

6. Furthermore, it is Mr Manish's submission, that having regard to the fact that the petitioner, as averred has already obtained a NOC from the Government of Rajasthan, its application for recognition can be processed by respondent no.2 i.e., Western Regional Committee, National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), as per the extant Rules.

6.1. Mr. Singh says, that in view of the submission made by Mr Manish on behalf of the petitioner, respondent no.2 can reexamine the application of the petitioner and dispose of the same, in accordance with the established procedure.

7. Given the foregoing, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:

(i) The order dated 14.10.2016, passed by the Northern Regional Committee, NCTE, whereby the petitioner's application for recognition was rejected primarily on the ground that the petitioner did not have a NOC issued to it by the affiliating body, shall stand quashed.

(ii) Respondent no.2 will consider afresh, the application for recognition available with it, in the light of the fact that the petitioner claims that it has obtained a NOC from the Department of Higher Education, Government of Rajasthan.

(iii) A fresh order will be passed by respondent no.2 qua the petitioner's application for recognition, within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the NOC.

(iv) Parties will act ba

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