IMPORTANT POINTS:
The regulations provide for a time schedule for submission of application through online mode-Even though the online facility is not extended for some reason, nothing prevented the applicant from sending the application in time-When the applicant has not submitted the application within the specified time, he cannot be said to have a right. In such a view of the matter, writ court has considered the decisions as to whether a writ of mandamus can be issued or not, which are reproduced.

JUDGMENT :

S.Manikumar, J.

Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 9.9.2020 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.18253 of 2020, instant writ appeal is filed.

2. Short facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are that, the petitioner is an educational institution conducting B.Ed course on the strength of the recognition granted by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE). The course of B.Ed was converted to a two year course by the NCTE with effect from the academic year of 2015-2016 onwards. The NCTE issued an order granting recognition for the Course of two years duration with an annual intake of 100 students with two basic units. Though two units were permitted by the respondent, the petitioner was unable to fill in students even for one single unit and a request was preferred to the respondent to reduce the intake to one unit. The respondent issued an order after two years accepting the request and reducing the intake from two units to one unit w.e.f 2017-2018. As there was delay on the part of the respondent to consider the request for reduction of units, the petitioner admitted students to all the seats in both the units during the year 2017-2018. The same was also intimated to the respondent. Now, the number of students seeking admission to the Course has increased tremendously. To provide opportunities to these students, the College made a request before the respondent to reinstate the previous order sanctioning two units of 50 students each. The affiliating Universities have started inviting application for admission to the Course. Until the respondent takes step immediately to reinstate the previous order granting permission for two units, the students seeking admission to the Course will be denied an opportunity to submit their application to join the Course. Hence, W.P.(C) No.18253 of 2020 was filed seeking the following reliefs:

“i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent to reinstate the previous order granting recognition for the Course of two years duration with an annual intake of 100 students in two basic units of 50 students each;

ii. Issue a writ of declaration or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that the College is entitled to allot students as per Exhibit P2 order.”

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition by observing thus:

“16. In view of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, the petitioner institution cannot seek a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent to reinstate the annual intake in Ext.P2 order dated 10.06.2015 by granting recognition to the institution to conduct B.Ed Course of two years duration with an annual intake of 100 students in two basic units of 50 students each, without making an application seeking permission for additional intake in B.Ed. Course, in the manner specified in Regulation 5, within the time limit prescribed in the said Regulation, after complying with the norms and procedures under the Regulations, 2014. Since no mandamus can be issued to direct the NCTE to do something which is contrary to the Regulations, 2014, the respondent cannot be directed to consider the request made by the petitioner institution in Ext.P7 representation dated 18.07.2020 to reinstate the annual intake for B.Ed. Course in Ext.P2 order, i.e., annual intake of 100 students, with two basic units of 50 students each.”

4. In this writ appeal, the appellant has, inter alia, raised the following grounds:

“A. It was urged before the learned single Judge that there was no legal embargo for the respondent to reinstate the previous order granting recognition for 2 units based on Exhibit P7 request, as the demand for the Course has increased. The respondent vide Exhibit P1 granted recognition to conduct the Course of one year duration from the academic session 20062007 with an annual intake of 100 students. The c