Disposed

Aakash College of Education v. National Council for Teacher Education and Anr.

Delhi HC17 Feb 2016W.P.(C)/1266/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This short order disposes of a writ petition challenging NCTE's requirement for an affiliation NOC. The court held the petition non-maintainable due to the availability of an appeal. The petitioner was granted liberty to file an appeal with a tight deadline for its disposal. All substantive contentions were left open.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition and applications were disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal within three days, directed to be decided by NCTE prior to 3rd March, 2016.

Aakash College of Education Vs National Council for… — Education and Admissions | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

#47

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶4

- W.P.(C) 1266/2016 & CM APPLs. 5520-5521/2016

¶5

AAKASH COLLEGE OF EDUCATION ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Sanjay Sharawat and Mr. Ratish Kumar, Advocates

¶6

versus

¶7

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION AND ANR ..... Respondents Through Mr. Anil Soni, Advocate

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

¶9

O R D E R % 17.02.2016

¶10

Present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:-

¶11

“[a] Issue a writ of certiorari and quash the instruction issued by the Respondent No. 1 [Annexure P-24] to the extent it requires “NOC from the affiliating body” to be submitted alongwith the application as the same is contrary to the law declared by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of Maharashtra vs Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya & Ors [(2006) 9 SCC 1] and Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya vs State of U.P & Ors [(2013) 2 SCC 617]; and

¶12

[b] Alternatively hold and declare that the requirement of submitting NOC from the affiliating body does not apply to the case of the petitioner in view of the policy decision taken by the Respondent No. 1; and

¶13

[c] Pass an appropriate order and hold and declare that the application of the Petitioner is required to be decided on the

¶14

basis of public notice dated 26.11.2012 issued by the Respondent No. 1 and strictly as per the NCTE Regulations, 2014 from the stage it was rejected by the Respondent No. 2 vide order dated 19.09.2013; and

¶15

[d] issue a writ of certiorari and quash the order dated 30.12.2015 passed by the Respondent No. 2 as the same is violative of the order dated 19.05.2015 passed by this Hon’ble Court in W.P [C] No. 3351 of 2015 and consequentially direct said Respondent to process and finally decide application of the Petitioner for grant of recognition for D.El.Ed course from academic session 2016-17 in accordance with law; and

¶16

[e] Pass any other and further order(s) as may be deemed fit.”

¶17

Learned counsel for respondents, who appears on advance notice, states that present writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has an alternative effective remedy by way of an appeal before NCTE.

¶18

Consequently, present writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal. If the appeal is filed within a period of three days, the same is directed to be disposed of by NCTE prior to 3^rd March, 2016.

¶19

With the aforesaid liberty, the present writ petition and applications are disposed of. The rights and contentions of all the parties are left open. Order dasti under signature of Court Master.

¶20

MANMOHAN, J

¶21

FEBRUARY 17, 2016 rn

Aakash College of Education v. National Council for Teacher Education and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aakash College of Education v. National Council for Teacher Education and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. V.K. Bahuguna Vs Union of India & Ors.

Rail Mazdoor Union Vs the Chairman, Railway Board & Ors.

M/S. Emaar Properties Pjsc Vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors.

M/S Emaar Mgf Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs Delhi Development Authority

Richi Rich Restaurant Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Trade and Taxes, New Delhi & Ors.

Kross Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner, Vat & Ors.

Divya Verma Vs the General Manager, Bank of Baroda & Anr.

Rajesh Kumar Jha Vs Central Railside Warehouse Company Ltd.

Dr. V.K. Bahuguna Vs Union of India & Ors.

Delhi Transport Corporation Vs Manohar Lal and Anr.

Ranjana Agnihotri and Ors. Vs UOI and Ors.

S.K. Khandelwal & Anr. Vs the Special Director of Enforcement and Anr.

Aakash College of Education Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.

Shri Ram College of Education Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.