Allowed

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

Delhi HC12 Mar 2018W.P.(C)/2243/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the Delhi High Court allowed SM College's plea for processing a D.El.Ed application despite a State ban, noting the institute failed to use statutory remedies under Section 13 of the NCTE Act.

What did the court decide?

The application of the petitioner must be decided within six weeks by a reasoned order, ignoring the State ban.

Smc College of Education Vs National Council for… — Education and Admissions | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~44

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 2243/2018 SMC COLLEGE OF EDUCATION ..... Petitioner Through Mr.Sanjay Sherawat, Adv.

¶4

versus

¶5

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION AND ANR. ..... Respondents Through Ms.Monika Arora, Adv. for R-1 & 2.

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI

¶7

O R D E R

¶8

% 12.03.2018

¶9

Vide the present petition, the petitioner/Institute impugns the action of the respondents in returning its application dated 24^th December, 2012 for the D.El.Ed course unactioned on 20^th March, 2013 on the ground that the State of Haryana had imposed ban for opening of new D.El.Ed colleges in the State of Haryana.

¶10

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner/institute did not avail its statutory remedy available under section 13 of the NCTE Act.

¶11

Issue notice. Ms.Monika Arora, learned counsel for the respondents who appears on advance notice, fairly does not oppose the petition and submits that in view of the fact that the respondents have themselves taken a decision to process the application submitted

¶12

by the Institute before imposition of ban, she does not oppose the present petition. She concedes that the present matter is covered by an earlier decision of this Court.

¶13

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed subject to the petitioner paying costs of Rs.10,000/- to the Delhi High Court Employees Welfare Fund. The impugned order passed by respondents is set aside. Subject to the petitioner meeting other eligibility criteria, the respondent no.2 is directed to decide the application of the petitioner within six weeks by passing a reasoned and speaking order, by ignoring the ban imposed by the State of Haryana.

¶14

Needless to say that in case the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision taken by the respondents, he would be at liberty to take legal recourse as per law.

¶15

The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶16

MARCH 12, 2018/aa

¶17

REKHA PALLI, J

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smc 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

F.G. Runda Vs Air India Ltd.

Union of India & Anr. Vs S.K. Verma

Rakesh Kapoor Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Sarah J. Chhotray Vs Union of India & Ors.

Sukhmani Enterprises Vs Commissioner of Trade & Taxes & Anr.

Satyendra Kumar Vs Maharaja Agarsain Public School & Anr.

Voice of Ex Servicemen Society and Ors. Vs Director General of Resettlement Department of Ex Serviceman Welfare Ministry of Defence

Anil Sanghi Vs Income Tax Officer

Lokesh Parashar Vs New Delhi Municipal Council and Anr.

Shaheed Captain D Kkhola Education & Charitable Trust Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.

Mewar University Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.

Jug Lal Sharma Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Dr. Lokesh Kumar Meena Vs Union of India and Ors.

Vidya Devi College of Education Vs National Council for Teacher Education and Anr.