The institution has filed this petition through its Secretary assailing the order of the respondent no. 2 and the respondent no. 1, whereby the application filed by the institution for recognition in order to conduct a particular course, has been rejected. The order was passed by the Northern Regional Committee, National Council for Teacher Education on 13.04.2010 on the ground that the form of the petitioner-institution was incomplete as the land documents submitted by the institution are not certified and secondly, the Change of Land User (CLU) has not been permitted by the Competent Authority. This order appears to have been passed in terms of Regulation 7 of the Regulations, which is quoted below:
"7. Processing of Applications:-
(1) The applicant institutions shall ensure on-line submission of applications complete in all respects along with hard copy of the application and other documents specified below. However, in case of any inadvertent omissions or deficiencies in the documents submitted, the office of the Regional Committee shall point out the deficiencies within 45 days of the receipt of the applications, which the applicants shall remove within 60 days from the date of receipt of communication of deficiencies, if any. The on-line application with separate submission of the following documents only, shall be considered as complete application i. Application in triplicate on the prescribed format.
ii. Processing Fees as provided under Rule 9 of the National Council for Teacher Education Rules, 1997 as amended from time to time.
Iii. Fixed Deposit Receipt for Rs. 5.00 lacs and 3.00 lacs of a Nationalised Bank towards Endowment and Reserve Funds, respectively.
iv. Certified copy of the registered land documents issued by the competent authority.
v. Approved building plan by the competent civil authority.
vi. Notarized copy of Change of Land Use Certificate issued by the competent authority.
Vii. Affidavit in the prescribed form on Rs. 100/- stamp paper duly attested by Oath Commissioner or Notary Public, stating the precise location of the land (village, district, state etc), the total area in possession, the permission of the competent authority to use the land for educational purposes and made of possession i.e. ownership or lease.
(1-A). The application submitted on-line but not followed by dispatch, through registered post or by hand with the documents mentioned at (i) to (vii) above within 7 days shall be considered as incomplete and shall be summarily rejected with the reasons recorded in writing and returned to the applicant along with the processing fees within 30 days of the receipt of application."
The petitioner filed an appeal before the National Council for Teacher Education which has been rejected in terms of the aforesaid Regulations holding that whatever deficiency was sought to be removed and documents furnished, the same has not been submitted through the dispatch method as provided for under the Regulations.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Appellate Authority has taken too technical a view and further, even otherwise, the petitioner had already rectified the alleged difficulties and submitted the documents in response to the deficiencies noticed, within the time prescribed in terms of Regulation 7 (1) of the Regulations.
Sri Rajeev Joshi, learned counsel for the National Council for Teacher Education submits that the form having been found incomplete in terms of sub-regulation 1-A of Regulation 7, the authority had rightly rejected the request of recognition and the Appellate Authority has exercised its discretion in terms of the said Regulation.
I have considered the rival submissions and it is evident that the respondents-authorities have proceeded on an erroneous application of Regulation 7. On facts, it is admitted that the authority before proceeding to finally pass an order on 13th April, 2010 had issued a notice on 22.12.2009 for removing the deficiencies in terms of sub-regulation 1 of Regulation 7 of the Regulations.
The petitioner had admittedly responded to the same by supplying the requisite documents on 17.02.2010, which was well within the time of 60 days prescribed under sub-regulation 1. Once the authority itself had invoked the powers under sub-clause 1 then the form of the petitioner-institution could not have been summarily and mechanically rejected by applying sub-regulation 1-A of Regulation 7. The deficiency having been removed before the authority after rectification, and the documents having been filed, the authority ought to have proceeded thereafter to consider the claim of recognition on merit and should not have rejected on the ground as taken in the impugned order. In my opinion, the order dated 13.04.2010, therefore, proceeds on an erroneous application of Regulation 7 (1-A).
The appellate order dated 5th August, 2010 also suffers from the same error and, therefore, it is equally unsustainable.
Accordingly, the orders dated 13.04.2010 and 05.08.2010 are quashed. The matter is remitted to the respondent no. 2 to proceed to process the application of the petitioner-institution and pass an appropriate order within a period of one month from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order in the light of what has been held above.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is allowed.
Order 14.9.2010 Akv