Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Bharat Pratap Singh, learned counsel appearing for the N.C.T.E.
The petitioner assails the orders dated 22-25 August 2016, order dated 23 September 2016 and the impugned order dated 06 October 2020. By the order dated 23 September 2016 the Northern Regional Committee of the N.C.T.E. has refused recognition to the petitioner for conduct of a B.Ed Course. That order was challenged by the institution by way of an appeal preferred in September 2020. That appeal has been dismissed by the respondent No. 2 (N.C.T.E.) on 06 October 2020 on the ground that it was filed beyond the limitation prescribed under the relevant Regulations.
It becomes pertinent to note that the petitioner institution was originally granted a Letter of Intent on 30 April 2015 containing the following stipulations:
"(a) The institutions willing to offer two basic units can be given Formal Recognition before 3rd March, 2015. However, the institution shall create additional built-up area, create additional infrastructure, adhere to staff norms, qualifications of staff, pay the difference in Endowment and Reserve Fund etc by October 31, 2015 and inform the Regional Committee with necessary documents.
(b) The institution must comply with staff requirement and Endowment and Reserve Funds as per the new Regulations for one basic unit before issue of final recognition order.
(c) The Regional Committee shall arrange for inspection of these premises, verification of documents and check adherence to these conditions by 29th February, 2016. If the institution fails to comply to these requirements, the permission given for one basic unit out of two basic units shall be withdrawn.
j. It shall be noted by the institution that apart from the above, if any additional infrastructure/instructional facility is required as per provisions of the NCTE Regulations, 2014, the same shall be complied and reported by the concerned institution to the Regional Committee.
The above documents should be accompanied with written representation alongwith an Affidavit (on Rs.100/- stamp paper) stating under oath for correctness of documents being submitted by the institution to NRC, NCTE."
As is evident from those stipulations, compliances had to be effected latest by 2016. The permission for conduct of the B.Ed. Course was also in respect of an Academic Session which is long over. Learned counsel has failed to establish that the LOI granted earlier would still subsist. The petitioners also did not establish a sufficient cause for condonation of delay caused in filing the appeal that has been dismissed.
In view of the aforesaid, it is manifest that no cause of action as such survived on the basis of which a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution could have been justifiably presented.
The petition is accordingly dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 5,000/-.
Order Date :- 8.1.2021 Arun K. Singh (Yashwant Varma, J.)