LAWS(ALL)-2016-8-364

SANJAY SHIKSHAK PRASHIKSHAN SANSTHAN AND ANOTHER Vs. REGIONAL DIRECTOR, NORTHERN REGIONAL COMM , N C T E & ANR

Decided On August 22, 2016
SANJAY SHIKSHAK PRASHIKSHAN SANSTHAN AND ANOTHER Appellant
V/S
REGIONAL DIRECTOR, NORTHERN REGIONAL COMM , N C T E And ANR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The educational society in the name and style Suraj Education Trust, Azamgarh duly incorporated under Societies Registration Act 1860, established an educational institution in the name of Sanjay Shikshak Prashikshan Sansthan, Udiyawa, District Azamgarh. The institution with intent to start D.El.Ed. course applied for grant of recognition to the National Council for Teachers Education (hereinafter referred to as 'NCTE'). However, recognition was not granted, as deficiency was pointed out by the NCTE vide communication dated 25 June 2013. The document placed on record would indicate that the team constituted by the NCTE inspected the premises of the institution, thereafter, submitted its report which was considered by the Northern Regional Committee (NRC) in its 24th meeting. The committee issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 8 January 2014. The NCTE vide show cause notice dated 8 January 2014 issued under Section 14/15(3)(b) of NCTE Act mentioning therein that the Northern Regional Committee upon due deliberation and consideration sought certain documents/clarification mentioned therein before final decision would be taken.

(3.) It appears that the notice was not received within time, therefore, was not replied; thereafter it appears that on 6 June 2015 the petitioner's application for recognition was rejected by the NCTE. Aggrieved, the petitioner institution preferred a statutory appeal as provided under Section 18(1) of the NCTE Act before the appellate authority. The Management of the institution submitted reply before the appellate authority mentioning that approval of the teachers has been granted to the petitioner institution by the Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority, Allahabad. Further, it is contended that delay was on the part of the third respondent and the delay was beyond the control of the institute.