AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This appeal has been filed by the appellant with the prayer that direction be issued to the respondents for issuing the extension of proposal of D.Ed. Spl. Ed.(MR) course of appellant-institution for the academic session 2018-2019 and also allow to participate in the next session i.e. 2019-20.
The appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the judgment dated 28.11.2018 passed by learned Single Judge by which the writ petition was dismissed.
The facts of the case are that the appellant-institution is running one education institution in the name of Dashrath Manovikas Sansthan. It started imparting D.Ed. Special Education (MR) course in the year 2013, after recognition and approval by the Rehabilitation Council of India, a Statutory Body under the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Department of Empowerment of persons with disabilities (Divyangjan). Initially the institution was granted permission to have an intake of 25 students in the year 2013 and later in the year 2014, 5 more seats increased and as such for the session 2014, the appellantinstitution imparted diploma course for the 30 seats. In last 4 academic sessions, the appellant-institution has been working satisfactorily without any complaint whatsoever from any quarter and further the appellant-institution has also been appreciated due to the excellent education imparted to the disabled persons.
It is contended that for the academic year 2018-2019 for extension of the course, an application was submitted before the competent authority on 05.10.2017. The appellant institution is fulfilling all the essential criteria and all the relevant documents were annexed with the application and filed before the competent authority. The respondent have prepared a joint assessmen report on 31.03.2018 and it was observed that there were certain shortcomings as per the parameters of RCI and for this reason, the extension proposal was regretted on 10.05.2018 by the RCI. The 5 short comings were find out by the respondents i.e. building, human resource, special/inclusive school, clinical infrastructures/resource and community promotional activities.
The appellant challenged the order dated 10.05.2018 by way of filing appeal but the same was also rejected on 20.06.2018. Hence the appellant institution file the present writ petition before this Court. The respondents have filed reply to the writ petition and denied the averments made therein. It was stated by the respondents in their reply that the appellant institution is not fulfilling essential criteria and therefore, their extension proposal was rightly regretted. The appellant institution has filed the rejoinder to the reply along with the documents and photographs which clearly shows that the appellant is fulfilling all the essential criteria but inspite of it the respondent regretted their extension proposal. The appellant has also filed an additional affidavit in which he clearly stated that other institutions, who are not fulfilling essential criteria, have given extension for the courses.
It is contended that the respondents filed an additional affidavit along with documents in which they have stated that they have not extended any proposal without fulfilling essential criteria. They enclosed a list of 22 institutions including the appellant institution, in which the appellant institution was shown at item no. 17 along with the column of short comings. The other institutions, who are also having short comings have given extension and approval for the diploma course for the next session, which shows that by arbitrary and malafide reason, the respondents have denied for extension of proposal to the appellant institution.
Learned counsel for the appellant has lastly submitted that learned Single Judge of this Court in concluding part of the judgement has taken note of the fact that the respondents informed the petitioner-institution that if it has requisite infrastructure and fulfill other requirement, it can apply afresh on the web portal when the same is open for the next session. This goes without saying that the petitioner-institution is always free to apply afresh and it can always satisfy the authorities with all the requirements which are alleged to be lacked by the petitionerinstitution.
Learned counsel submits that the learned Single Judge was passed interim order in favour of the petitioner granting provisional recognition to it, but the writ petition was finally dismissed by judgement dated 28.11.2018 with the aforesaid observations. He submitted that since the petitioner was having interim order in his favour, he did not apply at that time when the web portal was open and it was already closed by the time the writ petition was disposed of.
Having regard to the facts aforesaid, the appeal is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the respondents by submitting an application on hardcopy if the process for examining the applications for issuing the extension of proposal for D.Ed. Spl. Ed.(MR) course, which were earlier obtained online, is still going on. However, such application should be considered only for the next academic session 2019-2020.