Saras Wati Deep College Of Education vs National Council For Teacher Education & Anr

V. Kameswar Rao, J

REV. PET. 418/2018

This Review Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking review of order dated 31st October, 2018 passed by this court, rejecting the appeal

filed by the petitioner.

The review petition has been filed by the petitioner on the grounds (1) that certain vital grounds / submissions urged by the appellant in the LPA

which have a significant bearing upon the issues involved have escaped the attention of this Court while passing the said order. The case of the

appellant before the learned Single Judge was that once NCTE has invited applications from any State after considering the recommendations made

by the Government of that State, then any kind of general ban subsequently imposed by the Government on opening of new institutions shall not apply

to the pending applications. According to him, it was on the basis of this policy decision the petitioner had urged that the subsequent ban imposed by

the State should not override the decision of the NCTE initially taken to invite applications. There is no dispute that the inputs of the State Government

are necessary but the authority for taking the decision lies with the NCTE and after receiving the State inputs, if the NCTE takes a decision to

consider the pending applications, irrespective of the subsequently imposed ban by the State Government, no fault can be found with such a decision;

(2) that the order dated 18th July, 2018 passed by the Supreme Court has no applicability to the facts of the present case has not been considered by

this Court; (3) There is an error apparent on the face of the record as the two orders passed by the Supreme Court have not been considered. The

said orders have a vital bearing upon the issue involved in the present case. When the two writ petitions came to be listed before another Bench of the

Supreme Court on 06th August, 2018, the NCTE placed reliance upon the order dated 18th July, 2018 to contend that such relief has already been

denied to the Association by another Bench and thus the writ petition must be dismissed, however when reliance was placed by the petitioner therein

on the orders passed by the NCTE on 20th November, 2017 and 27th November, 2017 and several orders and more particularly Three Bench decision

of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Sant Dhyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya (2006) 9 SCC ,1 such plea had

been accepted and the writ petitions were allowed by observing that such policy decisions of the State Government have already been struck down by

this court; (4) That the law as laid down by the Supreme court in State of Maharashtra (supra) has not been considered by this court wherein it has

been held that the final authority to grant recognition under the NCTE Act is NCTE and absence or non-grant of NOC was immaterial and irrelevant

so far as the power of the NCTE is concerned. Even the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case ofM ata Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya v.

State of UP and Ors. 2013 2 SCC 617 has also not been considered.

Having heard Mr. Sharawat on the review, we are of the view, that attempt of Mr. Sharawat is to re-argue the writ petition. Suffice it to state that

the present appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the order of the learned Single Judge who has declined to grant the interim relief on the

basis of the order passed by the Supreme Court. This Court noting the fact that the NCTE has independently considered the application filed by the

petitioner, and by relying upon the notification issued by the Government of Haryana, has decided to return the respective applications so received

from the respective institutions along with fee, which according to us is a decision of the NCTE by taking into consideration the decision of the State

of Haryana, which is a necessary input for the NCTE to take the said decision and which decision cannot be faulted. Such a conclusion is not an error

apparent on the face of the record.

In so far as the reliance placed by Mr. Sharawat on the orders passed by the Supreme Court in two writ petitions is concerned, the facts in those

cases are different inasmuch as in W.P.(C) No. 577/2018, the Supreme Court was concerned with a petition filed by the College where orders of

affiliation have not been passed. Surely, such a relief pre-supposes the recognition having been granted by the NCTE. Insofar as W.P.(C) No.

966/2018 is concerned, the writ petition was filed assailing the order of the NCTE for granting recognition in the year 2019-20. The Supreme Court

granted recognition for the academic year 2018-19. In other words, recognition having been granted, the writ petition was filed for a limited prayer for

granting recognition from an earlier year i.e . 2018-19.

Suffice it to state, we have not been shown any order of the Court where the notification of the State of Haryana, which was relied upon by NCTE

in returning the applications, has been set aside. That apart, Mr. Sharawat relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of

Rajasthan v. LBS B.Ed. College and Ors. (2016) 16 SCC 11 0to contend that the Supreme Court has upheld the processing of applications in the

manner laid down in Regulation 7 of the 2014 Regulations. There cannot be any dispute on the law laid down by the Supreme Court in that case.

But the aid case was relatable to the State of Rajasthan and the Supreme Court was not concerned with a similar notification issued by the State of

Haryana. The judgment is distinguishable.

In view of the discussion above, we do not find any merit in the review petition, the same is dismissed.