Baidyanath Shukla College of Education Vs. National Council for Teacher Education and Ors. - (High Court of Delhi) (20 Apr 2018)
If an Institute seeks postponement of inspection date, it cannot be taken as a refusal for inspection on part of Institute
Vide the present petition, the Petitioner impugns the order passed by Respondent No. 1 as also the order passed by Respondent No. 2, whereby the Petitioner's application for grant of recognition, has been rejected on the ground that, when the visiting team of Respondent No. 2 proposed to visit the Petitioner's Institute, the Petitioner had, vide its letter dated 22nd April, 2016, requested the Respondents not to conduct the inspection at that stage as the concerned Officers of the Petitioner/Institute, were busy due to some family engagement.
Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that, merely because the Petitioner had requested for an extension which request was admittedly not answered by the Respondents either in the negative or in the positive, the Respondents could not, without carrying out any inspection whatsoever, reject the Petitioner's application by treating the same to be in violation of Regulation 7(7) of the National Council for Teacher Education Regulations, 2014 (NCTE Regulations).
In view of the admitted position that, no refusal letter had ever been sent by the Respondent to the Petitioner rejecting its request for extension of time for inspecting its premises, the Respondents could not have held that, the Petitioner had refused inspection of its premises. In case, the Respondents were not inclined to accept the request of the Petitioner for grant of extension of time for inspection of the premises of its Institute, they were well within their right to reject the Petitioner's request for extension of time.
Clause 7(7) of the NCTE Regulations, makes it very clear that inspection of the Institution by the visiting team is not to be conducted subject to the consent of the Institution and it is for the Regional Committee to communicate the date of inspection to the Petitioner/Institute. The inspection has, thereafter, to be conducted on any date after ten days from the date of such communication. Thus, even though the Respondents are fully justified in contending that, it is not for any Institute to insist for a fixed date for inspecting the premises or to urge that, they will not get the inspection done on a date fixed by the Respondents, but on the other hand, it is equally incumbent on the Respondents to respond to any request for extension made by the Institute and, thereafter, inspect the Institute on the proposed date.
Merely because an Institute seeks postponement of date of inspection, it cannot be taken as a refusal for inspection on the part of the Institute, the impugned decision passed by Respondent No. 2, holding that, the Petitioner/Institute had refused inspection, is quashed. The Appellate order passed by Respondent No. 1 is also quashed. The matter is remanded back to Respondent No. 2, to process the application of the Petitioner in accordance with law, by conducting the necessary inspection.
Tags : RECOGNITION INSPECTION REFUSAL