Shiksha Bharti Education Society (REGD) vs National Council for Teachers' Education

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.—The petitioner has challenged order dated 31.10.2012 by which its appeal has been dismissed on the ground of being barred by limitation. It would be pertinent to mention that the petitioner had earlier filed CWP No. 6395 of 2013 titled as "Rao Roop Chand Memorial College of Education v. The National Council for Teachers Education and another" which was dismissed by this court with costs of Rs. 50,000/- vide order dated 09.07.2013, which is reproduced here as-under:-

This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 23.1.2013 (Annexure P-5), which is admittedly passed u/s 17 of the NCTE Act, 1993 [for short ''the Act''].

Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has pointed out that the order passed u/s 17 of the Act is appealable u/s 18 of the Act and since an alternate remedy of statutory appeal is provided, the writ petition is not maintainable.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, insisted that the writ petition may be heard as the impugned order is patently illegal.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is passed under. Section 17 of the Act and it is provided u/s 18(1) of the Act that "any person aggrieved by an order made u/s 14 or Section 15 or Section 17 of the Act may prefer an appeal to the Council within such period as may be prescribed.

Though the remedy of appeal is a statutory remedy and has to be availed at the first instance but in order to maintain the present writ petition, a false averment has been made by the petitioner in para 12 of the petition that the petitioner-society has no other remedy of revision or appeal against the impugned action of the respondents.

This averment made by the petitioner has been verified not only in the petition but an affidavit is also filed alleging that the petitioner, namely Surender Singh, is fully conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and has gone through the contents of the petition which are true and correct to his knowledge.

It is most unfortunate that this type of writ petitions are being filed by the institutions like the petitioner, by-passing the statutory remedy of appeal, making false averments in the petition that the petitioner has no remedy of revision or appeal. In view of the above circumstances, this Court is left with no other alternative but to dismiss the petition on the ground of availability of remedy of appeal under the Statue and also for misleading the Court.

Thus, the writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 50,000/- which shall be deposited by the petitioner with the Haryana State Legal Services Authority within two months from the date of passing of this order. The evidence/receipt of payment of costs be placed on record. It is made clear that if the costs is not deposited, then the matter be listed before this Court again for appropriate orders.

Thereafter, the petitioner filed the statutory appeal which has now been dismissed vide the impugned order dated 31.10.2013 with the following observations:-

And Whereas the Council noted that the submission of the appeal has been delayed by 3 months and 21 days. The appellant submitted that the delay was on account of his pursuing a writ petition filed by him before the Hon''ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, as per the legal advice received by him. The Council noted that the Hon''ble High Court, before whom the appellant filed the Writ Petition No. CWP No. 6395 of 2013 challenging the NRC''s order dated 28.01.2013, in their order dated 09.07.2013, observed that a false averment was made in the-petition that the petitioner had no other remedy of revision or appeal against the action of the respondents. Deprecating the conduct of the petitioner, dismissed the petition with costs of Rs. 50,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner on the ground of availability of remedy of appeal under the Statute and also for misleading the Court. The Hon''ble Court has not made any observation about condonation of delay, if the appeal is preferred the Council noting that the appellant chose to ignore the remedy of appeal available and troubled the Hon''ble Court with false averments, concluded that the delay in filing the appeal cannot be condoned and therefore the appeal is not admitted.

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the limitation to file the appeal against the order passed u/s 17 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") is 60 days. It is submitted that the petitioner had challenged the order of withdrawal of recognition dated 28.01.2013 by way of filing CWP No. 6395 of 2013 within 60 days and after dismissal of the writ petition on 09.07.2013, the statutory appeal was filed on 16.07.2013, therefore, the Appellate Authority should not have dismissed the appeal on the ground that it is barred by 3 months and 21 days as the petitioner has been pursuing its remedy in the Court of law and were not sleeping over their rights. In this regard, counsel for the petitioner has referred to Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusal of the record, I am of the considered opinion that, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has been enacted to deal with the situations where the litigant bonafidely carries on proceedings in the Court having no jurisdiction and the period, which is spent in prosecution of the case in good faith, is generally excluded.

However, in the present case, when the petitioner had filed the writ petition challenging the order dated 28.01.2013, a false averment had been made in para 12 of the writ petition that the petitioner has no other remedy of revision or appeal against the impugned order though, admittedly, the order passed u/s 17 of the Act is appealable u/s 18(1) of the Act. The petitioner being an educational institution cannot take the plea of ignorance of law who has to deal with the provisions of the Act day in and day out and was, thus, burdened with Rs. 50,0007- as costs by this Court only on account of overreaching the Court by making a false statement. Thus, in my considered opinion, it cannot be said that the petitioner has been pursuing his remedy in the writ court with due diligence/bonafidely and can be given advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. In view thereof, the Appellate Court has not committed any error in dismissing the appeal on account of delay of 3 months and 21 days. Hence, the present petition is found to be denuded of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed, though without any order as to costs.