W.P.(C) 11178/2024 Page 1 of 19

$~J-1

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Reserved on: 04.04.2026

Judgment Delivered on: 09.04.2026

+ W.P.(C) 11178/2024 & CM APPL. 46223/2024

SHANTI NIKETAN COLLEGE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION

& ANR. .....Petitioners

Through: Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Ms. Priti

Kumari and Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advs.

versus

REHABILITATION COUNCIL OF INDIA .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Manish Kumar, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN

JUDGMENT

VIKAS MAHAJAN , J

1. The present petition has been filed by petitioners assailing the

impugned order 24.06.2024 whereby petitioners’ proposal for B.Ed. Spl. Ed.

LD (Course) and B.Ed. Spl. Ed. (ID) Course has not been considered on the

ground of identical deficiencies pointed out therein.

2. The case of the petitioners is that Petitioner No. 1 is an institution and

was desirous of running Special Education Courses with the approval of

Rehabilitation Council of India [RCI]. RCI issued circular dated 30.05.2013

inviting fresh proposals from institutions for grant of approval to conduct

RCI approved training programmes from academic session 2024-25. Again

another circular dated 11.08.2023 was issued by RCI inviting fresh proposal

(fresh & extension) for academic session 2024-25. Thereafter RCI issued a

W.P.(C) 11178/2024 Page 2 of 19

guidelines dated 18.08.2023 for submission of application, consideration

thereof and grant of approval.

3. Pursuant to above, the petitioner no.1 applied for commencement of

two courses, namely (i) B.Ed. Special Education (Learning Disability) and

(ii) B.Ed. Special Education (Intellectual Disability), for imparting special

education.

4. The applications of petitioner no.1 was returned by RCI without

consideration, in terms of circular dated 04.01.2024 whereby the RCI had

notified its decision not to grant new approvals to any institution for running

two (02) years B.Ed. (Special Education) programmes from the academic

session 2024-25 on the pretext that it is in the process of developing a new

programme on the pattern of NCTE soon as per National Education Policy-

2020 (NEP-2020). The circular dated 04.01.2024 was followed by another

circular dated 08.03.2024 wherein it was mentioned that it has been decided

not to grant new approval to any institution for running two years running

two (02) years B.Ed. (Special Education) programme from the academic

session 2024-2025.

5. Feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid two circulars dated 04.01.2024

and 08.03.2024, petitioners filed writ petition being W.P.(C) 5679/2024

titled as Shanti Niketan College of Special Education and Anr., v.

Rehabilitation Council of India. The said writ petition was decided by the

Coordinate Bench of this Court along with other batch of matters vide

common judgment dated 31.05.2024 [annexure P-18], whereby the writ

petitions were allowed. The court observed that the petitioners therein had

clearly acted on the basis of representation held out by respondent/RCI to all

of them, and believing said representation, petitioners therein altered their

W.P.(C) 11178/2024 Page 3 of 19

position and had created an infrastructure. Consequently, the court quashed

the circulars impugned therein, i.e., circulars dated 08.03.2024 as well as

dated 04.01.2024 to the extent it returns petitioners’ application. It was

further directed that the proposal made by petitioners would be processed in

accordance with law.

6. It appears that petitioners’ application was processed by

respondent/RCI, and vide impugned order dated 24.06.2024 the petitioenrs

were informed that the institute has failed to meet the requisite documents,

as per the norms & guidelines for the fresh proposals, therefore, the fresh

proposals of B.Ed. Spl. Ed. (LD) and B.Ed. Spl. Ed. (ID) is not considered.

The reason given for not considering the proposal were identical for both the

proposals, and were three-fold:

(i) PwD Certificate not submitted is valid till 2023

(ii) List of 30 students attached without mentioning disability

and UDID

(iii) No details of faculty mentioned, no consent submitted.

7. Mr. Amitesh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of

petitioners submits that before taking the impugned decision, the petitioners

were not afforded any opportunity to cure and explain the deficiencies

pointed therein. He submits that had an opportunity in the form of show-

cause notice or otherwise, been granted to the petitioners, they would have

explained that no deficiency as pointed out in the impugned order exists.

8. Elaborating on his submission, Mr. Kumar has invited attention of the

Court to the certification of registration in terms of the Persons with

Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full

Participation) Act, 2016 [in short ‘PwD Act’] (Annexure R-1) to contend

W.P.(C) 11178/2024 Page 4 of 19

that certificate which was submitted was valid for a period of three years

commencing from 10.12.2020 to 09.12.2023 when the applications for

approval was submitted by the petitioners with regard to the said two

courses on 29.09.2023 and 20.10.2023. He submits that before the expiry of

said certificate, petitioners had also applied for its revalidation and the same

was revalidated on 15.12.2023 for a period of another three years. In

support of his contention, he has drawn attention of the Court to the

certificate dated 15.12.2023 (Annexure P-11) whereby the validity was

extended.

9. As regard the objection that list of 30 students attached does not

mention disability and UDID of the students, attention of the Court has been

brought to the list of such 30 students to contend that apart from mentioning

the disability therein, UDID certificate number has also been conspicuously

stated.

10. In respect of the deficiency that no details of faculty are mentioned,

Mr. Kumar has invited attention of the Court to the list of faculty members

which contain their qualification, the post, as well as, salary drawn by them.

He, therefore, contends that the deficiencies pointed out in the impugned

letter dated 24.06.2024 are not factually correct, thus untenable.

11. He submits that in the additional affidavit dated 30.07.2025 filed by

respondent/RCI, a stand has been taken that petitioners’ application could

not be considered for the academic session 2025-2026 since the two year

course has been discontinued in view of the circular dated 01.12.2023. He

submits that such a stand could not be taken by respondent/RCI inasmuch

similar circular dated 04.01.2024 was quashed by this Court vide judgment

dated 31.05.2024.

W.P.(C) 11178/2024 Page 5 of 19

12. He further contends that the stand taken in the additional affidavit is

not a ground on which impugned order is predicated. He submits that

additional affidavit is in excess of the ground taken in the impugned order.

In support of his submission, Mr. Kumar has placed reliance on the decision

of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill and Anr. v. The

Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Ors., (1978) 1 SCC 405,

particularly Para 8 thereof.

13. Per contra, Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf

of respondent/RCI submits that the certificate submitted by petitioners along

with the proposal was not a valid PwD certificate, inasmuch as the same was

not valid for a period of three years as required by the norms.

14. He submits that insofar as the policy notified vide circular dated

04.01.2024 is concerned, the same continues to be in vogue. Justifying his

contention, he submits that this court vide judgment dated 31.05.2024 in

Para 83, had quashed the said circular and set aside the same only to the

extent it returns petitioner’s application, however, the policy decision to

discontinue the two year courses remained undisturbed.

15. He further submits that in deference to the direction given by the

Court in the said judgment, the applications of petitioners were duly

processed and the same was found deficient, therefore, the proposal was

rejected.

16. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court notes that

the controversy in the present petition dates back to the Circulars issued by

the respondent/RCI, in response to which the petitioners applied for

commencing two courses namely, (i) B.Ed.Spl.Ed.(LD) and (ii)

B.Ed.Spl.Ed.(ID).

W.P.(C) 11178/2024 Page 6 of 19

17. The Respondent/RCI issued circular dated 30.05.2023 inviting fresh

proposals from institutions for grant of approval to conduct RCI approved

training programmes from academic session 2024-25, which reads thus:

“F. No. 8-A/Policy (Recog)/2009/RCI 30

th

May, 2023

CIRCULAR

Sub: Invitation of Fresh Proposals for the Academic Session 2024-25:-reg.

The Council invites fresh proposals from the institutions for grant of

approval to conduct RCI approved training programme (s) for the academic

session 2024-25. The prescribed last dates for submission of proposals are as

under:

Fresh proposals:

(i) Opening date for submission of fresh proposals

through online portal

01/08/2023

Last date of submission of fresh proposals 30/09/2023

(ii) Last date of submission of fresh proposals with

late fee of Rs.10000/-

15/10/2023

It is also to be informed that separate circular will be issued in respect of

proposals for extension of approvals.

(Vineet Singhal)

Member Secretary

Copy to:

Computer Section, RCI to uploading on the website”

18. Thereafter another circular dated 11.08.2023 was issued by RCI

inviting fresh proposal (fresh & extension) for academic session 2024-25,

which reads as under:

“F. No. 8-A/Policy (Recog)/2009/RCI 11

th

Aug, 2023

CIRCULAR

Sub: Invitation of Proposals (fresh & Extension) for the Academic Session

2024-25: reg.

This in continuation of Council Circular of even number dated 30.05.2023, it

is for information to all concerned that the online portal will now open from

17.08.2023 for invitation of online proposals for grant of approval to conduct RCI

approved training programme (s) for the academic session 2024-25. The prescribed

last dates for submission of online proposals are as under:

(i) Opening date for submission of fresh and

Extension proposals through online portal

17/08/2023

W.P.(C) 11178/2024 Page 7 of 19

(ii) Last date of submission of fresh and Extension

proposals through online portal

30/09/2023

(iii) Last date of submission of fresh and Extension

proposals through online portal with late fee of

Rs.10000/-

15/10/2023

(Dr. Honnoreddy N.)

Member Secretary

Copy to:

i. Computer Section, RCI to uploading on the website.

ii. All RCI approved institutions.”

19. Thereafter RCI issued the guidelines dated 18.08.2023 for submission

of application, consideration thereof and grant of approval.

20. Again vide circular dated 22.08.2023 the Respondent/RCI conveyed

the decision of RCI to invite proposals for the Diploma Level Courses in

Special Education from the academic session 2024-25. The circular reads as

under:

“REHABILITATION COUNCIL OF INDIA

A Statutory Body of Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment

Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (Divyangjan),

Government of India

F.No.8-A/Policy/(Recog)/2009/RCI 22.08.2023

CIRCULAR

In continuation of the Council‟s Circular of even number dated 27.04.2023

(copy enclosed) it is for information to all concerned that the Council has

decided that Diploma courses in Special Education will continue till further

decision and accordingly, Council will invite proposals for diploma level

course in special education from the academic session 2024-25. However, if

a diploma course in special education is already being conducted in a

district, then special inspection as deemed appropriate will be carried out

for the same new course applied by other institution in the same district.

(Dr. Honnareddy. N. )

Member Secretary

Encl: As above

W.P.(C) 11178/2024 Page 8 of 19

Copy to:

Computer Section, RCI to upload on the website.”

21. Pursuant to various circulars of the RCI inviting proposal for the two

year courses, the petitioner made applications for two courses on 29.09.2023

and 20.10.2023.

22. Again, vide circular dated 01.12.2023, RCI decided to cancel the

circular dated 22.08.2023 and upheld the decision dated 27.04.2023 for

discontinuation of Diploma Level Courses in Special Education. The

circular dated 01.12.2023 reads thus:

“REHABILITATION COUNCIL OF INDIA

A Statutory Body of Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment

Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (Divyangjan),

Government of India

F.No.8-A/Policy/(Recog)/2009/RCI 01.12.2023

CIRCULAR

This is for information to all concerned that the Council vide Circular of

even number dated 27.04.2023 decided to discontinue inviting fresh

proposals in respect of special education courses from the academic session

2024-25. Further,

the Council vide Circular of even number dated 22.08.2023 invited

proposals for diploma level courses in special education

for the academic session 2024-25 (copies enclosed).

Now, the Council has upheld the decision taken on 27.04.2023 for

discontinuation of diploma courses in special education and accordingly the

Circular of even number dated 22.08.2023 stands cancelled.

This issue with the approval of the competent authority

(Dr. Honnareddy. N. )

Member Secretary

Encl: As above

Copy to:

1. PS to Chairperson, RCI

W.P.(C) 11178/2024 Page 9 of 19

2. RCI approved institutions

3. Computer Section, RCI to upload on the website”

23. Sequel to above, respondent/RCI issued circular dated 04.01.2024

whereby it informed that it had decided not to grant new approvals to any

institutions for running two year courses for providing special education

from the academic session 2024-25. It was further informed that the

institutions who desire to run integrated B.Ed Special Education of 04 years

of duration may apply afresh for the academic session 2024-25. The circular

dated 04.01.2024 reads thus:

“REHABILITATION COUNCIL OF INDIA

A Statutory Body of Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment

Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (Divyangjan),

Government of India

F.No.8-A/Policy/(Recog)/2009/RCI 04 January, 2024

CIRCULAR

In order to upgrade the competency of teachers, the National Council for

Teacher Education (NCTE) has launched the Integrated Teacher Education

Programme (ITEP) under the New Education Policy (NEP) 2020 in which

the duration of B.Ed. programme has been increased from two years to four

years and discontinued giving approval of two years B.Ed. programme from

the academic session 2023-24.

This Council has decided not to grant new approvals to any institutions

for running two year B.Ed. (Special Education) programme(s) from the

academic session 2024-25. The Council

is in the process of developing a new training programme on the pattern

of NCTE soon, as per NEP 2020.

All the institutions/colleges/universities who desire to run the. Integrated

B.Ed. Special Education of 4 year duration (in line of the Integrated

Teacher Education Programme-ITEP of NCTE) may apply afresh for the

next academic session once the online portal is opened.

Sd/-

(Vikas Trivedi)

Member Secretary

(emphasis supplied)

24. This was followed by two more circulars of even date 08.03.2024.

W.P.(C) 11178/2024 Page 10 of 19

One circular of 08.03.2024 informed the decision taken by RCI to enhance

the seats in existing institutions to bridge the gap of special educators

whereas the other circular of the even date returned the fresh proposals

received from the institutions for 02 year courses and proposed to refund the

process fee of all such institutions detailed in Annexure A. The details of

two applications of the petitioners’ college have been mentioned at Serial

Nos. 360 and 361 in the said list of institutions (Annexure A).

25. Feeling aggrieved by the Circular dated 04.01.2024 and the two

Circulars dated 08.03.2024, the petitioners as well as other similarly situated

institutions filed separate writ petitions. The writ petition filed by the

petitioners was numbered as W.P (C) 5679/2024 titled as Shanti Niketan of

Special Education and Anr. Vs. Rehabilitation Council of India. The said

petition of the petitioner along with batch matters were decided by the

coordinate bench of this court vide judgment dated 31.05.2024.

26. The court observed that not only proposals were notified by the RCI

from the interested institutions; detailed guidelines were also framed and

circulated. This guidelines required the institutions to possess specific

infrastructural and financial resources. Acting on the promise held out by

the RCI, the petitioners therein had invested considerable amount in setting

up their institutions and making them approval friendly. Thus, the

petitioners had clearly acted on the basis of representation held out by the

RCI to all of them. It was further observed that the decision not to consider

the fresh proposals for the D.Ed Special Education and B.Ed Special

Education were not impelled by any consideration of supervening public

equity, therefore, the respondent/RCI could not have refused to consider the

fresh proposals submitted by the petitioners for D.Ed.Spl.Ed and

W.P.(C) 11178/2024 Page 11 of 19

B.Ed.Spl.Ed courses for the academic sessions 2024-25.

27. The court held that the petitioners therein having clearly altered their

position to their disadvantage on the basis of the representation held out by

the respondent/RCI, which position cannot be reversed to restore the status

quo ante to bring them back to the position in which they were.

28. The court also noted that para 5.2.1 of the National Education Policy

2020 (hereinafter NEP), coupled with the impugned enhanced seat circular

dated 08.03.2024 pertaining to existing institutions indicates that there is a

dearth of special educators and an urgent need to augment the available

strength of such educators. Accordingly, the writ petitions were allowed and

the impugned circulars dated 04.01.2024 and the two circulars of even date

08.03.2024, were quashed. The relevant extract from the said decision reads

thus:

“75. In these circumstances, I am in agreement with Mr. Sharawat

that in the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the

respondents could not have refused to consider the fresh proposals

submitted by the petitioners for commencing the D.Ed.Spl.Ed. and

B.Ed.Spl.Ed. courses for the academic session 2024-2025.

76. This is not, therefore, a case in which the decision to resile on

the representations, held out to the public, that fresh proposals for

all Special Education Courses, including D.Ed.Spl.Ed. and

B.Ed.Spl.Ed., could be submitted for consideration, can be said to

have been prompted by supervening public equity or public interest.

Xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

78. ............. The petitioners have invested considerable amounts in

setting up their institutions and marshalling the requisite

infrastructure to satisfy the prescribed norms for conducting the

D.Ed.Spl.Ed. and B.Ed.Spl.Ed. courses. The assertions to this

effect in the writ petition filed by the petitioners are not traversed

by the respondents in their counter-affidavit. Even otherwise, it is

W.P.(C) 11178/2024 Page 12 of 19

obvious that setting up an educational institution involves a

considerable amount of financial outlay, and investing of

extensive resources. The petitioners have therefore clearly altered

their position to their disadvantage on the basis of the

representation held out by the respondent. It cannot be said that

the petitioners are now in a position to restore the status quo ante

or bring themselves back to the position in which they were before

the impugned circulars had been issued by the RCI. The

petitioners’ institutions cannot be razed to the ground.

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

80. The reliance, by Ms. Jauhari, on the NEP 2020, is also not

wholly convincing. Mr. Sharawat is correct in his submission that

Special Educators are specifically dealt with in para 5.21 of the

NEP 2020 which expressly recognizes the urgent need to augment

the strength of Special Educators. This fact, coupled with the

impugned Enhanced Seat Circular dated 8 March 2024, indicates

that the dearth of Special Educators and the urgent need to

augment the available strength of Special Educators was a

consideration to which all were alive. It is for this purpose that

existing institutions were permitted to enhance their seat intake for

the D.Ed.Spl.Ed. and B.Ed.Spl.Ed. courses. As the urgent need for

additional Special Educators stands thereby expressly expressed

and recognized, even considerations of public interest cannot justify

return of the petitioners‟ applications seeking starting of new

D.Ed.Spl.Ed. and B.Ed.Spl.Ed. courses.

xxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

83. The Circulars dated 4 January 2024 and 8 March 2024, which

conveyed the decision to return the petitioners’ proposals, is

quashed and set aside to the extent it returns the petitioners’

applications. The proposals would therefore be processed in

accordance with law.”

(emphasis supplied)

29. Pursuant to the aforesaid judgment, the respondent/RCI was under the

obligation to process the application of the petitioners in accordance with

law. However, it appears that the respondent/RCI vide its impugned letter

W.P.(C) 11178/2024 Page 13 of 19

dated 24.06.2024 informed the petitioners that it has re-scrutinised the

proposals submitted by the them for – (i) B.Ed. Spl. Ed.(LD) (ii) B.Ed. Spl.

Ed.(ID) courses along with all the documents in light of the norms and

guidelines and following three common deficiencies are noted in both

courses:

(i) PwD certificate submitted is valid till 2023,

(ii) List of 30 students attached without mentioning disability

and UDID; and

(iii) No details of faculty mentioned, no consent submitted.

30. Thus, the fresh proposals submitted by the petitioners for both the

courses were not considered by the RCI observing that the petitioners have

failed to meet the requisite documents, as per the norms and guidelines for

the fresh proposals.

31. As regards the deficiency pertaining to PwD certificate purportedly

valid till 2023, this court finds that when the applications for approval were

submitted by the petitioners with regard to the two courses on 29.09.2023

and 20.10.2023, the certification of registration (Annexure R-1) under the

PwD Act was valid for a period of three years commencing from 10.12.2020

to 09.12.2023. Further, before the expiry of said certificate, the certificate

was revalidated on 15.12.2023 (Annexure P-11) for a period of another three

years and the said renewal is valid till 14.12.2026.

32. In respect of the deficiency pointed out in the list of 30 students,

which allegedly does not contain disability and UDID, the list of such

candidates dated 25.09.2023 which has been placed on record reveals that

the disability and UDID certificate has been specifically mentioned.

33. On a query posed by the Court that since the list is of September,

W.P.(C) 11178/2024 Page 14 of 19

2023 and whether the said students are still available, Mr. Kumar, on

instructions, stated that good number of students are still available for taking

up the special education courses, the details of which can be furnished to the

respondent/RCI in the event, fresh inspection is carried out.

34. In so far as the deficiency pertaining to non-furnishing of details of

faculty or their consent is concerned, attention of the court was drawn by

Mr. Amitesh Kumar to the list of 08 teaching faculty and 02 staff members.

On being queried as to the availability of such faculty as on date, on

instructions, he stated that the faculty is still available with the institute and

necessary details could be furnished, as and when inspection is undertaken

by the RCI, if so ordered by the court.

35. Be that as it may, respondent/RCI could not have rejected the

petitioners’ proposal without affording them an opportunity to cure or justify

the said defects. Thus, respondent/RCI has flouted the principles of natural

justice. Reliance in this regard may be had to the decision of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Mrs. Meneka Gandhi v. Union of India & Anr., (1978) 1

SCC 248 wherein it was held that even in the absence of an express statutory

provision, where an administrative action entails civil consequences or

prejudicially affects a person, the duty to act fairly and afford a reasonable

opportunity of being heard must be read into the exercise of such power.

The Court emphasized that any authority vested with the power to take a

decision affecting rights is under an implicit obligation to act judicially, and

failure to observe the basic tenets of natural justice, particularly the right to

be heard, renders such decision arbitrary and liable to be set aside. The

relevant extracts from Meneka Gandhi (supra.) are reproduced below:

W.P.(C) 11178/2024 Page 15 of 19

“221. It is well established that even where there is no specific

provision in a statute or rules made thereunder for showing cause

against action proposed to be taken against an individual, which

affects the rights of that individual, the duty to give reasonable

opportunity to be heard will be implied from the nature of the

function to be performed by the authority which has the power to

take punitive or damaging action. This principle was laid down by

this Court in the State of Orissa v. Dr (Miss) Binapani Dei [AIR 1967

SC 1269, 1271 : (1967) 2 SCR 625 : (1967) 2 LLJ 266] in the

following words:

“The rule that a party to whose prejudice an order is intended to be

passed is entitled to a hearing applies alike to judicial tribunals and

bodies of persons invested with authority to adjudicate upon

matters involving civil consequences. It is one of the fundamental

rules of our constitutional set-up that every citizen is protected

against exercise of arbitrary authority by the State or its officers.

Duty to act judicially would, therefore arise from the very nature of

the function intended to be performed : it need not be shown to be

superadded. If there is power to decide and determine to the

prejudice of a person, duty to act judicially is implicit in the

exercise of such power. If the essentials of justice be ignored and an

order to the prejudice of a person is made, the order is a nullity.

That is a basic concept of the rule of law and importance thereof

transcends the significance of a decision in any particular case.”

36. The aforesaid position stands further reinforced by the decision of this

court in Madhu Vachaspati Institute of Pharmacy v. Pharmacy Council of

India, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 282, wherein in an analogous factual matrix

involving rejection of institutional approval on alleged deficiencies, in

essence it was observed that the authority is under an obligation to

specifically communicate the deficiencies along with the inspection report

and afford the concerned institution an opportunity to rectify the same

before taking a final decision.

37. Fairness in administrative action mandates prior disclosure of

W.P.(C) 11178/2024 Page 16 of 19

deficiencies by the regulatory authority and grant of reasonable and

meaningful opportunity to cure them. This court finds that vide impugned

letter dated 24.06.2024, the respondent/RCI notified the deficiencies and at

the same time rejected the proposals of the petitioners, without giving any

opportunity, whatsoever, to the petitioners to justify or cure the same.

38. In the writ petition, particularly in para 35 thereof, the petitioners

have given detailed explanation and specifically averred that petitioner

institution does not suffer from deficiencies pointed out by respondent/RCI.

Para 35 of the writ petition is reproduced hereunder:

“35. That it is submitted that respondent has issued impugned

communication on three grounds namely (i) PwD Certificate not

submitted is valid till 2023, (ii) List of 30 students attached

without mentioning disability and UDID and (iii) No details of

faculty mentioned, no consent submitted. So far as requirement of

PWD certificate is concealed, the petitioner has submitted the

PWD certificate dated 15.12.2023 which is valid for a period of

three year from the date of issue. Thus the first observation of

respondent in the impugned communication is factually incorr6ct

and cannot be sustained. So far as list of 30 students attached by

Petitioners without mentioning disability and UD ID is concerned,

the petitioner has the required number of students alongwith their

UD ID. If the respondent would have pointed out above

deficiency, the petitioner would have submitted the same within

the stipulated time. Further the petitioner also has the requisite

faculty members for running proposed two courses. Thus, it is

apparent that petitioner institution does not suffer from

deficiencies pointed out by respondent and the petitioners are

entitled for consideration and processing of their application in

accordance with norms & standards laid down by RCI. It is

submitted that norms notified by RCI i.e. manual on assessment of

training institutions as well as communication dated 18.08.2023

does not contemplates submission of consent of faculty, therefore,

RCI is not justified in returning the applications on the above

ground. However, without prejudice to its rights and contentions,

W.P.(C) 11178/2024 Page 17 of 19

petitioners are willing to submit consent of faculty members. . A

true copy of list of faculty for both courses and list of students with

details of their disability and UD ID are annexed herewith and

being marked as ANNEXURE P-20 (Colly).”

39. Incidentally, in the corresponding Para 35 of the counter-affidavit,

respondent/RCI has pointed out only one deficiency to the effect that along

with the application / proposal submitted by petitioners, no valid PWD

certificate was submitted. Para 35 of the counter-affidavit is reproduced

hereunder:

“35. That the contents of paragraph 35 are denied for want of

knowledge. It is humbly submitted that the Petitioner be put to

strict proof. It is humbly submitted that the Petitioner at the time

of submitting the its Application/proposal failed to submit a valid

PwD certificate. It shall be essential to mention that the certificate

was only valid till 9-12-2023.”

40. As noted above, the petitioners were possessing valid certificate under

the PwD Act at the time when proposals for new courses were submitted and

the same is still valid till 14.12.2026. Had an opportunity been provided to

the petitioners, they could have furnished all relevant material and details to

the satisfaction of the RCI and, if necessary, could have rectified the

defects/deficiencies pointed out in the impugned order, which by their very

nature appear to be curable. Intriguingly, the said course was not resorted

to.

41. The action of RCI in rejecting the petitioner’s proposal without prior

disclosure of defects and without affording an opportunity to cure the same

is manifestly arbitrary, contrary to the principles of natural justice, and

therefore unsustainable in law.

42. In its additional affidavit dated 30.07.2025, the respondent/RCI

W.P.(C) 11178/2024 Page 18 of 19

departed from its original stand and stated that it has discontinued the two

years B.Ed Courses vide circular dated 01.12.2023. Incidentally pursuant to

circular dated 01.12.2023 another circular dated 04.01.2024 was issued

whereby it informed that RCI has decided not to grant new approvals to any

institutions for running two year courses for providing special education

from the academic session 2024-25. This circular of 04.01.2024 has already

been quashed by this Court vide judgment dated 31.05.2024, therefore, the

RCI cannot justify its stand to discontinue the two year special education

courses on the anvil of circular dated 01.12.2024, which in essence conveys

the same decision which was reiterated in the quashed circular dated

04.01.2024.

43. The submission that the circulars which were quashed vide judgment

31.05.2024, were set aside only to the extent it returns the petitioners'

application, whereas the decision taken therein with regard to

discontinuation of two years course remains undisturbed, is noted to be

rejected. The operative part of the said judgment whereby the circulars

impugned therein have been quashed, is predicated on the finding that the

petitioners have invested considerable amounts in setting up their

institutions and marshalling the requisite infrastructure to satisfy the

prescribed norms for conducting special education courses and thereby

clearly altered their position to their disadvantage on the basis of the

representation held out by the RCI and the restoration of status quo ante is

also not possible nor the decision of the RCI to resile from the

representations, held out to the public, appears to be permissible by

supervening public equity or public interest.

44. In the backdrop of above findings, it cannot be concluded by any

W.P.(C) 11178/2024 Page 19 of 19

stretch of imagination that the decision in the impugned circular dated

04.01.2024 not to grant new approvals to any institutions for running two

years special education courses for the academic session 2024-25 has not

been quashed and remains undisturbed. The expression „to the extent it

returns the petitioners‟ application only signifies that other decisions taken

in the quashed circulars viz. decision to enhance the seats in existing

institutions, as well as, the invitation of proposals for integrated B.Ed.

Special Education for 4 year duration for the next academic session, remains

intact.

45. In view of the above discussion, the petition deserves to be allowed

and the impugned letter dated 24.06.2024 (Annexure P-1) is quashed and set

aside with the following directions:

(i) the respondent/RCI shall carry out inspection of the

petitioners’ institution and point out defect/deficiencies, if any,

within a period of 04 weeks from today, and

(ii) if any defects/deficiencies are found by the respondent/RCI,

it shall notify the same to the petitioner, affording two weeks time

to cure the same,

(iii) thereafter, a final decision shall be taken by the

respondent/RCI by passing a speaking order within a period of one

week.

46. The petition, along with pending applications, if any, stands disposed

of.

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J

APRIL 9, 2026/jg/dss