IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 36 of 2011 Academy of Management Studies, Nanda Ki Chowki, Chakrata Road, Dehradun. … Petitioner. Versus The National Council for Teacher Education and another. … Respondents. Mr. Sharad Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ramji Srivastava, and Mr. Yatindra Shukla, Advocates, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Sudhir Singh, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondents. Date January 05, 2011. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. (Stay Application No.141 of 2011) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 19-11-2010 (Annexure-1) and order dated 13-5-2010 (Annexure-2) and to allow the appeal submitted before respondent no.1. Petitioner has further sought a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 2 to grant affiliation to the petitioner for running B.Ed. Programme for the session 2010-11 and onward. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the writ petition may be disposed of finally at the admission stage without counter version, since there are no disputed questions of fact to be verified by counter version of the respondents. Briefly stated the facts as narrated in the petition are that the petitioner-institute had applied for recognition to start B.Ed. Programme for the sessions 2010-11 to the respondent no. 1 through respondent no.2. The respondent no.2-Northern Regional Committee, N.C.T.E. on 13-5-2010 pointed out some discrepancies as mentioned in paragraph no.3 of the letter and closed the file and passed an order for return of the F.D.Rs. to the petitioner-institute. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent no.1. On 7-10-2010, the Deputy Secretary of the respondent no.1 wrote a letter to the petitioner institute during the pendency of appeal, wherein at clause no.5 it 2 was mentioned that “the representative should bring point wise written explanation alongwith all supporting documentary evidences in original for perusal during the course of personal presentation.” Pursuant to the letter dated 7-10-2010 (Annexure-5 to the petition), the petitioner had filed the requisite documents before the appellate authority and complied with the deficiencies pointed out by the respondent no. 2, but the appellate authority did not consider the documents and rejected the appeal on the ground that these documents were not filed before the respondent no. 2 at preliminary stage. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, since the documents were filed by the petitioner-institute in compliance of the letter written by the Deputy Secretary of the respondent no.1 itself, but the same were not considered by the respondent no.1, therefore, the impugned order passed by the appellate authority- respondent no.1 is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the respondent no.1 is set aside. However, it is directed that the respondent no. 1 shall hear the appeal afresh and shall consider the documents filed by the petitioner before it. It is clarified that the appeal is not an independent proceeding but the same is continuation of initial proceedings, therefore, all the documents could be considered by the appellate authority also, particularly when the documents were filed in pursuance to the letter issued by the Deputy Secretary of the respondent no.1 (Annexure-5 to the petition) during the pendency of appeal. The appellate authority after considering the documents filed by the petitioner and after hearing the petitioner institute shall pass appropriate order in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. (B.S.Verma, J.) RCP