Delhi High Court · 2026-04-09
SHANTI NIKETAN COLLEGE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION & ANR. vs REHABILITATION COUNCIL OF INDIA
- Citation / case number
- W.P.(C)-11178/2024 2026:DHC:2953
- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Petitioner
- SHANTI NIKETAN COLLEGE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION & ANR.
- Respondent
- REHABILITATION COUNCIL OF INDIA
Judgment text excerpt
$~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 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 11178/2024 Page 1 of 19 By:DEEPAK SINGH Signing Date:10.04.2026 09:56:24 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 d