JUDGMENT : Alok Sharma, J. The petitioner institute sought recognition of its 4 year B.A., B.Ed. B.Sc. B.Ed. integrated course from the Northern Regional Committee (NRC) National Council for Teachers Education (NCTE) for the academic session 2016-17 under the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2014 (hereinafter 'the Regulations of 2014'). It appears that in its 265th meeting held between 27-2-2017 and 3-3-2017, the NRC took a decision to reject the petitioner's application. But a copy of the refusal order was not conveyed to the petitioner till 20-4-2017. 2. Section 18 of the Act of 1993 provides for laying of appeal against the order of rejection of the application of an institute. 3. The case of the petitioner is that albeit the petitioner's application for grant of recognition of its 4 year B.A., B.Ed. B.Sc. B.Ed. integrated course was rejected at the NRC's 265th meeting held between 27-2-2017 and 3-3-2017, copy thereof was communicated to the petitioner only subsequent to filing of this petition on 20-4-2017. It has been submitted that in terms of the NCTE Rules, 1997 and the format of memorandum of appeal appended to the Rules of 1997. Note 3 provides that a copy of the order in appeal must invariably be annexed with the memorandum of appeal. It has been further submitted that as per the terms and conditions for online submission of appeals under Section 18 of the Act of 1993 as circulated by NCTE it has been provided that "A copy of appeal should be accompanied by an order of appeal against", and further more importantly that "no appeal shall be processed if the copy of the minutes of the Regional Committee's meeting are enclosed with the appeal". Thus the appeal against the NRC's order of refusal could not be filed. It has been submitted that the last date for grant of recognition to teacher training courses by NRC in the academic session 2017-18 is 2-5-2017, as per the directions of the Apex Court, at this stage with the order of rejection of the petitioner's application for recognition for 4 year B.A., B.Ed. B.Sc. B.Ed. integrated course having been communicated to the petitioner only on 20-4- 2017 after filing of the petition, the remedy of statutory appeal is not efficacious and a mere chimera. Hence the petition which be entertained despite a theoretical statutory appeal being available to the petitioner. 4. Mr. B.Sc. B.Ed. integrated course having been communicated to the petitioner only on 20-4- 2017 after filing of the petition, the remedy of statutory appeal is not efficacious and a mere chimera. Hence the petition which be entertained despite a theoretical statutory appeal being available to the petitioner. 4. Mr. P.C. Sharma appearing for the NRC on instructions of Mr. Satish Gupta, the Regional Director (I/C) NRC, who is present in court as required, has submitted that the appellate authority under the Act of 1993 accepts appeals without an order of rejection of applications for grant of recognition being annexed therewith. It has been submitted that neither the format appended to the Rules of 1997 nor the terms and conditions for submission of online appeal by the aggrieved party are mandatory. There was thus no obstruction for the petitioner institute to file an appeal under Section 18 of the Act of 1993 against the minutes of 265th of the NRC held between 27-2-2017 and 3-3-2017. It has been submitted even otherwise subsequent to the rejection of the petitioner's application for recognition for its 4 year integrated B.A./ B.Ed. B.Sc./ B.Ed. courses, displayed online, the petitioner could have approached the NRC with grievance of non receipt of a formal order entailing denial of right of appeal or even this court for appropriate directions to facilitate the petitioner's right of appeal under the Act of 1993 being effectuated. He further submitted that even otherwise on merits the petitioner institution has no case for reason of its application for grant of recognition for its 4 year B.A., B.Ed. B.Sc. B.Ed. integrated course being non compliant on multiple grounds such as the non submission of the requisite NOC from the affiliating body in terms of Regulation 5(3) of the Regulations of 2014 as also certificates of land documents and permission for change of user of land/ building for educational purposes. 5. Heard. Considered. 6. It is a matter of concern that a decision being taken by the NRC to reject the petitioner's application for recognition of its 4 year B.A., B.Ed. B.Sc. B.Ed. integrated course in its 265th meeting held between 27-2-2017 and 3-3-2017, was not communicated to the petitioner till 20-4-2017. 5. Heard. Considered. 6. It is a matter of concern that a decision being taken by the NRC to reject the petitioner's application for recognition of its 4 year B.A., B.Ed. B.Sc. B.Ed. integrated course in its 265th meeting held between 27-2-2017 and 3-3-2017, was not communicated to the petitioner till 20-4-2017. On a specific query being put to the Regional Director, NRC, he submitted that the failure to communicate the order of rejection of petitioner's application was occasioned by an accident from the sheer volume of work with the NRC which is required to consider applications for recognition of teacher training courses from eight states. 7. The question of the petitioner being entitled for recognition of its 4 year B.A., B.Ed. B.Sc. B.Ed. integrated courses is a question of fact inter alia dependent upon determination of requisite compliances under the NCTE Regulation, 2014. A remedy of appeal has been provided to an applicant being aggrieved of the rejection of an application for grant of recognition. No doubt the impugned order of the rejection of the petitioner's application has been communicated to the petitioner institution belatedly, I am of the considered view that it cannot be absolved of its duty to have pursued the matter earlier either by approaching the NRC for formal communication of the order regarding its decision at its 265th meeting or this court with the grievance of non communication of the decision by NRC by a formal order occasioning the denial of the right of appeal at the relevant time. 8. In this view of the matter, I am of the considered view that in the facts of the case, there is no case for exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court. The urgency that is sought to be emphasised in this petition for reason of the belated communication of the refusal order only on 20-4-2017 is equally an outcome of the petitioner's own lethargy and lack of vigilance. The petitioner cannot take any benefit from its own wrong in not taking urgent and timely steps as available in law to impugn the rejection of its application for recognition of its 4 year integrated course as reflected in the NRC's decision at its 265th meeting between 27-2-2017 and 3-3-2017 uploaded online. The petitioner cannot take any benefit from its own wrong in not taking urgent and timely steps as available in law to impugn the rejection of its application for recognition of its 4 year integrated course as reflected in the NRC's decision at its 265th meeting between 27-2-2017 and 3-3-2017 uploaded online. The petitioner is therefore directed to avail his remedy of appeal against the impugned rejection of its application for recognition of its 4 year B.A., B.Ed. B.Sc. B.Ed. integrated courses. In the special facts of the case and in view of the fact that the last date for grant of recognition to teacher training courses by NCTE has been fixed by the Apex Court as 2-5-2017, the Appellate Authority is directed that in the event of an appeal being filed by the petitioner institution the same be decided by a reasoned and speaking order expeditiously. 9. A copy of the appeal so filed be given in advance to the Regional Director NRC with information in writing of the date fixed in appeal. The Regional Director shall be required to ensure representation of the NRC before the Appellate Authority with the requisite record. 10. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.