HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 4377 OF 2007 DATED 19th November, 2014.
BETWEEN G.Ravi Kumar ….Petitioner And The Chairman, Andhra Pradesh State Counsel of Higher Education, Masab Tank, Hyderabad and ors.
…Respondents.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 4377 OF 2007.
ORDER:
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for the respondents.
This Writ Petition was filed to direct respondents 1 to 3 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 13.02.2006 and to enquire into the irregularities and violations of norms committed by the fourth respondent in the standards of Secondary Teacher Education programme.
A reading of the complaint dated 13.02.2006 addressed to the Commissioner, A.P. State Council for Higher Education, who is not made as a party respondent to the Writ Petition, discloses that the petitioner along with others completed B.Ed course during the academic year 2004-2005 from the fourth respondent-College. It is their complaint that even though requisite fee was collected from the students, no qualified lecturers were appointed and that when the university officials visited the college, the students were threatened not to give any complaint, otherwise, they would be failed in the examinations. The aforesaid complaint was made after completion of the course.
It is evident from the complaint that the petitioner has completed his B.Ed. course and he made the present complaint against the fourth respondent after completion of the course on the ground that qualified lecturers were not appointed. Grant of recognition by the National Council for Teacher Education to the colleges like fourth respondent-College is only after compliance of norms and maintenance of standards in teacher education programme and on fulfilling the conditions of recognition. Obviously, the petitioner has developed grouse against the fourth respondent-College and the same cannot be addressed in the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the Writ Petition is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed.
The Writ Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions pending consideration if any in the Writ Petition shall stand closed in consequence. No order as to costs.
JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO DATED 19th November, 2014. Msnrx