Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsels appearing for the respondents 1 to 3.
2. This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, challenging the proceedings of the 1st Respondent, dated 30.11.2007 and the appellate order of the 2nd Respondent, dated 10.07.2008.
3. It has been stated by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner institute is a Teacher Training Institute established as per the norms and standards laid down by the National Council for Teacher Education. The petitioner institute had applied for recognition to the 1st Respondent for the additional intake of 50 students, on 24.05.2007, along with the prescribed fee of Rs.40,000/- along with the necessary documents. The 1st Respondent, had conducted an inspection, on 28.06.2007. In the inspection report, certain deficiencies had been pointed out, including the non-obtaining of the 'No Objection Certificate' from the 3rd Respondent. The petitioner institute had been directed to furnish a written representation, along with the necessary documents, to the 1st Respondent, as per the letter, dated 31.08.2007. Therefore, the petitioner institute had submitted a written representation to the 1st Respondent, along with all the necessary documents, on 21.09.2007. However, the 1st Respondent had passed the impugned order, dated 30.11.2007, stating that the deficiencies pointed out in the Inspection Report has not been complied with and therefore, the request for the grant of recognition was being rejected.
4. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner institute had filed an appeal before the 2nd Respondent, as per Section 18 of National Council for Teacher Education Act. The 2nd Respondent had passed the Impugned Order, dated 10.07.2008, confirming the order of the 1st Respondent, dated 30.11.2007. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition under
Article 226 of Constitution of India.
5. Mr. K.Ramakrishna Reddy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2, had submitted that since the request for recognition had been rejected by the 1st and 2nd Respondents, due to the deficiencies pointed out in the inspection report, it is open to the petitioner to make a fresh application for recognition, for the academic year 2010-2011 and on such application being submitted, the respondents would consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law.
6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that it would suffice if the petitioner institute is permitted to make a fresh application for the grant of recognition to the petitioner institute, for the academic year 2010-2011 and on such application being made, the respondents 1 and 2 may be directed to pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law.
7. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels for the petitioner, as well as the respondents, it is open to the petitioner to make an application to the respondents 1 and 2, with regard to the grant of recognition to the petitioner institute, for the academic year 2010-2011, in accordance with law and on receipt of such representation, the first respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.
8. With the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.
ars To
1. The Regional Director, The National Council for Teacher Education, Southern Regional Committee, CSD Building, HMT Post, Bangalore 560 031.
2. The Director, The National Council for Teacher Education, Wing II, Hans Bhawan, 1, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi 110 002.
3. The Secretary to Government, Higher Education, Fort St. George, Chennai 9