1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Pahwa appearing for the petitioner. On the strength of the document dated 11/10/2011 (page-53 of the petition) purporting to be appointment letter issued to one Shri K.V.Gor conveying that he is appointed as Principal on probation for 11 months and also on the strength of document dated 20/03/2012 (which is an order passed by the Appellate Authority reversing the earlier order passed by NCTE), learned advocate Mr.Pahwa for the petitioner has submitted that the earlier order canceling the petitioner's recognition passed by NCTE is reversed by the Appellate Authority in light of the fact that during the hearing of the appeal, the petitioner had presented before the appellate authority, the order dated 11/10/2011 evidencing appointment of Principal which complied the requirement of NCTE and had also submitted that university had approved the appointment. He further submitted that after the Appellate Authority reversed the order passed by NCTE by relying on the appointment order and petitioner's submission, the petitioner college requested the respondent university to lift the order of suspension against affiliation of petitioner college. He has made grievance that despite such request supported by the order of Appellate Authority, respondent university has not taken any action and not conveyed any decision to the college.
2. Learned advocate Mr.Panchal appearing for respondent nos.1 and 2, at the outset, requested for time to file reply affidavit to place on record certain relevant details and documents. The request was opposed by learned advocate Mr.Pahwa for the petitioner on the ground that according to the petitioner's information the respondent university is going to declare the list of approved and affiliated colleges and if the list does not contain name of the petitioner college, then the petitioner college will not get sufficient number of students for admission. Therefore, the petition is taken up for hearing.
3. During hearing of the petition, learned advocate Mr.Panchal for respondent nos.1 and 2 submitted that by resolution passed in January 2012, the respondent university has disapproved the appointment of said Mr.K.V.Gor as Principal of the petitioner college and that therefore, the very basis on which the order dated 20/03/2012 came to be passed by the appellate authority is lost and therefore, the petitioner is not justified in relying on that order. He alleged suppression of facts by the petitioner which allegation is vehemently opposed by Mr.Pahwa.
4. The said resolution on which learned counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2 has placed reliance is not available on record of present petition.
5. Therefore, time until 07/05/2012 to the respondent university to file affidavit and place relevant document on record is granted. S. O. to 07/05/2012.
(K.M.THAKER, J.) (ila) Top