ARISTOTLE TEACHERS TRAINING INSTITUTE K.G.F., REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, L. SYED SHAHZADA S/O LATE ABDUL LATHEEF Vs. NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHERS EDUCATION SOUTHERN REGIONAL COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL DIRECTOR, NAGARBHAVI, JNANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner has sought for quashing of the order passed by respondent No. 1 National Council for Teachers Education ('NCTE' for short) at Annexure -H and the order passed by respondent No. 2 - NCTE at Annexure -P and prays for a direction to respondent No. 1 to issue recognition to the petitioner to run D. Ed., course. The petitioner, an Educational Trust situated at K.G.F., made an application in terms of Section 14(1) of the NCTE Act, 1993 to respondent No. 1 for grant of recognition to commence Elementary D.Ed. course from the academic session 2004 -05 and recognition was granted to the petitioner to start D.Ed., course with an annual intake of 50 students. Thereafter, the petitioner has commenced the D.Ed. course from the Academic year 2004 -05 strictly adhering to the basic requirements and conditions as per NCTE norms and is running effectively. When things stood thus, in June 2011, the first respondent issued notice dated 7.7.2011 to the petitioner contending that in the inspection report dated 15.6.2010 conducted by the respondent No. 1 under Section 13 of the NCTE Act, the respondent No. 1 has pointed out certain deficiencies and called for an explanation. In spite of replying to the notice by the petitioner, respondent No. 1 has issued another notice and without considering the reply given by the petitioner and without hearing the petitioner, passed an order withdrawing the recognition for running D.Ed. course from the academic year 2012 -13. In spite of submission of relevant materials to show the compliance of deficiencies pointed out and also showing the details of Bank Accounts in the name of the staff members of the petitioner - Institution, it has been stated that still there is deficiency. The petitioner has got sufficient infrastructure, both in respect of building as well as land, for the purpose of imparting education to the students who have been admitted to D.Ed. course. Accordingly, they have sought for allowing the writ petition by quashing Annexures H and P orders passed.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents - NCTE and perused the records.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for 3rd respondent - University nevertheless submitted that though the University conducts examination, the basic infrastructure as is insisted upon by the first respondent, as a matter of providing basic infrastructure, has not been complied with by the petitioner and the submission of the petitioner cannot be accepted in the absence of steps being not taken to meet out the deficiencies pointed out. The learned counsel further submits that there is no provision to recognize/accord approval with retrospective effect. Accordingly, he has relied upon the judgment of the apex court reported in 2012 STPL (Web) 632 SC.