MAA PURNAGIRI COLLEGE OF EDUCATION Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(UTN)-2012-6-27
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on June 19,2012

MAA PURNAGIRI COLLEGE OF EDUCATION VILLAGE BHARTOLI, BARAKOT, DISTRICT CHAMPAWAT THROUGHT ITS SECRETAY KRISHNA SINGH ADHIKARI Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

B.S.VERMA, J. - (1.) BY means of this petition the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order passed in 173rd N.R.C. meeting held from 24th to 26th November, 2010 passed by respondent No.2.
(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to this writ petition, according to the petitioner, are that the petitioner is an institute run by Maa Purnagiri College of Education, a society registered under Society Registration Act. The Society for uplifting the education in the remote area of Himalayas established a college of education under the name and title Maa Purnagiri College of Education. The petitioner applied for recognition of B.Ed. Course from National Council for Teacher Education (in short NCTE) on requisite form and deposited necessary fees and also completed other formalities. Thereafter the visiting team came for inspection of the petitioner institute on 10-7- 2009 and the visiting team submitted the report and reported that certain formalities are not completed by the petitioner. Thereafter the NCTE issued show cause notice and directed the petitioner to give reply on as many as 11 points. Then vide reply dated 26/28 July, 2009 the petitioner has intimated the NCTE that all the formalities have been completed. Again on 27-9-2009 a team of NCTE visited the petitioner's instituted and gave report on 27-9-2009 and found that all the points, as shown in the show cause notice, were completed except the two points -(1) the size of two class rooms is not as per NCTE norms and (2) the land is not in the name of institute. Thereafter without considering the second report of the team, the NCTE again passed an order on 22-12-2009 whereby again on all the points existing in the show cause notice the deficiency was again shown and the file was closed and the recognition was not given to the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal as per section 18 of the NCTE Act before the respondent No.3 and the same was dismissed vide order dated 5-5-2010. Against the order dated 5.5.2010 the petitioner preferred Writ Petition No. 1012/2010 (M/S) and this Court vide order dated 11-8-2010 disposed of the writ petition with a direction to NCTE to reconsider the matter of the petitioner for grant of recognition for B.Ed. Course afresh by considering the reported dated 27-9-2009 submitted by second visiting team. Pursuant to the order dated 11-8-2010 of this Court, the petitioner moved representation before the NCTE on 16-9-2010. The respondent No.2 sent show cause notice to the petitioner pointing out two deficiencies. The petitioner replied dated 28-10-2010 stating therein that the building has been completed and fully furnished. The petitioner also annexed the certificate dated 25-10-2010 given by Engineer K.S. Manral, B. Arch. Government Valuer wherein he found that building is fully complete and furnished and is ready to run classes as the per norms and standard as published by NCTE for the purpose of running B.Ed. Course. Regarding second deficiency it was stated by the institute that the land is in the name of Secretary of the institute Sri Krishna Singh Adhikari as per sale deed. However the affidavit of Sri Krishna Singh Adhikari was there on the record of respondent No.2 wherein an undertaking was given for the transfer of the land. Sale deed in the name of Sri Krishna Singh Adhikari, has been annexed as Annexure No.13 to the writ petition. Thereafter without considering the reply dated 28-10-2010 and without conducting fresh inspection the NCTE refused the recognition. Hence this writ petition. The respondents 2 and 3, the N.C.T.E. and its Member Secretary, contested the petition by filing counter affidavit. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that on inspection of petitioner's institute a number of deficiencies were found, hence show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted its reply and the reply of the institution was considered and it was found that the deficiencies still exist and decision was taken to close the file. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that after the direction of Hon'ble High Court petitioner submitted representation and a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on the ground that building of the intuition is under construction and size of the class-rooms are not as per NCTE norms and as the petitioner institution has failed to comply with the norms and standards laid down by NCTE Act and Regulations for grant of recognition, therefore, the respondent refused the recognition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the stand taken by NCTE for not granting recognition to the petitioner was that the building of the institute was incomplete and the size of class-rooms are not as per NCTE norms, whereas the building of the petitioner institute was complete and as per National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2009, there is no mention of specific dimension of class-rooms. He further submitted that the ownership of the land is in the name of the Society through its Secretary, which is as per NCTE norms.
(3.) THERE is check list of visiting team dated 10-7-2009, paper No. 54 to the writ petition, and at serial No. II-A(a) and (b) shows that the visiting team had recommended that the land is own land of institution. The ownership document is in the name of Society through its Secretary, which is as per NCTE norms. The building is complete. Therefore the deficiency regarding ownership of building does not exist. I have perused the clause-5 of Appendix -4 of National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2009. From perusal of above rule, it is quite clear that for running B.Ed. classes the built up area should be 1500 squire meters and the total area of the land should be 2500 square meters. The hall should be with seating capacity of 200 and a dias (2000 square feet). The visiting team had given recommendation to give recognition considering this fact that the petitioner's institution is situated on hill area. The petitioner also annexed the certificate dated 25-10-2010 given by Engineer K.S. Manral, B. Arch. Government Valuer wherein he found that building is fully complete and furnished and is ready to run classes as the per norms and standard as published by NCTE for the purpose of running B.Ed. Course. Beside above, this Court has also directed the NCTE to reconsider the matter of granting recognition to the petitioners' institute. Therefore, in the above facts of the case the petitioner's institute is entitled to get recognition to run B.Ed. Course in the hilly region in the interest of public at large.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.