VINEET SARAN, J. - (1.) THE petitioner is a duly recognized institution. On 12.10.2004, the National Council for Teacher Education (hereinafter referred to as the 'NCTE') granted recognition to the petitioner-Institution for an annual intake of 100 seats in B.Ed, course of one year duration, with effect from 6th October, 2004. Then on 5.11.2004, the Chancellor accorded affiliation to the petitioner-College for 100 seats in B.Ed, course for a period of one year. On 7.12.2005, the said affiliation was made absolute. The University Grants Commission also recognized the institution by including the name of the petitioner-College in the list of the colleges prepared under Section 2 (f) of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956. In the meantime, on an application made by the petitioner-Institution to the NCTE for permitting the intake of 25 seats in M.Ed, course, on 31st August, 2007 the NCTE wrote to the State Government for making its recommendation, wherein it was categorically mentioned that as per sub-clause (3) of Clause 7 of the NCTE Regulations notified on 27.12.2005, if no objections were raised within sixty days, it shall be presumed that the State Government has no recommendation to make. Admittedly, the State Government did not respond to the said communication. Then on 6.12.2007 the NCTE granted recognition to the petitioner-College for conducting the M.Ed, course of one year duration with the intake of 25 seats. The University had also got the matter inquired into by a Committee consisting of the Regional Higher Education Officer as well as a Principal of another College and an expert, who was a lecturer in B.Ed, department. The said Committee also made recommendation in favour of the petitioner-Institution and consequently the University recognized the college for running the M.Ed, course with the intake of 25 students.
(2.) FOR the next session, the petitioner-College applied for 25 additional seats for M.Ed, course. In response thereto, the NCTE wrote to the State Government on 10th March, 2008 for giving its no objection with the stipulation that in case if no reply was received within sixty days, it shall be presumed that the State Government had no recommendation to make. Consequently, when no reply was received from the State Government within sixty days, then on 14th May, 2008 the NCTE granted recognition to the petitioner-College for additional intake of 25 students for M.Ed, course, that is, total 50 students after including the existing 25 seats. The said permission was however subject to fulfilment of requirements as may be prescribed by the other regulatory bodies like UGC and the State Government. After such recognition was granted by the NCTE, the University again constituted a Committee consisting of the Regional Higher Education Officer of the State Government and with a Principal of another institution and an expert lecturer of education department as its member. After conducting the inspection, a report was submitted by the Committee, in which they stated that the norms as required are fulfilled by the petitioner-Institution. Then on 20th June, 2008, the State Government wrote to the NCTE, which was in response to the communication of the NCTE dated 10.3.2008. In the said letter, it was stated that there was no clarification by the NCTE as to whether the petitioner-Institution fulfils all the norms or not. Then on 26.7.2008, the Registrar of the University wrote to the State Government that although the report dated 3.6.2008 of the Committee has been submitted but in view of the State Government's communication dated 20th June, 2008 to the NCTE, 25 additional seats in M.Ed, course are not permitted to be filled up by the State Government. It is the aforesaid communication dated 20th June, 2008 of the State Government as well as communication dated 26.7.2008 of the University, which have been challenged by filing this writ petition.
(3.) 1 have heard Sri P.S. Baghel, learned counsel for the petitioner-Institution as well as Sri R.B. Pradhan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State and Sri Neeraj Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3-University and Sri Rajiv Joshi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2-NCTE. Pleadings have been exchanged between the parties and with consent of learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of finally at this stage.;