SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, J. - (1.) SEEKING modification of affiliation dated 27.09.2013 granted to the petitionercollege for Academic Session 201314 and alternatively seeking a direction upon the respondents to grant affiliation to the petitionercollege for Academic Session 201314 and onwards, the present writ petition has been filed.
(2.) THE petitionercollege is run by a registered Trust namely, Karmatand Foundation. Vide, order dated 14.08.2013 the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) granted recognition to the petitionercollege for one year B.Ed. course from Academic Session 201314 and thereafter, the respondentVinoba Bhave University issued letter dated 27.09.2013, granting affiliation to the petitionercollege for the Academic Session 201314.
(3.) THE learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner refers to Section 4(19) of the University Act and Section 14 of the NCTE Act, 1993 and submits that once the NCTE takes a decision to grant recognition to an Institute, the same shall be binding upon the State Government as well as the University. There is no provision for grant of temporary affiliation or affiliation for one year which can be extended by the University only upon an application made by the B.Ed. College. Relying on decision in "State of Maharashtra Vs. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya and Ors., 2006 9 SCC 1", the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the primacy of NCTE Act, 1993 is no longer in dispute. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya" case that once the NCTE takes a decision to grant recognition, it is not open to other authorities including, the University to take a contrary decision. It is thus, submitted that the affiliation dated 27.09.2013 issued by the respondentVinoba Bhave University is liable to be modified to the extent that it must relate for Academic Session 201314 and onwards that is, it should be an order of permanent affiliation. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents referred to the letter issued by the NCTE and submitted that the affiliating body can impose suitable conditions. In the writ petition, the petitioner has averred as under: 11. "That it is stated that thereafter also the petitioner college has been repeatedly making requests to the authorities concerned to do the needful by granting extension of affiliation for the session 201415 and for the onward sessions and also permitting the petitioner college to take admission of students of the session 201415, but no positive step was taken by the University in the aforesaid regard. 12. That from the aforesaid facts it is evident that the petitioner made a request and called upon the respondents to grant the extension of affiliation including for the session 201415, but no positive step has been taken by the University in this regard. It is relevant to state that even after repeated requests/reminders made by the petitioner college, the respondents University sat tight over the matter and took no steps/positive steps for grant of extension of affiliation for the session 201415 and onwards. As a matter of fact, the respondents did not take any action for grant of extension of affiliation to the petitioner college for the session 201415 and onwards. 13. That the University has failed to discharge its statutory duty for grant of affiliation/extension of affiliation to the petitioner college for the academic session 201415 and for the onward session." ;