IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 29284 of 2010(I)
1. ALLAMA IQBAL MEMORIAL NATIONAL
... Petitioner
Vs
1. NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION,
... Respondent
2. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR,
3. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.K.SURESH KUMAR
For Respondent :SRI.V.M.KURIAN, SC, SRC-NCTE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :05/10/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
-----------------------------
W.P.(C) No.29284 of 2010
------------------------------------
Dated this the 5th day of October 2010
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner is a Trust, which has established
Educational institutions with the recognition of the 1st
respondent. In this writ petition, they are aggrieved by
Ext.P10 series of orders.
2. In so far as it is relevant, the facts are that, by
Ext.P1 order the 1st respondent granted recognition to the
petitioner for conducting TTC course. Thereafter, Ext.P2
order was issued granting recognition for B.Ed course. This
was followed by Ext.P3 granting recognition for M.Ed
course. Again Ext.P4 order was issued on 10.6.2008
granting recognition for an additional batch of B.Ed course.
Accordingly petitioner commenced the courses.
3. It is stated that thereafter certain complaints
W.P.(C) No.29284 of 2010
-: 2 :-
were received against the petitioner’s institution which led
to an inspection conducted by a team deputed by the 2nd
respondent. Based on the report submitted by the
Inspection Team, 2nd respondent passed Ext.P6 series of
orders on 4.5.2010 stating that the infrastructure provided
by the petitioner was inadequate and on that basis, the
recognition granted for conducting courses in M.Ed and
B.Ed were cancelled. Petitioner filed appeals before the 1st
respondent. Appeals were finally heard on 18.8.2010, but
orders were not passed. It is in these circumstances,
seeking expeditious disposal of the appeals and also seeking
to impugne Ext.P6 order, this writ petition was filed.
4. Pursuant to the directions of this Court, appeals
have been disposed of by Ext.P10 series of orders of the 1st
respondent whereby, the 1st respondent has restored one
batch of B.Ed course to the petitioner but upheld the orders
derecognizing M.Ed and Additional B.Ed courses. The main
reason stated in Ext.P10 series of orders reads thus:-
W.P.(C) No.29284 of 2010
-: 3 :-
“The building completion certificate dt.06.07.09
mentioned the availability of 28827 sq.ft. or 2679 sq.mt of
area with R.C.C. roof on ground floor and first floor and
3000 sq.ft of area with ACC roof on second floor. So,
excluding the ACC roof area of 3,000 sq.ft, it was having
only 2676 sq.mt. of built-up area and it would be adequate
for the existing T.T.C. Programme and a unit of B.Ed.
Programme. In view of the above, the Council came to
the conclusion that there was adequate justification in
accepting the appeal with the direction to the SRC for
restoring the recognition of the B.Ed. programme with an
intake of 100 only and for addition unit of B.Ed
programme & M.Ed programme the recognition stands
withdrawn.”
5. In this writ petition, what survives is the validity
of Ext.P10 series of orders. It is the contention of the
learned counsel for the petitioner that Ext.P4 order
granting recognition for additional batch of B.Ed course
was issued by the 2nd respondent only after the physical
verification of the infrastructure provided by the petitioner.
It is stated that during inspection the respondents were
satisfied about the infrastructure provided by the petitioner
and that they were also satisfied all the requirements laid
W.P.(C) No.29284 of 2010
-: 4 :-
down in the National Council for Teacher Education
(Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2007 have
been complied with. It is stated that subsequently even if it
is found that the infrastructure provided is inadequate,
having regard to the recognition as already granted by the
1st respondent and atleast a breathing time to rectify the
inadequacies should have been granted.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
respondents relied on Clause 8(11) of National Council for
Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure)
Regulations, 2005 and Clause 8(10) of National Council for
Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure)
Regulations, 2007 and contended that institutions shall
comply the requirements laid down in the norms and
standards prescribed by the 1st respondent not later than
the commencement of the academic year. It is also his
contention that in terms of 2007 Regulations, at the time of
inspection the building shall be a completed permanent
W.P.(C) No.29284 of 2010
-: 5 :-
structure having necessary amenities and fulfilling all such
prescribed norms and standards. It is pointed out that
admittedly the second floor of the building offered by the
petitioner has only asbestos roofing, which did not satisfy
the requirements of the Regulations.
7. The correctness of the findings of the Inspection
Committee reflected in Ext.P10, is not disputed by the
petitioner. As already noticed, the case of the petitioner is
that even if any inadequacy is found, the institution should
have been given a reasonable time to rectify the
inadequacies.
8. It is the case of both the parties that if the
petitioner offers a permanent structure as against the
asbestos roofed portion of the building, the petitioner
satisfies the standards specified in the Regulations for
recognition of M.Ed course. Apparently realizing the
inadequacy of the infrastructure provided by the petitioner
an affidavit has been filed before this Court undertaking to
W.P.(C) No.29284 of 2010
-: 6 :-
change the roof of the 3000 sq.ft area of the second floor of
the building into RCC within an immediate possible period
and at any rate before the admissions to the M.Ed course
begins for the present academic year. In my view this offer
made by the petitioner should satisfy the requirements of
the Regulations and therefore, if the petitioner changes the
roof of the building as offered in the affidavit and intimate
the same to the 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent should
restore the recognition granted for M.Ed course as per
Ext.P3 to the petitioner so that the petitioner can complete
the admission and commence the courses in this academic
year itself.
9. Yet another grievance of the petitioner is that in
respect of one batch of B.Ed course for which recognition
has been restored by the 1st respondent as per Ext.P10,
students are not allotted by the 3rd respondent. Now that
recognition has been restored as per Ext.P10, petitioner is
entitled to allotted students. Therefore, I direct the 3rd
W.P.(C) No.29284 of 2010
-: 7 :-
respondent to allot students to the B.Ed course offered by
the petitioner on the strength of a copy of this judgment.
Subject to the above, Ext.P10 will stand in all other
respects.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE.
Jvt