IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 1129 of 2008()
1. REV. FR. PAULOSE THOMAS, CHAIRMAN AND
... Petitioner
Vs
1. NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION,
... Respondent
2. THE NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER
For Petitioner :SRI.ROY CHACKO
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :06/06/2008
O R D E R
J.B.KOSHY & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ.
--------------------------------------
W.A.No.1129 OF 2008
-------------------------------------
Dated 6th June, 2008
JUDGMENT
Koshy,J.
Petitioner is the Chairman and Managing Trustee of a
charitable institution registered under the provisions of the Travancore-
Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act and
set up with the object of imparting quality education. Petitioner is
running B.Ed training college on a self-financing scheme. Petitioner
applied for registration in December, 2002 as per the rules existing at
that time. According to the petitioner, all the norms and regulations as
prescribed under the National Council for Teacher Education Act (NCTE
Act) and rules were complied with. But, consideration of petitioner’s
application was delayed. First inspection was in favour of the petitioner
and NCTE special team noticed that petitioner has complied with all the
conditions. But, no decision was taken on recognition. In the second
inspection conducted in 2006, it was noticed that 2005 Regulations were
not complied with. The major defect noticed is that petitioner’s building
is a rented one. In 2005 Regulations rented building is not permissible.
Since petitioner has started the institution in 2002, applied for
recognition in December, 2002, inspection was completed before 2005
W.A.1129/2008 2
Regulation was issued and inspection team recommended recognition,
recognition cannot be denied merely because final orders were not
passed before 2007 and merely because it was functioning in a
rented building and also for lack of infrastructures mentioned in 2005
Regulations. The question to be considered is whether they have
infrastructures as provided in 2002 Regulations and norms when they
applied for and when it was processed. This view was already taken
by a Full Bench of this court in Vikram Sarabhai Educational
Trust and B.Ed College v. University of Calicut & another
(2008 2 KHC 647) in which one of us (Justice P.N.Ravindran) was a
member. In the light of the Full Bench decision, we allow the writ
appeal and direct the respondents to consider the question of granting
recognition considering 2002 Norms and Regulations. Petitioner
should co-operate with the NCTE if another inspection is conducted.
The appeal is allowed.
J.B.KOSHY
JUDGE
P.N.RAVINDRAN
JUDGE
tks