BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08/09/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA W.P.(MD)No.6049 of 2007 Sarojini Memorial Educational Trust, Nagercoil, represented by its Secretary, Pathara House, No.3, Asaripallam Road, Ramavarmapuram, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. ..Petitioner Vs The Regional Director, Southern Regional Committee, National Council for Teacher Education, First Floor, C.S.D.Building, H.M.T.Post, Bangalore - 560 031. ..Respondent Prayer Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to grant recognition to the petitioner's proposed College of Education at Thampi Thoppu, Thitta Vilai, Kanyakumari District. !For Petitioner ... M/s.S.Xavier Rajini ^For Respondent ... No appearance :ORDER
The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of a
Writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondent to grant recognition to
the petitioner’s proposed College of Education at Thampi Thoppu, Thitta Vilai,
Kanyakumari District.
2. The case set up by the petitioner is, that the petitioner is running a
Higher Secondary School and was interested in establishing a Teachers Training
College in the year 1980-81. The petitioner made a request to the University
for grant of affiliation for the academic year 1984-85. The request was declined
being belated.
3. The petitioner again submitted a representation on 19.08.1984 for
starting a college for the academic year 1985-1986, which was again declined, on
the ground that there was no necessity to start another college in Kanyakumari
District.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that repeated requests were made by
the petitioner with different Universities and authorities, but did not succeed.
The petitioner, in the year 1993, approached this Court by filing W.P.No.7076 of
1994, for directing the Manonmaniam Sundaranar University to consider the
request of the petitioner for grant of affiliation to the proposed College of
Education for the academic year 1994-1995. The Writ Petition was allowed, and
the directions were issued to the respondents to consider the request of the
petitioner. The order passed by the Honourable Single Judge was challenged in
W.A.No.76 of 1995, wherein, it was held that the application of the petitioner
could only be considered after necessary recognition was given by the National
Council for Teachers Education, as per the provisions contained in Section 16 of
the Central Act 73 of 1993.
5. The case of the petitioner is, that when it approached the National
Council For Teachers Education, it was directed to get ‘No Objection
Certificate’ from the State Government. The petitioner thereafter approached
the State Government. It was only pursuance of the directions issued by this
Court in W.P.No.1733 of 1996, that the request of petitioner was not considered
and it was granted ‘No Objection Certificate’.
6. Thereafter On inspection by the respondent, it was found that the
petitioner was not in possession of a pucca building, therefore, the case of
the petitioner was given approval by the respondent.
7. The case of the petitioner is that thereafter it made arrangements for
conducting classes in different buildings as a temporary measure and also gave
an undertaking to construct pucca building, as per the requirement of
respondent under the regulations.
8. The case of the petitioner is that the temporary alternative provisions
for accommodation is permissible, under the regulations of the NCTE. The
petitioner has also filed the requisite affidavits to raise pucca
constructions,as per requirement under the rules and regulations.
9. It is further the case of the petitioner that under similar
circumstances, recognition stands granted to Anna Vinayagar College of
Education, Ganapathipuram, Kanyakumari District, subject to completion of pucca
building within two to three years.
10. Nobody is present on behalf of the respondent to oppose the Writ
Petition, nor any counter has been filed. Therefore the averments in affidavit
filed by petitioner go un-rebutted.
11. In view of un-rebutted facts and in view of the stand taken by the
learned counsel for the petitioner, the Writ Petition is disposed of, by
directing the respondent to take a final decision on the application filed by
the petitioner for granting recognition. In case, the request is not to be
accepted, the respondent is directed to pass a detailed speaking order giving
reasons for rejection of the application. The needful be done preferably within
two months of the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
12. No costs.
vsn
To
The Regional Director,
Southern Regional Committee,
National Council for Teacher Education,
First Floor,
C.S.D.Building,
H.M.T.Post,
Bangalore – 560 031.
