W'.I'-'. 10378.08 1 ll THE H133 COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 1973 DAY OF JUNE, 2008 BEFORE mm nomm nawsncz n.s.pATI-If T; & M WRIT PE'I'I'1'I01I' rig. 1078 L BETWEEN: 1. The Excellent Tamil Medium " . V _ D.Ed College, Establish and Métnagemenb. -- By Nagin Womcrfs Welfare Soct:ity,_ ._ _ Opposite Vetemary I~Io_s'pita1,_' _ A , V Anderson, pet, KGF -- 56'.3 122, } Represented by its Secretary, 1 R.R. D. F}?! 'Cofitgé; Established and-Managrcinsnt by R. R. Educational «Cu1fuxél..ChaI'itab1e Trust, O§3posite'Te1ephoi1r; Exchange, Dr. fisxnhod1:ar'R0$I1, R¢v,,), District Education I'7IA13f.'iiAZ111;'€.',V ' - (131m), Kolar. . L. ,J.'.% Iwsponnnirrs (By 81-i. B.Manol1ar, AGA to;-a»i,j;-4 a. 5;.__ " . B:-1. Anhok Adv'; for V' 811. K.Anand, Mgrogi-sarspv V ' This' iSi"ffi1ed*».u11.der_fi"rtic1cs 226 8:. 227 of the Consfitutigm of V1n:.1:a_' __ to. quash impugned order dt. 27.09.2002 issued. bjy"«thc._. respondent at Annexum-J and
consequ;:11tia3L orcler’-ofyt’i1e respondent Dt. 21.11.2007 at
Annexurc-K and Kvl. BL ’21§I–‘1.2007.
V’té{}*”.i;’-“.5;-‘E g’ on for Orders, this day, the Court
0R.D$R
_1. are educational institutions nmning D.Ed.,
” §1t–* “K.G.F. in K0131” District. The State Government
i.§s:;éd objection certificate to both the petitioner-institutions
“.:a.._eétah1ish Teachers ‘I’ram1n’ ‘ g Institute 12):’ D.Ed., Courses in
medium. The said no objection certificate is pmduccd at
Annt:xu:res–A and F’. As there was a mistake in issuing the no
‘é
w.P. 1078.08
3
objection certificate in respcct of the second petitioner, a
corrigendum was issued vide Annexure-F1 COI’1’€5Cf.f.iI!1f§’*..Vth€
mistake and making it to read that the D.Ec1.,
permittod with Tamil medium and not with
This was followed by a
stating the [).Ed., cou.rscs9oVi_ssuc’d—- on
A1mex111’e—B by the Regional .Nafion.’fi Couocil {of
Teacilers Education in asfflic” _g’$€t,itione’fV’is’Aoonccrncd.
Both the institutions NOTE as per
the order dated god Vvidc Am1cxun:s~–C
and G V’ 4′
2. It »pj§4$t§.t:io:§e1*-institaxtion made admissions
and sent a oiuoaiits for approval to the authorities.
The a:i;§1ioi’ifies mat the 1st petitioncr~i11stituti.o11 had
commenced the academic year even before
mition from the NOTE. Talon’ g into
V .oonsi§iem’iioo’tEe diflicultics faced by 48 students admitted to
.o irifitittifion and also keeping in mind the fact that there were
priszaary schools to enable the students admitted to
‘T Institutions to get the practice teaching of 40 days in the
” “gdcmic year while permitfing the 48 students admitted to the
W.P.1078.08
4
1″ petitiener~inet:itutio1.1. for the academic year 2006-200? to
prosecute their studies, the institution was directed toifiie. an
afidavit that they will not admit any students for
year 239-;z_g008_ The 152: petitioner-instit11tion_;acti§3:§§1’i;¥i:g1$f
an afidavit stating before the 5*” n;§spe1f1£ieV:1’t_,
abide by the Government Order dated
the aifidavit filed, 48 students I” V’
were allowed to take the e.xa’V'”m” “1’nv.:’in Tam’ éeiedium.
3. The Government th:e1t.AA111c1’e<;1,uate number of
primary schoolsief -u1e§'e1~.:1etA'Vja\1ai1ab1e to provide
tram' ing sttideiuts for the D.Ed., course
('I'am1l' mediem}Vtoc1k~'.'t.;1.gfec§sio11..to recommend to the were to
Withdraw tTE1et"1ecc1g11i%E:io1*1._gi:t2§11ted to 23 institutions imparting
tI1s.i11i:'1g—–i:1'D.§3d., courses in the State. Pursuant
'ta' " a communication was addressed by the
State to the Regional Director, NOTE, Bangalore on
.Vv;icie Annexum–J. This was followed by
'etmeV.1i1u1}iee.tions addressed to the petiticners 1 and 2 as per
and K1 dated 21.11.2007 by the Principal and
" Birector (Development) DIET, Kolar, the 5'-'*1 respondent
' herein. By the said cemmunicafions vide Annexmes-K and K1,
e
W.P.10'?8.08
5
the ;3etiiioner-institutions were remincied about the afidavit
filed by them undertaking not to admit any studentsv
academic year 2007-2008 and that the said mndifiegjfias
masldatorily complied with and if any violation in b
that regard action in accordance Wiih
Aggrieved by Annexure-J, communieatiofi {iated V L’
Annexures~K and K1 conamunicatieiiia dated.V_ ‘$».’t1–v..V-‘1 the
petitioners have appmacheeithis i
4. Learned couneel fo1:’,A”t1’*.eV&:é’e,t1i£ends that the
impugned the petitioner as
they haveieafabliiahedii investing huge sum of
money to the needs of the local
people. It isenext by him that before taking a
‘cieeisicrafi. f mcomrdieesi… for withdrawal of Iecoyaitzien, no
to the petitioners to have their say in the
matter as s1ici’v;i,jja:§:1ecisic>n adversely afiects the interests of the
flpetitionelz. {nee far as the 2″‘ petitioner is concerned, it is
V ‘eeutenaed Iiy the learned counsel for the petitioners that though
-an was filed by it, Annexme-K1 notice is issued making ‘
A “%j5pear that it had in fact filed such an aflidavit.
W.P.1078.08
6
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate who has filed
statement of objoctioas for the respondents 1, 4 and
me thmugh the statement of objections contcn_g’2’s~
Govsmmost has taken note of the diminishing .,
medium students in the primaxy
places and the less number of ifiettium scsaoagt-is L»
which were imparting ed'”:1catioiie<e:.V:Vtt; the has
therefore taken a docisioix the primary
schools in Tamil mediuni it and sumcient
enough to pmvigis institutions.
He submits tlzist medium schools
which Schools available for practice
training fox; ttietifoiur qI}’;.lV?J«3..’:,””5fi’stitutions permitted in KGF’ and
that ou’f;’ofe,the Tsrafl medium schools some art: on the
i’i’._Vv’srge&V.of iximsevcral others, the students strength is
fi”ois,.-:’aocording to the respondents has made it
._ impoissit31e__»to_é£1sb1e the students in the I).E}d., institutions to
” I[Vge’t the pzI*.-actice teaching of 40 days in one academic yoar. The
VA sto_n’c1,_tsken by the respondents is that a minimum of 5 primary
with full strength is 1eqt11rod’ to enable the students of
one D.Ed., institution to get the practice teaching of 40 days in
one academic year. It is in this background action is taken
%
w.P.10′?8.08
7
recommending for closure of the institutions vide Annexure-J.
He further submits that there is no right vested’
petitioners to seek an opportunity of being heard bofoxfi.’
such 3. recognition. At any rate, counsel submits_.t’}u:§atV .,
W531 provide opportunity to the
order withdrawing recowition.
6. Having heard the learned for and on perusal of the that the moommcndation mode by the NCFE to withdraw the :1 %n'"io 7ner~insfimtsons is not heard given to them.
As rightly counsel for the petitioners,
the in8fit111i0Ii§”!iIt be established by virtue of a no
” by the Government followed by a
which is fructified into a pmper orticr of
zvecomm’ been given in favour of the petitioner.
o The pefifiohofiiosfitufions have oommenood D.Ed., Courses by
inoostxncnts and acquire: infrastructural facilities. If
:_ dcficéency in the infi’astructura1 faoiiities and if the
“~f:Vé’fii:ioner-institutions had failed to conform to the oonditions
‘4 «ing/sod, certainly the authorities are «entitled to initiate action
W.P.1078.08
8
for withdrawal of ite-cognition. This is not the gxound on which
the recommendation is made for withdrawal of recognition.
Instead it is based on the afieged shortage of primary
Taxnfl metiium in the locality which provided
the students admitted in the petitioner-instit11t.io:zsi:to ‘tfildexge ~ ..
D.Ed., Courses. Thought the State at’
position to know how many Tamil 5;:-e. L.
in existence and how many of theznt’ thettfultfif of the
students and whether they:_efi’ectiiieiy’f tram’ mg’
to the students in D.Ed., forgotten that
the petitioners m :i.nte1’eeted and ought to have
been pmiiigied to have their say before a
1eoommendeei:iontatIV”ei~.§eVA’to’: interest is made to the NOTE.
; boot: __$8VtV.:iC}1’V’ recommendation is made which if
jvureeult in closure of these institutions. The
made on 27.09.2007 whereas the
it establishing the institution is granted on
” the case of petitioner No.1 and on 26.09.2007 in
it petitioner No.2. The no objection wrtificate by the
Government which preceded the recognition was given on
Vt’te~-.:9.12.2oos. Between 29.12.2005 and 27.09.2007 how the
sittiation has changed to the detriment of the interest of the
‘%
‘W.P’.1078.08
9
D.Ed., students which necessitated recommendation for closure
of the institution is not forthcoming.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has “xi-a
document dated 18.07.2006 produced at V’
the Block Education omcer of KGF’ whe1einA.Vthnjt
all there were 18 Tamil medium .’
unaided fixnctiaoning in KGF. inllthe st:’1te2me:;ti..V(‘;Af”:.ob;§e<:tions " it
filed, the respondents have__conteItdeti'vth;a.tLtheie' are primaty
schoob in existence in the to them are
ineumcient to protaide .V…'V'i3'nless the State
Govemmeiitieesu 'Va is drastic reduction of
students strength and that some of these
institutions defunct it cannot be said that
"there from the year 2005 when the no
was issued compared to the year 2007 when
the Annexure-J came to be issued.
‘I’liese facts which the State Government has to
ejtrstematically by providing an opportunity to the
It _ Therefore, the reoommendation made
” has adverse effect on the continued existence of the
%/
W.P. 1078.08
10
petitioners-institutinns cannot be sustained. In View of the
above, it is just and necessary to pass the fillowing:
onng
The mspondcnts are directed not to give 1 V’
impugned recommendation and u
Annexuresd, K and K1 in so far as tigc
are concerned. The State Goi?é:;4nxnentA”::ha!1_ an * L’
exercise to find out if the ~ nlediigugipximazy
schools in KGF are in for providing
practice tlainiag tc.Vthc:.”‘mtii;ioi1a:«,innfit1itinns and other
sun’ ilarly ;s:tfiateai.iVf.%_VD;§€~;;i., in the Imamy after
providing and opportunity to the petitioners.
‘I’hcreafteV:r,_ it 131: the State Government to take
é1ppropii£utc»_tiecision necessary recommendations.
8. A _ % 1 Government Advocate is permitted to
V memo of appearance within six weeks.
Sd/-
Judge