{"id":78073,"date":"2010-04-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-04-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-correspondent-vs-the-national-council-for-teacher-on-20-april-2010"},"modified":"2016-12-03T07:18:21","modified_gmt":"2016-12-03T01:48:21","slug":"the-correspondent-vs-the-national-council-for-teacher-on-20-april-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-correspondent-vs-the-national-council-for-teacher-on-20-april-2010","title":{"rendered":"The Correspondent vs The National Council For Teacher … on 20 April, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
The Correspondent vs The National Council For Teacher … on 20 April, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 20\/04\/2010\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI\n\nWrit Petition(MD)No.9358 of 2009\nand\nM.P.(MD)No.1 of 2009\n\nThe Correspondent,\nKaliammal College of Education,\nNo.305\/1, Pavithram Village & Post,\nAravakuruchi,\nKarur District - 639 002\t\t\t... Petitioner\n\nVs\n\n1.The National Council for Teacher Education,\n  Hans Bhavan, Wing-II,\n  No.1, Bahadursha Zasar Marg,\n  New Delhi - 110 002,\n  Rep. By its Member Secretary.\n\n2.The Regional Director,\n  National Council for Teacher Education,\n  Southern Regional Committee,\n  1st Floor, CSD Building,\n  HMT Post,\n  Bangalore - 560 031.\n\n3.Tamil Nadu Teacher Education University,\n  Lady Willington College Campus,\n  Kamaraj Salai,\n  Chennai - 600 005.\n  Rep. By its Registrar.          ...   Respondents\n\n\n\nPRAYER\n\nPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the\nissuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating\nto the impugned proceedings issued by the 1st respondent Member Secretary NCTE\nin F.No.89-375\/2009-appeal dated 07.08.2009, quash the same and further direct\nthe 2nd respondent NCTE, Southern Regional Committee to grant recognition to the\nM.Ed Course run by the petitioner-college from the academic year 2009-2010.\n\n\n!For Petitioner        ... Mr.Issac Mohanlal\n^For Respondents 1 & 2 ... Mr.A.Sivaji\nFor 3rd Respondent     ... No Appearance\n\n\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
\tThe writ petition is directed against the proceedings of the first
\nrespondent National Council for Teacher Education, dated 07.08.2009 and for a
\ndirection against the second respondent, the Regional Director, National Council
\nfor Teacher Education, Southern Regional Committee to grant recognition to the
\npetitioner institution for M.Ed. Course from the academic year 2009-2010.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.The short facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are
\nthat the petitioner college which has been established and administered by a
\npublic charitable trust known as “Thirumathi Kaliammal Palaniappan Educational
\nand Charitable Trust is started with the aim of providing professional education
\nin teaching to the poor and downtrodden. The college started offering one year
\nB.Ed Degree course in the year 2005 and the second respondent has granted
\nrecognition from the year 2005-2006 with an intake of 100 students by order,
\ndated 17.11.2005 and the third respondent has granted provisional affiliation
\nfor the academic year 2005-2006 vide order, dated 27.12.2005 which was renewed
\nevery academic year. The petitioner also is stated to be running two year
\nDiploma Course in Elementary Teacher Education with the approval of the
\nauthorities. With the aim of providing Post Graduate Teacher education by
\nstarting M.Ed Degree Course, the petitioner has submitted an application to the
\nsecond respondent on 31.12.2007 along with a sum of Rs.40,000\/- towards
\nprocessing  and inspection fees. The second respondent by letter dated
\n28.02.2008 has directed to furnish further particulars and they were also
\nfurnished on 09.04.2008. The inspection team of the second respondent has
\nvisited the college on 06.05.2008 and certain minor defects were noticed and
\nthey were also rectified as per the compliance report, dated 09.09.2008.  There
\nwas a re-inspection to the college as per letter dated 16.10.2008 for which the
\ncollege paid another sum of Rs.40,000\/- on 14.11.2008 and consent letter was
\ngiven for inspection on 02.02.2009.  The questionnaire in the modified form was
\nsent on 18.02.2009 by the second respondent stating that the inspection team
\nwould visit on 13.03.2009 and the questionnaire should be submitted in the
\nmeantime.  Accordingly, the questionnaires were submitted along with necessary
\ndocuments on 17.03.2009. The inspection team visited on 12.03.2009 instead of
\n13.03.2009.  By order, dated 21.04.2009, the second respondent has refused to
\ngrant recognition due to certain other deficiencies. An appeal was filed by the
\npetitioner against the said order to the first respondent on 15.05.2009 along
\nwith a demand draft for Rs.10,000\/- and the first respondent has rejected the
\nappeal on 07.08.2009 on three grounds:\n<\/p>\n
\t“i)As per the Visiting Team Report dated 12.03.2009,the availability of
\nbuilt up area is only 32,169 square feet, which is not adequate for running all
\nthe three courses\n<\/p>\n
\tii)The institution failed to shift to its own building even after the
\nexpiry of three years\n<\/p>\n
\tiii)The institution is eligible for running M.Ed Course only if it was
\nalready running the B.Ed Course in the same premises but there was no B.Ed
\ncourse run by the institution in the premises where it applied for running the
\nM.Ed Course”.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.It is stated that at the time when the recognition was granted for B.Ed
\nCourse, the same was given on condition that the petitioner should shift from
\nthe rented premises to its own building after obtaining permission from the
\nSouthern Regional Committee within three years.  It was, thereafter, the college
\nset up its own campus by building a total built up space of 47,677 square feet
\n(4431.07 square meter) and the petitioner college intimated the second
\nrespondent  on 20.03.2008 regarding the completion of the construction seeking
\npermission for shifting in its letter, dated 09.09.2008 along with a sum of
\nRs.41,000\/- towards processing and inspection fees. There was no response to the
\nsaid application inspite of the reminder, dated 31.03.2009. It is stated that
\nthe second respondent has directed the petitioner to furnish some more documents
\nby letter, dated 12.06.2009. Inspite of the fact that those documents were
\nalready furnished, the college once again furnished the same on 27.06.2009 and
\nthe second respondent is still keeping the same without passing any orders. The
\nimpugned order of the first respondent rejecting the appeal is challenged on
\nvarious grounds including that on the one hand that the application for
\npermission to shift the B.Ed Course, is pending with the second respondent and
\nthe second respondent has not passed any order but on the other hand the second
\nrespondent has refused recognition on the ground that the institution had not
\nshifted to its own building within three years; that the second respondent
\nhaving granted recognition for B.Ed Course, in the impugned order it is stated
\nthat such recognition was not given; that in respect of built up area, the
\nconclusion arrived at by the visiting team that it is only 32,169 square feet is
\nfactually incorrect as it is seen in the building completion certificate issued
\nby the Chartered Civil Engineer and Government Registered Valuer, the total
\nbuilt up space is 47,677, square feet (4431.07 square meter), which is
\nsufficient to run the three institutions.  It is stated that the built up area
\nof 3000 square meter is sufficient for running B.Ed and M.Ed and Diploma in
\nTeacher Training as per the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition
\nNorms & Procedure) Regulations 2007, since the petitioner institution is having
\n4431.07 square meter it is sufficient for running the three institutions; that
\nthe impugned order passed by the first respondent is illegal, having failed to
\ntake note of the actual position as such.\n<\/p>\n
\t4.In the counter affidavit filed by the first and second respondents, it
\nis stated that while recognition was granted for B.Ed and D.T.Ed courses, the
\nsame was with a condition that within three years, the building is to be shifted
\nto its own place and the change of premises must be obtained with the prior
\napproval of the Regional Committee. Such change of premises shall be accompanied
\nby a demand draft of Rs.40,000\/-.  It is stated that the petitioner has
\nsubmitted an application on 31.12.2007 for running M.Ed Course which was
\nscrutinised and deficiencies were intimated. The reply dated 20.03.2008 received
\nby the second respondent on 21.04.2008 and the visiting team report dated
\n12.03.2009 were considered by the second respondent in its meeting held on 25
\nand 26 of March 2009 and noted certain deficiencies still persist and an order
\ndated 21.04.2009 was passed by the second respondent refusing to grant
\nrecognition for more than one reasons. Against the rejection  order, the
\npetitioner has filed an appeal before the appellate authority, on 07.08.2009.
\nThe appellate authority after considering every aspect on merit passed the
\nimpugned order. It is stated that the petitioner was granted recognition for
\nD.T.Ed and B.Ed on 28.09.2006 and 17.11.2005 respectively on condition that
\nwithin three years, the petitioner has to acquire its own land. It is stated as
\nper Regulation 8 (11) prior approval is necessary in case of change of premisses
\nand that is possible only after due inspection of the institution at the new
\nsite. It is stated that on 09.09.2008 a requisition was made by the petitioner
\nfor shifting to the new premises and no approval was accorded, since the
\nrequired documents were not submitted. Therefore, without such approval, the
\ninstitution ought not have shifted to the new premises, that is one of the
\nreasons mentioned in the order. Even though it is admitted that such application
\nfor shifting was received, without prior approval shifting cannot be effected.
\nThe petitioner was directed on 12.06.2009 to furnish certain documents and
\naction is being taken in this regard and after verification necessary order will
\nbe passed. It is stated that recognition was sought for premises at 305\/1,
\nPavithram, Karur-Kovai Road in which no B.Ed course is being run as on date.  As
\nper the regulation recognition to start M.Ed course is possible only in the very
\nsame premises where B.Ed Course is already run on the date of application for
\nM.Ed Course. In the proposed premises, no B.Ed course is being run. Therefore,
\nthe approval for M.Ed Course was rejected.  As far as the building completion
\ncertificate is concerned, it is stated that such certificate issued by a private
\nengineer or by a registered valuer is not sufficient. The visiting team found
\nthe built up area of 32,169 sq.ft which is less than the requirement of 3000
\nsq.mt (32,292.78 ft).  As per the regulation, the building of the institution
\nshould be in a completed form on the date of inspection, especially when the
\ninspection team found that the built up area is only 32,169 sq.ft and any
\nconstruction made by the petitioner after the  inspection cannot be taken into
\naccount.  It is stated that on 19.09.2006 is the date of approval of the
\nbuilding plan by the competent authority and  18.12.2007 is the date of
\ncompletion of the building.   The competent authority who gives the building
\nplan approval has not given the building completion certificate, which was given
\nby a private engineer which is not acceptable. According to the respondents,
\nthere are three records showing different area of construction. The petitioner
\nin his affidavit, dated 12.03.2008 has stated that the built up area is 2,229
\nsq.mt, while the completion certificate submitted by the petitioner shows that
\nthe constructed area is 47,677 sq.ft whereas the visiting team report states
\nthat the constructed area is 32,169 sq.ft.\n<\/p>\n
\t5.The petitioner has not submitted his questionnaire and the details of
\nbuilt up area, is not clear and therefore, the said factual aspect cannot be
\ngone into in this writ petition.  It is also denied that the petitioner college
\nis having sufficient built up area for the purpose of grant of recognition for
\nM.Ed Course. It is stated that the petitioner is fully aware of three years
\nperiod contemplated in the 2005 recognition order itself and he has not taken
\nsteps by the purpose of shifting by obtaining prior approval. Therefore
\nfactually, B.Ed Course is not conducted in the same premises and the petitioner
\nis not entitled for recognition of M.Ed Course in that premises.\n<\/p>\n
\t6.Mr.Issac Mohanlal, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
\non the face of it there are contradictions and the visiting team has not
\nunderstood the actual constructed area in its proper sense and there has been a
\ngross discrepancy. He would also submit that earlier, the second respondent has
\nfound four deficiencies apart from shifting within three years. It is stated
\nthat even otherwise, the petitioner has added further extent of 9398 sq.ft. by
\nfurther construction and that fact has not been taken note of. It is stated that
\nwhile the recognition was granted for B.Ed Course on 17.11.2005 even before the
\nexpiry of three years, on 09.09.2008 itself, the petitioner has applied for
\nshifting to the new place by paying the inspection charges and that matter is
\npending before the second respondent and therefore, the fault is not on the part
\nof the petitioner.  It is also his contention that the built up area includes
\nthe carpet area, leaving out the carpet area, the inspection done by the
\nvisiting team is not permissible in law and even the appellate authority namely
\nthe first respondent failed to take note of the glaring mistake committed by the
\nsecond respondent through its visiting team. It is his contention that as per
\nthe Act, the deficiencies could be rectified at any point of time and it is
\nstated that the appellate authority has failed to take note of the glaring
\nillegality committed by the visiting team. It is his contention that immediately
\nbefore the three years of completion an application was made along with
\nnecessary fees on 09.09.2008 itself and the matter is still pending before the
\nsecond respondent and there is no fault on the part of the petitioner and
\naccording to him, no prior permission is required as per the original order of
\nrecognition. It is his submission that the impugned orders are passed without
\napplication of mind. He also relied upon a judgment of this Court reported AIR
\n1999 Madras 290 (E.V.Perumalswamy and Padmavathi Educational Trust and another
\nChennai Vs.All India Council for Technical Education and another, Chennai) and a
\ndecision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 1996(8) SCC 330 (Al-Karim
\nEducational Trust and another Vs. State of Bihar and others) and he has also
\nrelied upon the various documents which are filed in the compilations of papers.\n<\/p>\n
\t7.On the other hand, it is the contention of Mr.A.Sivaji, learned counsel
\nfor the respondents that the deficiencies were intimated more than once to
\nrectify, it is because of the conduct of the petitioner in not rectifying, it
\nhas resulted in many inspections. It is his submission that it is really because
\nof the petitioner that discrepancy arose. In finding out the extent this Court
\ncannot take any decision under Article 226 of the Constitution of India since
\nthe same requires the factual assertion and also appreciation of evidence. It is
\nhis submission that the building completion certificate has to be given by the
\npublic licensing authorities and not by the private persons of any choice of the
\npetitioner and the same must be in the proper format. He would also submit that
\nas per Act 13\/65, the public authority is a person who is recognised by the
\nGovernment and therefore, according to him, the authority contemplated under the
\nAct alone has to give  certificate for the building completion. It is also his
\nsubmission that when the appellate authority confirms the original authority’s
\norder, there is no necessity for a detailed discussion about the facts. It is
\nhis further submission that the petitioner who has not chosen to give the
\nquestionnaire, has no right to question the correctness or otherwise of the
\nimpugned order.\n<\/p>\n
\t8.I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused
\nthe entire materials available on record.\n<\/p>\n
\t9.It is seen that the petitioner trust was granted recognition by the
\nsecond respondent to run B.Ed.Course on 17.11.2005. At that time, the courses
\nwere run in a rented premises at No.6, Anna Salai, New Bus Stand Backside,
\nKarur-639 002, Tamil Nadu. While granting recognition as per Section 14(1) of
\nthe NCTE Act, 1993 for running the B.Ed Course with an intake of 100 students,
\none of the conditions which was imposed was that “the institution shall shift to
\nits own premises within three years from the date of recognition (in case the
\ncourse is started in temporary premises)”. Of course, the recognition is subject
\nto the other provisions of the NCTE Act, Rules, Regulations and Orders.  It is
\nnot in dispute that the said recognition was given by the second respondent
\nafter inspection. The Bharathidasan University which was affiliating University
\nat that time has granted affiliation for the academic year 2005-2006 to run a
\nself-financing college of education in the name and style of “Kaliammal College
\nof Education” at No.6, Anna Salai, New Bus Stand Backside, Karur to offer B.Ed
\ncourse for one year duration and that provisional affiliation which was subject
\nto various conditions has also continued for the subsequent years 2006-2007 and
\n2007-2008 even after the 3rd respondent University has taken over control in
\nrespect of affiliation of Teacher Training Colleges.\n<\/p>\n
\t10.As per the Norms and Standards for Master of Education Programme
\nleading to Master of Education  (M.Ed) Degree as seen in the Appendix-5, the
\nbuilt up area for running B.Ed plus M.Ed Course it is 2000 sq.mts and for B.Ed
\nplus D.Ed and M.Ed Course is 3000 sq.mts equivalent to 32292 sq.ft.\tIt is
\nseen that the petitioner trust has applied to the second respondent on
\n31.12.2007 for starting M.Ed Course with an intake of 25 students from the
\nacademic year 2008-2009 along with a Demand draft for Rs.41,000\/- towards the
\napplication and processing fee. The application was for starting M.Ed Course in
\nS.F.No.305\/1, Pavithram, Karur-Kovai Road, Pavithram Post, Aravakkurichi (TK),
\nKarur District on a self-financing basis and the application came to be
\nsubmitted in the appropriate format.  The second respondent on receipt of the
\nsaid application has asked for the rectification of the following:\n<\/p>\n
\t“I.A copy of building completion certificate from the Government authority
\nis not submitted.\n<\/p>\n
\tII.Land usage certificate for educational purpose  from the concerned
\nauthorities is not submitted.\n<\/p>\n
\tIII.Land free encumbrances certificate from the competent authority is not
\nsubmitted
\n\tIV.Affidavit relating to details of land possessed on Rs.100 stamp paper
\nattested by Oath Commissioner has not been furnished.(format enclosed)”\n<\/p>\n
Out of the defects the major deficiency was for building completion certificate
\nfrom the Government authority.  By letter dated 20.03.2008, the petitioner has
\nsubmitted the building completion certificate stating that construction has been
\nput up adhering to the  norms of NCTE in the new premises at S.F.No.305\/1,
\nPavithram, Karur-Kovai Road, Pavithram Post, Aravakkurichi (TK), Karur District.
\nIt is also seen by the letter dated 09.04.2008 of the petitioner reporting to
\nthe second respondent enclosing building completion certificate, land usage
\ncertificate, Encumbrance certificate and affidavit as required under the order
\nof the second respondent, dated 28.02.2008.  The contents of the affidavit filed
\nby the petitioner shows that the total area of land possessed by the trust is as
\n25,551.6 sq.mtrs while the built up area is as 2229.6000 sq.mtrs. After the
\nvisiting of the team on 06.05.2008 and based on the report, the second
\nrespondent by its letter dated 08.08.2008 has again found the following
\ndeficiencies and directed the petitioner to rectify:\n<\/p>\n
\t“The built up space for existing B.Ed course is 5093 sq.ft and proposed
\nM.Ed course is 7772 sq.ft. The total built up space is not adequate for both
\nexisting and proposed shifting D.Ed Course.\n<\/p>\n
\tFurniture is not adequately provided in Principal and Office room.
\n\tThe details of additional E.T.lab, Psychology Lab and Computer lab,
\nequipments to be provided
\n\tThe details of Educational books, Reference books & Journals and Research
\nbooks with proofs to be submitted exclusively for M.Ed Course”.\n<\/p>\n
\t11.Again, in the said letter, the second respondent directed the
\npetitioner to submit proof duly certified by the competent authority for having
\ncomplied with the requirement. While meeting the said deficiencies, the
\npetitioner has replied to the second respondent dated 09.09.2008 pointing out
\nthat there has been some mistake in respect of the first deficiency and stated
\nthat total built up area in the basement floor is 4423.58 sq.ft(411.11 sq.mtr),
\nground floor-21627.44 Sq.ft (2009.98 sq.mtr) and first floor -21627.44 Sq.ft
\n(2009.98 sq.mtr), totally, the built up area available has been stated as 47,678
\nsq.ft (4429.286 sq.mtr).\n<\/p>\n
\t12.It is stated as per the new regulation 5(5) of NCTE (Recognition Norms
\nand Procedure) Regulations, 2007 notified with effect from 10.12.2007, the total
\nbuilt up area required for three institutions of B.Ed, D.Ed & M.Ed is 3000
\nSq.Mtr. That apart, in respect of the deficiencies regarding the furnitures in
\nthe Principal and office rooms, additional equipments in labs and deficiency in
\nrespect of books, the same was also replied as having rectified giving number of
\nbooks and so on. Incidentally, the building completion certificate issued by the
\nGovernment registered valuer stated to have been filed dated 20.08.2008 also
\ncertified that the petitioner trust has completed for the basement, ground and
\nfirst floors to the built up area as per the approved plan and estimate at
\n47,678 sq.ft. It is also seen that by letter, dated 09.09.2008 addressed to the
\nsecond respondent, the petitioner has sought permission from the second
\nrespondent for shifting the B.Ed and D.Ed courses from the rental premises to
\nits own place at S.F.No.305\/1, Pavithram, Karur-Kovai Road, Pavithram Post,
\nAravakkurichi (TK), Karur District along with a demand draft for Rs.1,000\/-
\ntowards application fee and demand draft for Rs.40,000\/- towards inspection of
\nthe visiting team and requested the team to visit and pass orders.\n<\/p>\n
\t13.As per the letter of the second respondent, dated 16.10.2008 directing
\nthe petitioner to pay a re-inspection fee of Rs.40,000\/- on considering the
\nrepresentation of the petitioner along with the VCD and other documents, the
\npetitioner by communication, dated 14.11.2008 has paid a sum of Rs.40,000\/- for
\nre-inspection.  Inspite of it, it is astonishing to note that by communication,
\ndated 02.02.2009, the second respondent has insisted for payment of Rs.40,000\/-
\ntowards re-inspection fees and also asked for consent for inspection which is as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“With reference to the above, you are requested to give your Consent for
\nInspection along with a self attested copy of the completion certificate of
\nbuilding for which affidavit, building plan and land documents were submitted.
\n\tAt the time of visit of the team of experts the institution concerned
\nshall arrange for the inspection to be videographed in a manner that all
\nimportant infrastructure & instructional facilities are videographed along with
\ninteraction with Management and staff (if available)
\n\tIt is informed that the inspection shall be conducted after receipt of the
\nconsent of the institution along with above-mentioned documents.
\n\tFormat of Building Completion Certificate is enclosed and the same shall
\nbe obtained from Government authorities and submit along with consent letter.
\n\tA Questionnaire enclosed should be duly filled by the authorised person of
\nthe management and should be submitted along with consent letter.
\n\tYou have to pay Rs.40,000\/- towards re-inspection fees. Please send the
\nDemand Draft along with consent for inspection. If already paid ignore the
\nsame”.\n<\/p>\n
However, by a subsequent letter dated 02.03.2009, the second respondent has
\ndirected the petitioner to be ready for inspection by a team of experts on
\n13.03.2009.\n<\/p>\n
\t14.In respect of shifting of the college to new premises the petitioner
\nhas by its reminder dated 31.03.2009 intimated that already an application dated
\n09.09.2008 is pending for which there was no reply. In the meantime, certain
\nquestionnaires were asked for and the same were submitted by the petitioner in
\nthe appropriate format. It was, thereafter, the second respondent by order,
\ndated 21.04.2009 has rejected the application of the petitioner based on re-
\ninspection stated to have been conducted on 12.03.2009 for the following
\nreasons:\n<\/p>\n
\t“As per the affidavit dated 12.03.2008 point 2.2, the available built-up
\nspace is 2,229 sq.mtrs. the building plan & building completion certificate
\nshows 47677 sq.ft and the VT report states 32,169 sq.ft The Management has not
\nsubmitted the filled in Questionnaire and details of built-up space available
\nfor Teacher Education courses and other courses, if any, in the same complex.
\nThere is no clarity from the documents about availability of built-up space for
\nexisting D.T.Ed, B.Ed and proposed M.Ed Course, as per regulations.
\n\tThe books in the library numbering 5166 are not adequate for existing
\nD.T.Ed, B.Ed and proposed M.Ed course; whereas 7000 books are required as per
\nregulations
\n\tThe management has not obtained permission for shifting of existing D.T.Ed
\nand B.Ed Courses to new permanent premises where new building was constructed in
\n2008.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe affidavit dated 20.08.2008, approved building plan and building
\ncompletion certificate and Visiting team reports are not in conformity with each
\nother as far as the data in built-up space available for all existing and
\nproposed courses”.\n<\/p>\n
\t15.As against the said order of rejection, the petitioner has filed a
\nstatutory appeal to the first respondent on 15.05.2009 with a specific ground
\nthat originally in the affidavit, dated 12.03.2008, the built up area stated was
\n2227 sq.mts and thereafter, in order to bring the existing D.T.Ed and B.Ed
\ncourses to the new premises, further construction was made, making the total
\nbuilt up area as 4431.07 sq.mts (47,677 sq.ft) as per the building completion
\ncertificate, dated 20.08.2008 and the visiting team has not calculated the
\ncarpet areas of the rooms etc. In respect of the requirements regarding the
\nbooks and other compliances, even pending the statutory appeal before the first
\nrespondent, the petitioner has made request to the second respondent to cause
\nfurther inspection with various documents enclosed as it is seen, in the
\ncommunication, dated 27.06.2009 and ultimately, the first respondent being
\nAppellate Authority has passed the impugned order rejecting the appeal based on
\nthe visiting team report, dated 12.03.2009 stating that availability of the
\nbuilt up area is 32,169 sq.ft which is not adequate to run three courses, apart
\nfrom stating that within the maximum period of three years, the petitioner has
\nnot shifted the other two courses in its own place with prior approval and that
\nunless the petitioner is running B.Ed course in the premises itself, no
\npermission will be granted for M.Ed Course.\n<\/p>\n
\t16.It is relevant for the purpose of this case, to extract the sub Clauses
\n7 to 11 to the Regulation 8 of the Regulations and Norms and Standards made by
\nthe NCTE with effect from 10.12.2007 as hereunder:\n<\/p>\n
\t“7.No institution shall be granted recognition under these regulations
\nunless it is in possession of required land on the date of application. The land
\nfree from all encumbrances could be either on ownership basis or on lease from
\nGovernment\/Government institutions for a period of not less than 30 years. In
\ncases where under relevant State\/UT laws the maximum permissible lease period is
\nless than 30 years, the State Government\/UT Administration law shall prevail.
\nHowever, no building could be taken on lease for running any teacher training
\ncourse.\n<\/p>\n
\t8.The institution\/society shall furnish an affidavit in the prescribed
\nform on Rs.100 stamp paper duly attested b Oath Commissioner\/Notary Public
\nstating the precise location of the land (village, district, state etc.), the
\ntotal area in possession and the permission of the competent authority to use
\nthe land for educational purposes, mode of possession i.e. ownership or lease.
\nIn case of Government institutions, the said affidavit shall be furnished by the
\nPrincipal or the Head of the institution or any other higher authority. The
\naffidavit shall be accompanied with the certified copy of land ownership\/lease
\ndocuments.\n<\/p>\n
\t9.The affidavit shall be relied upon by the Regional Committee as an
\nauthentic self-declaration. The copy of the affidavit shall be displayed by the
\ninstitution on its official website so as to make the self-declaration available
\nin public domain. In case the contents of the affidavit are found to be
\nincorrect or false, the society\/trust or the institution concerned shall be
\nliable for action under the relevant provisions of Indian Penal Code and other
\nrelevant laws.\n<\/p>\n
\t10.At the time of inspection, the building of the institution shall be
\ncomplete in the form of a permanent structure on the land possessed by the
\ninstitution in terms of Regulation 8(7) equipped with all necessary amenities
\nand fulfilling all such requirements as prescribed in the norms and standards.
\nthe applicant institution shall produce the original completion certificate,
\napproved building plan in proof of the completion of building and built up area
\nand other documents to the Visiting Team for verification. No temporary
\nstructure\/asbestos roofing shall be allowed.\n<\/p>\n
\t11.In case of change of premises, prior approval, of the Regional
\nCommittee concerned shall be necessary, which could be accorded after due
\ninspection of the institution at the new site.  The change can be permitted to a
\nsite which, if applied initially, could have qualified for establishment of an
\ninstitution as per prescribed norms of NCTE. The change shall be displayed on
\nwebsite thereafter. The application for change of premises shall be accompanied
\nby a demand draft of Rs.40,000\/- of a Nationalised Bank drawn in favour of the
\nMember Secretary, NCTE and payable at the city where the Regional Committee is
\nlocated. Similar procedure would be applicable in case of change of
\nmanagement\/society\/trust etc., excluding change of Management Committee as per
\nregistered by-laws of the management\/society\/trust”.\n<\/p>\n
\t17.In accordance with the said Regulation as seen in Appendix 5 which is
\napplicable for programme leading to Master of Education (M.Ed) Degree, the
\nfacilities under paragraph 5 indicates the infrastructure is as follows:
\n\t“5.1.Infrastructure
\n\t5.1.1.The institution must have at least 2500 sq.mts land whereupon built
\nup area consisting of class rooms etc., shall not be less than 2000 sq.mts
\ninclusive of the space meant for B.Ed Classes. Space in each instructional room
\nshall be 10 sq.ft. per student.\n<\/p>\n
\tBuilt up Area for running other courses in combination with M.Ed programme
\nshall be as under:-\n<\/p>\n
\t5.1.2.For an intake of 25 students, there shall be provision for at least
\none class room, one hall\/seminar room, laboratories for conducting instructional
\nactivities, separate rooms for the Professor\/Head, for faculty members to
\naccommodate seven to eight students, office for the administrative staff and a
\nstore.\n<\/p>\n
\t5.1.3.Safeguard against fire hazard be provided in all parts of the
\nbuilding
\n\t5.1.4.The institutional campus, buildings, furniture etc., should be
\nbarrier free
\n\t5.1.5.Hostel for boys and girls separately and some residential quarters
\nare desirable”.\n<\/p>\n
\t18.It is relevant to point out that in the norms prescribed by the NCTE,
\nno where it indicates that the building completion certificate should be issued
\nin respect of the building only by a particular authority. It is only in the
\nvarious notices issued by the second respondent, the second respondent has been
\nrequesting to produce the completion certificate in a format and to be issued by
\na Government authority. Mr.A.Sivaji, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and
\n2, in his submission has referred to a Form prescribed under the Tamil Nadu
\nPublic Buildings (Licensing) Act, 1965 and the rules made thereunder. In the
\npresent case, it is seen that the petitioner has in fact submitted a building
\ncompletion certificate issued by a Chartered Civil Engineer and Government
\nRegistered Valuer namely Mr.R.Ramasamy which is as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“Completion Certificate
\n\t Certified that the Ground floor, first floor & second floor construction
\nof “Thirumathi Kaliammal Palaniappan Educational & Charitable Trust” building in
\nS.F.No.305\/1 & 303\/2 at Karur Covai Road, Pavithram Vilalge, Aravakurichi Tk.,
\nKarur Dt., have been completed for the Basement, Ground floor & first floor
\n47,678 Sq.ft builtup area as per the approved plan and estimate.
\n\tThe College building is ready for running the Institution.”\n<\/p>\n
\t19.The format in which such certificate is to be issued by the valuer has
\nalso been produced with the following contents:\n<\/p>\n
\t“Building Completion Certificate
\n\tI hereby certify that, I have personally inspected the land and building
\nmentioned in the statement below and the same is based on the registered
\ndocuments, date measurements and specifications found in the site.\n<\/p>\n
\t1.Date of Inspection by the
\n         Engineer\t\t\t: 12.02.2009<\/p>\n
\t2.Owner of the Land & Building
\n\t  with Address
\n\t\t                     :Tmt.Kaliammal Palaniappan
\n\t\t\t              Educational & Charitable Trust,
\n \t\t\t\t      305\/1, Karur-Covai Road,
\n\t\t\t\t      Pavithram,
\n\t\t\t\t      Karur- 639 002<\/p>\n
\t3.Type\t\t\t     : own<\/p>\n
\t4.Location with survey No.,
\n\t  Street, Ward No.
\n\t  name of the place
\n  \t  Panchayat\t\t: S.F.No.305\/1, 303\/2,
\n\t\t\t\t Pavithram Village & Panchayat
\n\t\t\t\tAravakurichi Tk.,
\n\t\t\t\tKaru District.<\/p>\n
\n\t5.Date of Registration\n     of land \t\t\t\t\t:   09.06.2006\n\t6.Registered in the office of\n        Sub Register with address       : Sub Register Office\t\t\t\t\t\n\t                                  Karur - West, Karur Dt.,\n\t7.Building Plan approved by\n        (address of panchayat)\t\t: Pavitharam village & \t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t                  panchayat,\n\t\t\t\t          Aravakurichi Tk., Karur Dt.,\n\t\n         8.Year of construction\t\t   : 2008\n\t 9.Purpose for which the building\n<\/pre>\n
        is being used\/proposed to be used  : For teacher Education Courses<\/p>\n
         10.Details of Construction of building
\n\t(Roofing – pl.mention RCC\/
\n         Asbestos\/Tiled\/any other pl.\n<\/p>\n
         Specify)\t\t          : B.F.: RCC : 4423.58 sq.ft\t\n\t\t\t\t            G.F.: RCC : 21627.44 sq.ft\n\t\t\t\t            F.F : RCC : 21627.44 sq.ft\n\t11.Land usage certificate for\n         educational purposes from the\n          concerned\n         Govt., authorities obtained\n         details\t\t         : Date of issue of Certificate \t\t\t\t\n\t                                        20.08.2008\n\t   Issued by                     : Er.R.Ramasamy\"\n\n<\/pre>\n
\tOn verification of the above on site, I hereby certify that construction
\nof the building is completed in all respects and the building is structurally
\nsound to be used for Educational purposes and having the load bearing capacity
\nas per the latest Indian Standards”.\n<\/p>\n
\t20.In the absence of any stipulation in the statutory regulation that the
\nbuilding completion certificate is to be issued only by a specified
\nGovernmental authorities, it is not known as to how such valuation certificate
\nissued by a registered engineer who is a government valuer, cannot be taken into
\nconsideration. In fact, the completion certificate is necessary only to enable
\nthe visiting team to check up along with the said certificate about the
\ncorrectness of measurements. When the specific ground has been taken by the
\npetitioner before the first respondent appellate authority that the measurement
\nhas not been taken in respect of the built up area taking into account of the
\nadditional construction put up by the petitioner in the extent of 9442 sq.ft in
\naddition to even the admitted extent of 32392 sq.ft apart from not considering
\nany of the grounds about common areas like the passage, balcony, staircase and
\nverandah areas etc., the first respondent has not taken note of the same which
\nshows a total non application of mind on the part of the first respondent in
\ndisposing of the appeal.\n<\/p>\n
\t21.It is relevant because while the second respondent in the original
\norder of rejection has rejected  on four grounds as elicited above, the first
\nrespondent has restricted only itself to the extent of area required for the
\npurpose of conducting of three courses, apart from taking another ground that
\npermission for shifting from the old place to the new place was not obtained
\nwithin three years from the original recognition granted in 2005.\n<\/p>\n
\t22.As far as the non obtaining of permission to shift the B.Ed and D.T.Ed
\nfrom its own original rented premises to the present place as elicited above,
\neven in the original order of recognition granted by the second respondent dated
\n17.11.2005 for B.Ed course stipulating that the petitioner should shift to its
\nown premises within three years, there are no condition that it must be with the
\nprior approval. Even otherwise as stated above, much before the expiry of three
\nyears, namely on 09.09.2008 itself, the petitioner has made an application to
\nthe second respondent seeking permission for shifting to the new place by paying
\nnecessary charges and that was followed by a subsequent reminder also dated
\n31.03.2009 and that application admittedly has not been disposed of by the
\nsecond respondent. If the statutory authority to whom such application for
\nshifting has been made as per the original grant of recognition within the time
\nstipulated thereunder and if such statutory authority fails to perform its
\nfunction, it is not known as to how that can be put  by the second and first
\nrespondents against the petitioner in respect of the claim of approval for M.Ed
\nCourse.\n<\/p>\n
\t23.It is relevant to point out at this stage that even in the order of the
\nfirst respondent, appellate authority, having impliedly accepted the compliance
\nof the petitioner regarding library books, the first respondent has only chosen
\nto reject on the three grounds which in my considered opinion has not been made
\non proper application of mind.\n<\/p>\n
\t24.Unnecessary prolongation of any application by a statutory authority
\nand unreasonable withholding of the same has to be necessarily inferred that
\nthere was no objection on the part of the respondents for the petitioner to
\nshift its B.Ed and D.T.Ed Course to its newly constructed place and that can
\nnever be put against the petitioner as a deficiency for considering the
\napplication for recognition of M.Ed Course. In Al-Karim Educational Trust and
\nanother Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in 1996(8) SCC 330  under similar
\ncircumstances, while dealing with the temporary affiliation to the minority
\ninstitution as per the provisions of the Bihar Medical Educational Institutions
\n(Regulation and Control) Act, 1982, the delay on the part of the authority in
\nunnecessarily keeping the application for a prolonged period was held against
\nthe authority and it was held that there can be presumption. Of course, in the
\nmatter of grant of affiliation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held  that what is
\nrequired is the minimal and satisfactory requirements to keep the matter going
\nand a foolproof or absolute adherence is not possible in all these cases and
\npractical view has been taken.\n<\/p>\n
\t25.On the facts of the present case, it is not the case of the respondents
\nthat the petitioner has admitted any student in the M.Ed., course without
\nrecognition.\tIn these circumstances, the various aspects discussed by the
\nHon’ble Supreme Court in the above said judgment requires a careful
\nconsideration which are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“11.In the matter of grant of affiliation, it is ordinarily for the State
\nGovernment after consulting the Medical Council of India to arrive at a
\ndecision. However, if it is found that the affiliation is being withheld
\nunreasonably or the decision is being prolonged for one reason or the other,
\nthis Court would, though reluctantly, be constrained to exercise jurisdiction.
\nWe must make it clear that we are not diluting the importance of fulfilling the
\nessential prerequisite set by the Medical Council before granting recognition.
\nThe facts of this case are very special and exceptional. In the present case, we
\ntake note of the following aspects:\n<\/p>\n
\t(a)\tThe appellant-Institution was granted temporary affiliation nearly 6
\nyears ago (29-12-1989).\n<\/p>\n
\t(b)\tMore than three years ago, (on 16-7-1992) this Court directed that
\nstudents may be admitted and permitted to take examination, subject to certain
\nconditions and this has been so done.\n<\/p>\n
\t(c)\tIn view of the earlier orders of this Court dated 28-9-1993, the
\nonly question that survives for consideration is whether affiliation should be
\ngranted to the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
\t(d)\tOn more than three occasions, this Court, after perusal of the
\naffidavits of the parties and report of the authorities concerned about the
\ndeficiencies pointed out, directed time-bound inspections, by Medical Council of
\nIndia, along with other authorities bearing in mind that we are concerned with
\nthe post-establishment stage.\n<\/p>\n
\t(e)\tAt one stage, it came to light that the original deficiencies having
\nbeen removed, new or further deficiencies were pointed out by the Medical
\nCouncil of India, which were ordered by this Court to be removed.\n<\/p>\n
\t(f)\tFinally, the appellants filed a tabular statement along with an
\naffidavit dated 4-9-1995, stating that even the new deficiencies pointed out
\nhave been removed and the averments in that behalf stand uncontradicted.\n<\/p>\n
\t(g)\tThe appellants claim to be a minority institution and the
\ndifficulties\/or even the imponderables to start a new institution cannot be
\ngainsaid. To insist on fulfilling all requirements at a stretch in modern
\nconditions is not a practical proposition and ordinarily, only those aspects or
\nrequirements, which in the minimal will give a good start for effectively
\nimparting education, with ancillary requisites may be considered sufficient in
\nthe extraordinary circumstances of this case.\n<\/p>\n
\t(h)\tIt is impractical to insist, for a foolproof or absolute adherence
\nto all requirements without regard to their importance or relevance, for the
\npurpose of imparting education, in a practical way, especially because the
\nInstitution has begun to function, students admitted to the Institution have
\ntaken the examination and the fate of a good many number of students should not
\nhang in the balance in an unending or everlasting manner.\n<\/p>\n
\t(i)\tIn the final analysis, the question to be posed is whether there
\nexists the minimal and satisfactory requirements to keep the matter going, and
\nnot whether better arrangements that will render the set-up more efficient and
\nmore satisfactory, should be insisted as “a wooden” rule.\n<\/p>\n
\t(j)\tIt may be that there are some minor deficiencies here and there
\nwhich call for rectification. Time can certainly set right such matters. What is
\nrequired is a total, practical, overall view in the light of the latest tabular
\nstatement filed along with the affidavit dated 4-9-1995. Material placed before
\nthe court goes to show that there has been ‘substantial’ though not literal
\ncompliance with the deficiencies pointed out in the latest report dated 28-6-
\n1995.\n<\/p>\n
\t(k)\tLapse of time and the turn of events call for urgent action and any
\ndelay on that score will entail untold hardship to the students and the
\nInstitution”.\n<\/p>\n
\t26.Mr.Issac Mohanlal, learned counsel for the petitioner would rely upon a
\ncopy of the visiting team report which runs as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“Infrastructural and instructional facilities provided for running D.T.ED
\nand B.Ed courses are satisfactory. The management has provided all the
\nadditional requirement for starting M.Ed. Course. The college is situated in a
\nrural atmosphere and is well connected by road and transport. The management is
\nalso constructing a very big building on the campus to provide hostel
\nfacilities. The management has made all the preparations to start M.Ed Programme
\nfrom the academic year 2009-2010”.\n<\/p>\n
Even in the descriptive informations provided by the visiting team members,
\nthere are remarks made at various occasions regarding Library, Principal &
\nFaculty rooms as suitable for the proposed M.Ed course.\tLikewise, regarding
\nfurniture, it is stated to be adequate and sufficient and incidentally,
\nglasswares and chemicals were found to be adequate. Psychology test materials
\nand equipments were found adequate. Various sports equipments were also found to
\nbe adequate.\n<\/p>\n
\t27.A close scrutiny of the entire records show that unfortunately, the
\nfirst and second respondents have been taking an unwanted and defiant attitude
\nagainst the petitioner for the reasons best known to them by taking different
\nstands at different time only for the purpose of rejection of the application as
\nevident from the materials which have been assessed in detail above. This
\nattitude has to be necessarily curtailed at least by these statutory authorities
\nin the larger interest of enabling some of the genuine institutions who come
\nforward to impart education on self-financing pattern. In the present context of
\nthe Government’s genuine inability to provide complete education at every stage
\ndue to various reasons like financial constraint, want of infrastructure etc.,
\ncreating such unnecessary and unwanted impediments for the institutions seeking
\nto conduct courses are not in the interest of the nation as a whole.  It is true
\nthat these authorities are expected to keep constant vigil over the functioning
\nof those institutions regarding the various irregularities affecting the human
\nlife like that of the capitation fee, conducting of courses without absolutely
\nhaving any infrastructure, exploiting unemployment by employing teachers with
\nless pay etc., which are the actual requirements and expectations instead of
\ndiscouraging genuine entrepreneurs from establishing educational institutions.
\nOn the facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that the conduct of
\nthe respondents is only frustrating the minds of the philanthropists from
\nthinking of doing some service to the cause of education. The flimsy grounds
\nwith which such applications are rejected are tiresome tend to cause damage and
\nsuffering to posterity. Hon’ble Mr.Justice S.S.Subramani,(as His Lordship then
\nwas) pointed out in E.V.Perumalswamy and Padmavathi Educational Trust and
\nanother Chennai Vs.All India Council for Technical Education and another,
\nChennai reported in AIR 1999 Madras 290 expressing anguish regarding such
\nattitude of the responsible authorities, as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“20.It seems to be the attitude of the respondents that they have learnt
\nonly to reject the application for some reason or other and they have not
\nconsidered the legal position, even though the same has been repeatedly informed
\nto them by various decisions of this Court. The approach should be whether there
\nare minimum facilities available for starting an Institution and whether with
\nthat minimum requirements, the Institute can go on. The approach should not be
\nto reject all the applications on the basis of  flimsy grounds. It is
\nunfortunate that the Authorities have failed to follow this, whenever an
\napplication is being filed for seeking permission to establish an Institution.
\nMerely because a permission is required to be sought for, the Authorities should
\nnot think that they are above the law and their action cannot be challenged.
\nTheir action should be reasonable. When the State is not in a position to
\nestablish the colleges as is required, private educational institutions are
\ncoming forward and take up that responsibility. When that responsibility is
\ntaken up by them, the attitude of the respondents should not be to defeat the
\ngood intention of these applicants”.\n<\/p>\n
\t28.In such view of the matter, the impugned order of the first respondent,
\ndated 07.08.2009 stands set aside.\tThe writ petition stands allowed with a
\ndirection to the second respondent to cause fresh inspection on the petitioner’s
\ninstitute in the new premises with the team consisting of the technically
\nqualified persons and pass appropriate orders regarding the grant of recognition
\nto the petitioner institution to run M.Ed Course along with the application of
\nthe petitioner, dated 09.09.2008 followed by reminder, dated 31.03.2009 seeking
\npermission to shift the B.Ed and D.T.Ed courses from the rental premises at
\nNo.6, Anna Salai, New Bus Stand Backside, Karur-639002 to the present
\nconstructed place S.F.No.305\/1, Pavthiram Village and Post, Aravakuruchi Taluk,
\nKarur District and such exercise shall be completed within a period of eight
\nweeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.\n<\/p>\n
sms<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.The National Council for Teacher Education,
\n  Hans Bhavan, Wing-II,
\n  No.1, Bahadursha Zasar Marg,
\n  New Delhi – 110 002,
\n  Rep. By its Member Secretary.\n<\/p>\n
2.The Regional Director,
\n  National Council for Teacher Education,
\n  Southern Regional Committee,
\n  1st Floor, CSD Building,
\n  HMT Post,
\n  Bangalore – 560 031.\n<\/p>\n
3.Tamil Nadu Teacher Education University,
\n  Lady Willington College Campus,
\n  Kamaraj Salai,
\n  Chennai – 600 005.\n<\/p>\n
  Rep. By its Registrar.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court The Correspondent vs The National Council For Teacher … on 20 April, 2010 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20\/04\/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI Writ Petition(MD)No.9358 of 2009 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2009 The Correspondent, Kaliammal College of Education, No.305\/1, Pavithram Village & Post, Aravakuruchi, Karur District – 639 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-78073","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Correspondent vs The National Council For Teacher ... on 20 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-correspondent-vs-the-national-council-for-teacher-on-20-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Correspondent vs The National Council For Teacher ... on 20 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-correspondent-vs-the-national-council-for-teacher-on-20-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-04-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-03T01:48:21+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"38 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-correspondent-vs-the-national-council-for-teacher-on-20-april-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-correspondent-vs-the-national-council-for-teacher-on-20-april-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Correspondent vs The National Council For Teacher … on 20 April, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-03T01:48:21+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-correspondent-vs-the-national-council-for-teacher-on-20-april-2010\"},\"wordCount\":7369,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-correspondent-vs-the-national-council-for-teacher-on-20-april-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-correspondent-vs-the-national-council-for-teacher-on-20-april-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-correspondent-vs-the-national-council-for-teacher-on-20-april-2010\",\"name\":\"The Correspondent vs The National Council For Teacher ... on 20 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-03T01:48:21+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-correspondent-vs-the-national-council-for-teacher-on-20-april-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-correspondent-vs-the-national-council-for-teacher-on-20-april-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-correspondent-vs-the-national-council-for-teacher-on-20-april-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Correspondent vs The National Council For Teacher … on 20 April, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Correspondent vs The National Council For Teacher ... on 20 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-correspondent-vs-the-national-council-for-teacher-on-20-april-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Correspondent vs The National Council For Teacher ... on 20 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-correspondent-vs-the-national-council-for-teacher-on-20-april-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-04-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-03T01:48:21+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"38 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-correspondent-vs-the-national-council-for-teacher-on-20-april-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-correspondent-vs-the-national-council-for-teacher-on-20-april-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Correspondent vs The National Council For Teacher … on 20 April, 2010","datePublished":"2010-04-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-03T01:48:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-correspondent-vs-the-national-council-for-teacher-on-20-april-2010"},"wordCount":7369,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-correspondent-vs-the-national-council-for-teacher-on-20-april-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-correspondent-vs-the-national-council-for-teacher-on-20-april-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-correspondent-vs-the-national-council-for-teacher-on-20-april-2010","name":"The Correspondent vs The National Council For Teacher ... on 20 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-04-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-03T01:48:21+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-correspondent-vs-the-national-council-for-teacher-on-20-april-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-correspondent-vs-the-national-council-for-teacher-on-20-april-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-correspondent-vs-the-national-council-for-teacher-on-20-april-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Correspondent vs The National Council For Teacher … on 20 April, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/78073","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=78073"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/78073\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=78073"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=78073"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=78073"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}