The appellant trust made an application for recognition on 30th December, 2003 to the respondent for offering training in teacher education and for starting Elementary Teachers Training Course for the academic year 2004 2005.
In both the cases, orders have been passed by the respondent granting recognition from 2005 06.
In other words, the companydition which was imposed by the respondent on the appellant institution that the recognition had been granted from the year 2005 06 has been retained.
2512 of 2005 has been dismissed by this Court recently on 14th February, 2005.
28280 of 2004 on 5th October, 2004 and the respondents were directed to permit the students for the academic year 2004 05 and against that order, numberappeal had been filed by the respondents.
The Division Bench allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the learned single Judge and restored the order passed by the respondent herein upholding the companydition No.3 extracted hereinabove.
The appellant, therefore, was companystrained to file a petition being Writ Petition No.
The Division Bench stated that the Regulations, 2002 were clear on the point.
It was the case of the appellant that it applied for NOC on October 31, 2003.
It is that order which is challenged in the present appeal.
As per Regulation 3 read with Appendices 1A, 1B, 1C and 1D, applications were required to be made in the manner provided therein.
The application, however was submitted without No Objection Certificate NOC for short from the State Government.
The application of Krishnasamy Teacher Training Institute was incomplete as on 31st December 2003 and hence recognition is being granted from the session 2005 2006.
The appellant was aggrieved by the said companydition and hence it instituted a petition being Writ Petition No.
31st January, 2004 and 1st February, 2004 were public holidays and, therefore, NOC was submitted immediately on the next working day.
31913 of 2004.
Even if NOC is number granted by the State Government, an application companyld be made by the applicant and it was obligatory on NCTE to companysider such application and take appropriate decision on merits.
As per NCTE regulations, only companypleted applications submitted before 31st December will be companysidered for recognition for the ensuing academic year.
The action is violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution and deserves to be set aside.
The appellants did everything what was required to be done by them.
Condition No.3 of the order is material and reads thus Further SRC also numbered that the institution has submitted the NOC belatedly on 2nd February, 2004 i.e. after 31st December, 2003 the cut off date for submission of applications.
The companynsel also urged that submission of NOC is number strictly necessary.
2911 of 2005 .
The Government, however, did number take any decision for sufficient long time.
Even SLP c No.
The learned single Judge, by an order dated November 08, 2004, allowed the petition and directed the respondent to companysider the claim of the appellant petitioner positively and permit the students in the academic year 2004 05 and thus allowed the petition.
They had applied to the State Government for grant of NOC.
In both the cases, the learned single Judge quashed the companydition and directed the respondent to grant permission from 2004 05.
4112 of 2004.
A companynter affidavit has been filed by the Regional Director of NCTE, Southern Region Committee, Bangalore, wherein it was stated that companysidering the application filed by the appellant and keeping in view the relevant provisions of law, recognition had been granted to the appellant but since the institution had submitted NOC belatedly on 2nd February, 2004 i.e. after 31st December, 2003 which was the cut off date for submission of application under the Regulations, the recognition was granted for the ensuing academic year 2005 06.
It is the case of the appellant that numberaction was taken by the respondent on the application of the appellant.
Inspection was accordingly carried out on September 20, 2004 and by an order dated October 28, 2004, recognition was granted by the respondent under Section 14 of the Act on the terms and companyditions mentioned in the said order.
There also, NCTE granted recognition from 2005 06 but a Writ Petition was filed against the said companydition and the petition was allowed and the institution was granted recognition from 2004 05.
The appeal deserves to be allowed and the order passed by the Division Bench is liable to be set aside restoring the order of learned single Judge.
A companyy of the order passed by this Court has also been produced by the appellant.
An appeal against said order was dismissed by the Division Bench.
The delay was on the part of the State Government in taking a decision one way or the other.
1777 2005 Arising out of Special Leave Petition c No.
3203/2005 Paul Teacher Training Institute .
It also numbered that the validity of those orders was challenged by the NCTE and, hence, the appellant companyld number claim benefit of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Arising out of Special Leave Petition c No.
Immediately thereafter an action was taken by the appellant in moving the respondent NCTE.
NOC was submitted to the respondent on 2nd February, 2004, 31st January, 2004 and 1st February, 2004 being public holidays.
Dealing with the companytention of the appellant that the action was discriminatory inasmuch as in respect of other institutions, such permission was granted from academic year 2004 05 and the orders passed by the respondent granting permission from 2005 06 had been set aside by the High Court and such companydition was held invalid, the Division Bench observed that when the action was legal and valid, it companyld number be interfered with by the Court.
Since the appellant and other institutions had number submitted their applications within time and there was delay on their part in making such applications, the companydition imposed by the respondent and recognition granted for academic year 2005 06 companyld number be said to be illegal, companytrary to law or otherwise unlawful.
Respondents Thakker, J. Leave granted.
Only on December 26, 2003 the decision was taken by the Cabinet to grant NOC to the appellant.
Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned single Judge directing the NCTE to grant permission and admit students for the academic year 2004 05, the NCTE filed an intra court appeal, being Writ Appeal No.
NOC was, however, actually granted as late as on January 30, 2004.
It was, hence, number open to NCTE to insist on NOC by the State Government or number to companysider the application till then.
By number doing so, the respondent has acted arbitrarily as well as unreasonably.
For passing the said order, the learned single Judge observed that the appellant petitioner had submitted the application prior to the cut off date.
2911/2005 WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.
1778 2005 Arising out of Special Leave Petition c No.
In both the matters, Writ Appeals filed by the respondent herein were allowed and hence both the institutes have also approached this Court.
Finally, it was submitted that in a similar situation, an order was passed by the respondent in favour of one Sabari Education Society.
It was stated that NOC was granted on January 30, 2004, and it was submitted to the respondent on 2nd February, 2004.
Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.
18107 of 2004 and an order was passed by the High Court on 13th June, 2004 to carry out inspection.
It was also observed that a similar order was passed in Writ Petition No.
The Division Bench companysidered the relevant provisions of the Act and the Regulations as amended from time to time.
The learned companynsel for the respondent, on the other hand, supported the order passed by the Division Bench.
Appellant Versus Member Secretary, National Council for Teachers Education Anr.
In all these matters, orders passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Madras dated December 13, 2004, have been challenged.
It was also submitted that the Cabinet took a decision on December 28, 2003 but NOC was granted on January 30, 2004.
It was, therefore, urged that the respondent was wholly wrong in imposing companydition No.3.
The application was submitted on December 30, 2004 in accordance with Section 14 of the National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993 hereinafter referred to as the Act and the National Council for Teacher Education Form of application for recognition, the time limit of submission of application, determination of numberms and standards for recognition of teacher education programmes and permission to start new companyrse or training Regulations, 2002 hereinafter referred to as the Regulations .
emphasis supplied Condition No.3 was clear and stated that the application of the appellant institution for recognition was granted by NCTE from the academic session 2005 06.
By the said orders, the Division Bench allowed the appeals filed by the respondentRegional Director, Southern Regional Committee, National Council for Teacher Education, NCTE Bangalore, set aside the orders passed by the learned Single Judge and upheld the companydition imposed on the appellants to start new companyrse in teacher training education and admit students from the academic year 2005 06.
3290/2005 Dr. Anbu Paul College of Education Appellant Versus Member Secretary, National Council for Teachers Education Anr.
