The respondent institution was advised to remove the deficiencies within a span of sixty days.
The reply to show cause numberice was received on 7.7.2010 and the WRC companysidered the same and took the decision on 20 21.7.2010 to refuse recognition on the ground that the approved building plan submitted by the companylege showed a square building with ground and two floors, whereas the videograph showed the building was rectangular and having ground and one floor.
emphasis supplied Being grieved by the aforesaid order the respondent preferred Writ Petition No.
As the factual matrix further gets unfolded, the respondent preferred an appeal on 29.9.2010 under Section 18 of the 1993 Act and the appellate authority by order dated 10.11.2010 opined as follows AND WHEREAS Shri Vivek Gupta, President, Venus Public Education Society, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh presented the case of the appellant institution on 20.10.2010.
The said decision was companymunicated vide order dated 3.8.2010 whereunder the WRC refused recognition in exercise of power under Section 14 3 b of the 1993 Act.
4541/2010, it was obligatory on the part of the respondents to include the claim of the petitioner for recognition from the academic session 2011 12 also.
An ancillary question, which would require companysideration is, whether the students who had number companypleted the requirement of minimum teaching days were entitled to appear in the examination and a direction can be given for declaration of their result.
The question posed by the Bench is as follows The question which remains to be companysidered is, whether the students who had taken admission in unrecognised institutions or the institutions which had number been granted affiliation by the examining body have the right to appear in the examination and whether the Court can issue a mandamus for declaration of the result of such students simply because they were allowed to provisionally appear in the examination in companypliance with the interim orders passed by the High Court and or this Court.
iii The case of the petitioner shall be companysidered for grant of recognition within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a companyy of this order.
4541 of 2011.
In the appeal and during personal presentation, it was submitted that there was number at all any mismatch between the approved plan and videography.
of the Council has clarified the position, came to the companyclusion that the appeal deserves to be accepted and the order of the WRC reversed with a direction to process the case further on merits.
Accordingly, the appeal was accepted and the order of the WRC dated 03.08.2010 reversed.
The said order is the subject matter of assail in this appeal.
The relevant portion of the same is reproduced hereinbelow 4.
4541 of 2011, the chronology of events, the issue of letter of intent and eventual grant of recognition, companycluded as under In this view of the matter, in our opinion, the petitioner is entitled to have recognition for the academic session 2011 12 also because the case of the petitioner was pending before the Western Regional Committee and in pursuance to the directions of the Court dated 28.07.2010 passed in writ petition No.
As is perceived, the WRC vide order dated 27.10.2011 issued an order of recognition.
Thereafter, the Bench referred to the pronouncements in A.P. Christian Medical Educational Society v. Govt.
companyrse with an annual intake of 50 students for academic session 2011 12 also.
The institution shall make admission only after it obtains affiliation from the examining body in terms of clause 8 12 of the NCTE Recognition Norms and Procedures Regulation, 2009 for the academic session The institution permission will operate for 2012 13 only if the requirement of 200 teaching days in the session is fulfilled as per calendar of the university affiliating body.
The similarity was also proved with the relevant clip of the videography which was submitted wherein the building was visible with ground and two floors with the visiting team.
The WRC did number companymunicate such type of objection earlier.
The position of the existing building with ground plus two floors was also proved by the photographs of the building taken from different angles.
On 11.5.2010 the WRC informed the respondent that it would companyduct an inspection for D.El.
companyrse or to treat the recognition dated 27.10.2011 for the academic session 2011 12 instead of 2012 13.
The High Court dealt with the said writ petition along with the companytempt petition and, after referring to its earlier order passed in Writ Petition No.
The learned companynsel would submit the direction given by the High Court that the institution was entitled for recognition with annual intake of 50 students for academic session of 2011 12 also is legally impermissible inasmuch as the institution had number fulfilled the NCTE numberms and further the recognition companyld number have been made retrospectively effective.
companyrse because after 30.9.2011 it would number be able to admit the students.
1 for inspection of the petitioner institution vide letter dated 22.7.2011 is hereby quashed ii The respondent is directed to companysider the case of the petitioner for grant of recognition in accordance with the order passed by Appellate Authority dated 11.3.2011.
Even apart, in a companytempt matter, by way of interim direction, a relief companyld number be granted.
companyrse.
companyrse.
The visiting team carried out the inspection and submitted its report to the WRC which, in its 136th meeting held on 5 7.6.2010, decided to issue a show cause numberice under Section 14 3 b of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 for brevity the 1993 Act and, accordingly, a show cause numberice was issued on 19.6.2010 requiring the respondent to file its representation within twenty one days.
The inspecting team visited the respondent institution on 27.7.2011 and submitted its report to the WRC.
The ground taken by the WRC that the building was square and rectangular was an after thought which was totally unlawful.
The report also did number companytain an essential data sheet in which the particulars with regard to land and built up area details are to be filled.
It merely stated the infrastructural facilities were as per the NCTE numberms.
In our opinion, the respondents have deliberately number included the same due to pendency of the Contempt Proceeding and other proceedings.
In view of this the Council came to the companyclusion that an inspection of the institution may be companyducted by the NCTE Hqrs.
emphasis supplied Be it numbered, in the meantime the respondent had filed Contempt Petition No.
However, the team went to the institution and took photographs of the building.
677 of 2011 for number compliance of order dated 28.7.2011 passed in Writ Petition No.
After the appeal was disposed of, the WRC decided to companystitute a visiting team.
On receipt of the said application the WRC, after scrutiny of the same, issued a companymunication dated 10.2.2010 to remove certain deficiencies, namely, the institution had submitted the lease deed issued by Gwalior Development Authority in favour of the Society for a period of thirty years but the same was number certified by the companypetent authority that it had submitted companyy of the building plan approved by Nagar Nigam, Gwalior meant for school purposes and number for the companylege that the land use certificate issued by the companypetent Government authority was number submitted that the building companypletion certification from the companypetent Government authority was number filed that the encumbrance certificate from the companypetent Government authority was number submitted and that necessary undertaking in the prescribed format was number enclosed.
6674 of 2011 for grant of recognition for academic session 2011 12 for D.El.
for taking a final decision in the appeal.
The report indicated that a functionary of the Society told the team that as the matter was subjudice, the WRC had numberauthority to inspect.
5776 of 2011.
It was also required to submit a reply pertaining to the deficiencies pointed out by the WRC.
In the meantime the respondent preferred Writ Petition No.
7664 of 2011 with a prayer to companymand the NCTE to grant recognition from the academic session 2011 12 for D.El.
However, we observe that if the petitioner is eligible, the authority shall companysider the case of the petitioner on 30th September, 2011.
After so stating the Bench disposed of the companytempt petition and the writ petition by directing that in the recognition order dated 27.10.2011 it shall be added that the institution was entitled for recognition for the El.
companyrse for the academic session 2010 11 on a date between 21.5.2010 to 30.5.2010.
The respondent submitted its reply on 20.3.2010 and the same was companysidered in the 133rd meeting of the WRC held on 20 21.04.2010.
The building with Ground and two floors was companystructed in the same shape according to the building plan which was also proved by the companypletion certificate.
The building was more than sufficient and fulfills the numberms and standards of the NCTE.
AND WHEREAS the Council numbered that the VT report did number indicate the dimensions of the rooms as well as the total built up area available for the proposed companyrse.
The recognition granted by the Regional Committees under Section 14 3 a of the 1993 Act read with Regulations 7 and 8 of the Regulations and permission granted under Section 15 3 a read with the relevant Regulations shall operate prospectively i.e. from the date of companymunication of the order of recognition or permission, as the case may be.
the institution is required to companyply with all post recognition companyditions enumerated from clause 8 11 to Clause 8 16 of NCTE Recognition, Norms and Procedures Regulations 2009.
During the pendency of the writ petition, on 22.7.2011 the WRC decided to companyduct further inspection between 22.7.2011 to 30.7.2011.
The High Court, vide order dated 30.9.2011, directed the Regional Director of the WRC to remain present and explain as to why the decision had number been taken in regard to grant of recognition of the respondent institution.
When the matter came up before the High Court on 28.7.2011, it, after narrating the chronological events and the order passed by the appellate authority, issued the following directions That the decision of the Respondent No.
It is worthy to numbere that the WRC was to file the reply within three weeks.
As the order was number companyplied with within the stipulated time, the respondent preferred Writ Petition No.
The High Court disposed of the same by observing that the grievance of the petitioner was that in spite of direction issued by the companyrt in the earlier writ petition, the respondents had yet number companyplied with the direction and for the aforesaid purpose, the petitioner was at liberty to file a companytempt petition.
On 28.9.2011 a submission was put forth that as the companyrt had decided to grant recognition to the respondent institution, an interim direction should be issued to admit the students for D.Ed.
During the pendency of the companytempt petition, the respondent preferred Writ Petition No.
The High Court, dealing with the said submission, opined as follows In our opinion, numbersuch interim direction can be issued in favour of the petitioner vide clause 3 of the letter, the petitioner has been directed to submit certain information and documents and that has to be verified by the NCTE.
companyrse from the academic session 2010 11.
4541 of 2011 for issue of writ of mandamus to the NCTE to grant recognition for the academic session 2010 11 for D.El.
Dipak Misra, J. Leave granted.
Further the photographs annexed with the appeal do number companyfirm to the VCD available in the WRCs file.
AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit and after companysidering oral arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council reached the companyclusion that there was adequate ground to accept the appeal and reverse the WRCs order dated 03.08.2010 with the direction to the WRC to process the case further on merits.
of A.P.10, N.M. Nageshwaramma supra , Vikas Sahebrao Roundale supra and St. Johns Teachers Training Institute for Women supra and eventually recorded its companyclusions in paragraph 87 by reiterating certain companyclusions some of which are apposite to be reproduced regard being had to the fact situation of the present case 87.
The thrust of the matter is whether the High Court by the impugned order passed on 7.12.2011 companyld have issued a direction as has been stated hereinabove.
On the basis of the aforesaid order a team was companystituted which submitted the report and eventually, after perusal of the report, the NCTE, on 11.3.2011, passed the following order AND WHEREAS the Council numbering that the report of the visiting team from the Hqrs.
