-^. • Ar ~ (-ZT6-) BEFORE THB HON*BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (Ct N0. ^$\<)? / 2011 PETITIONER >;^<^<^..- r^>fy<"<>^' .^'^<^c \--' J-^^..> ^•^^' ,..••" ^ RESPONDENTS ^ G.H. Raisoni Foundation, Through the Officer-in-Charge Shri Shashi Kumar Khuntia, aged about 40 years, R/o G.H. Raisoni National College. Near Sharda Rice Industrie;;., Vidhan Sabha Road, Mova, Raipur 492007 (C.G.) VERSUS 1) National Council for Teacher Education, through the Secretary, Wing II, Hans Bhavan-1, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi 110002 2) Western Regional Committee, Through the Regional Director, Manas Bhavan, Shyamla Hills, Bhopal, 462002 (M.P.) 3) Pt.Ravishankar Shukla University, Through the Registrar, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) WMT PETITION UNDERARTIc;LE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION QF INDIA '7 ..^^'^•••^••::^;^^ ••"^•^ ^:i ^i^l^ N.ti^y^ % ^p^ '1k HIGH COURTOFCHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION (C) N0.2518 OF 2011 G.H. Raisoni Foundation Versus National Council for Education & Others Teacher (Writ Petition underArticles 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : hlon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Adiraj Surana, Advocates for the petitioner. Shri Bhaskar Pyasi, Advocate for the respondents No.1 & 2. Shri Afroz Khan, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri Ashish Shrivastava, Advocate for the respondent No.3. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 7th day of July, 2011) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to conduct a fresh enquiry in respect of the alleged grounds of refusal as taken by the respondents and further a direction to the respondents to grant the legitimate recognition for the said B.P.Ed. course. The petitioner.also seeks quashment of the orders dated 9-11-2010 (Annexure - P/7) & 26-4-2011 (Annexure - P/9). 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an educational institution imparting education in the course of B.Ed. and B:P.Ed. since last seven years. The petitioner institute is duly recognized by the respondent No.1 and having due affiliation from the respondent No.3. The petitioner has spent an amount of Rs.10.00 crores (approx.) in imparting the quality education to the students of Chhattisgarh. However, all of a sudden without any intimation, the respondent authorities issued a withdrawal order dated 9-11-2010 against the recognition, as provided earlier by the respondent No.1 itsetf, without any reasonable justification. Thereagainst, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent No.1, which dismissed by order dated 26-4-2011 in an illegal and arbitrary manner. Hence, this petition. 4. The respondents No.1 & 2 filed their reply and submitted that the impugned order has been passed after following the due process of law and the same does not warrant any ihterference of this Court. t^ ^-K"s3^^.' 1 j 8. Gowri The further contention of the respondents is that the requisite formalities were not completed by the petitioner till 31-3-2011 . On perusal of the order dated 9-11-2010 (Annexure - P/7), it appears that in view of the provisions of Section 17 (1) of the NCTE Act, it was decided to withdraw the recognition/permission to the institution to conduct the B.P.Ed. course from the end of the academic session next following the date of communication of the order onaccount of following contraventions of the provision of the NCTE Act, Rules and Regulations framed thereunder: "1. Principal has not been appointed (Institution contravened the clause - 4 of Norms and standard 2007). 2. Building plan has not been approved. (Institution contravened the clause 10 of Regulation 2007)." The petitioner also agrees that clause 8 of the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms & Procedure), Regulations, 2009 (for short "the Regulations, 2009") has not been complied with fully, as the staff pattern as prescribed under the Regulations, 2009 is not available with the petitioner. It is also admitted by the petitioner that the defect as pointed by the Council has not yet been removed. Learned counsel submits that the defects shall be made good at the earliest. Be that as it may, without going into the merits of the case, the petitioner institute is granted liberty to make a representation to the respondent No.1 afterhaving complied with the requirements of recognition, as provided in clause 8 of the Regulations, 2009. On receipt of representation, it is expected that the respondent authorities shall take appropriate steps for inspection and thereafter, case of the petitioner shall be considered for grant of recognition in accordance with law and on its own merits, expeditiously. In view of foregoing, the petition is disposed of with the aforesaid liberty. Sd/- SatishK. Agnihotri Judge