IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 6TH JUNE 2008 / 16TH JYAISHTA 1930 WA.No. 1129 of 2008() ---------------------------- (AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.1884/2008 Dated 07/04/2008) .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN W.P.(C). ----------------------------------------------------- REV. FR. PAULOSE THOMAS, CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING TRUSTEE, PDINJARECHALIL CHARITABLE SOCIETY, (PARUMALA MAR GREGORIOUS B.ED TRAINING COLLEGE, NELLIMATTOM.P.O, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 686 693. BY ADV. SRI.ROY CHACKO RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN W.P.(C). ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION, (APPELLATE AUTHORITY), HANS BHAWAN, WING-II, 1, BAHADURSHAH ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI-110002. 2. THE NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION, SOUTHERN REGIONAL COMMITTEE, IST FLOOR, CSD BUILDINGS, HMT POST, BANGALORE - 560031. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KURIAN, SC. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.KOSHY & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. -------------------------------------- W.A.No.1129 OF 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated 6th June, 2008 JUDGMENT Koshy,J . Petitioner is the Chairman and Managing Trustee of a charitable institution registered under the provisions of the Travancore- Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act and set up with the object of imparting quality education. Petitioner is running B.Ed training college on a self-financing scheme. Petitioner applied for registration in December, 2002 as per the rules existing at that time. According to the petitioner, all the norms and regulations as prescribed under the National Council for Teacher Education Act (NCTE Act) and rules were complied with. But, consideration of petitioner's application was delayed. First inspection was in favour of the petitioner and NCTE special team noticed that petitioner has complied with all the conditions. But, no decision was taken on recognition. In the second inspection conducted in 2006, it was noticed that 2005 Regulations were not complied with. The major defect noticed is that petitioner's building is a rented one. In 2005 Regulations rented building is not permissible. Since petitioner has started the institution in 2002, applied for recognition in December, 2002, inspection was completed before 2005 W.A.1129/2008 2 Regulation was issued and inspection team recommended recognition, recognition cannot be denied merely because final orders were not passed before 2007 and merely because it was functioning in a rented building and also for lack of infrastructures mentioned in 2005 Regulations. The question to be considered is whether they have infrastructures as provided in 2002 Regulations and norms when they applied for and when it was processed. This view was already taken by a Full Bench of this court in Vikram Sarabhai Educational Trust and B.Ed College v. University of Calicut & another (2008 2 KHC 647) in which one of us (Justice P.N.Ravindran) was a member. In the light of the Full Bench decision, we allow the writ appeal and direct the respondents to consider the question of granting recognition considering 2002 Norms and Regulations. Petitioner should co-operate with the NCTE if another inspection is conducted. The appeal is allowed. J.B.KOSHY JUDGE P.N.RAVINDRAN JUDGE tks