IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2008 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 14038 of 2008(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ MANAGER, CORPORATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY, BISHOP'S HOUSE, SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD - 673 592. BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM VAKKANAL (SR.) SRI.PAUL ABRAHAM VAKKANAL SRI.ARUL KUMAR.P RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, WAYANAD, KALPETTA P.O. 4. THE DIRECTOR, STATE COUNCIL FOR EDUCATION & RESEARCH TRAINING (SCERT), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2008, A/W. W.P(C).No.14301/08 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).Nos.14038 & 14301 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 9th day of June, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioners' institutes have obtained recognition for starting Teachers Training Courses in their institutes. Originally the recognition by the National Council for Teacher Education was for an intake of 50 students. The petitioners applied for and obtained sanction from the NCTE for an additional intake of 50 students also from this year onwards. However, the respondents are not including the petitioners' institutes for allotment of students for the additional intake also. The petitioners, therefore, seek the following reliefs: W.P(C).No. 14038/2008: “(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order quashing Ext.P8 order. (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to grant approval to the course in the St.George's TTI, Pulpally, Wayanad, so as to enable the petitioner to admit the total intake of 100 students, as has been allowed in Ext.P4 by NCTE for the academic year 2008-09 onwards; (iii) Issue a writ declaring that, in terms of Section 14(6)(a) of the NCTE Act, the body conducting examination is statutorily bound to grant approval when recognition is given by NCTE under Section 15(3)(a) and the State cannot frustrate the grant of approval by refusing affiliation as sought and required to be issued; (iv) Issue a writ directing the 4th respondent to allot 50% of the total intake of students as has been allowed in Ext.P4 order from the W.P.C.14038/08 2 list of applicants as applied for the T.T.I. course for the academic year 2008-09 onwards in Wayanad District.” W.P(C).No.14301/2008: “i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writs, directions or orders commanding respondents 3 and 4 to allot students to the petitioner's teachers training institute to be admitted to the Government merit quota of 50% totaling to 50 out of 100 in numbers forthwith or in the alternative permit the petitioner to grant admissions in the seats if the Government do not allot students to those seats. ii) Call for the records leading to issue Ext.P5 and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or any writ order or direction. iii) Declare that there is no need of no objection or permission of the Government to raise intake capacity of the students if NCTE, 2nd respondent raising the intake capacity as 100.” 2. In W.P(C).No. 14038/2008 the petitioner's request in this regard was rejected by the Government, by Ext.P8 order. In the other writ petition, the request of the petitioner was rejected by Ext.P5 order. The petitioners are challenging the impugned orders on the ground that going by the Supreme Court decision on the subject once the NCTE grants approval, the Government has no jurisdiction to deny the petitioners the benefit of inclusion in the list of institutes for allotment of students in the Government quota and they have to allot students for the additional intake also. 3. With the help of a statement filed, the learned Government Pleader stoutly opposes the writ petitions. According W.P.C.14038/08 3 to him, the law as laid down by earlier decisions of this Court is applicable only to fresh recognition and not for additional intake of students. The Government Pleader would try to draw a distinction between fresh recognition and recognition for additional intake. He also relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in Government of Andra Pradesh v. J.B.Educational Society [(2005) 3 SCC 212], which would hold that additional needs of the locality are to be ascertained by the State. According to him, need for TTC holders in the State is far less than the students passing out each year and therefore, the Government is not bound to recognize the additional intake. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. I am unable to see the distinction between fresh grant of recognition and recognition for additional intake. Whether it is fresh recognition or additional intake, the increase is in the number of students. If, going by the Supreme Court decision, the Government cannot refuse to approve institutes for starting new courses with recognition from the NCTE, I am of opinion that the Government cannot also deny approval to additional intake also. This Court has in several writ petitions held that on the basis of the decision in STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. SANT W.P.C.14038/08 4 DNYANESHWAR SHIKSHAN SHASTRA MAHAVIDYALAYA AND OTHERS reported in 2006 (9) SCC page 1, the Government cannot refuse approval once the NCTE grants recognition. From a reading of that decision, I find that the question as to whether for additional intake the said proposition of law would apply was considered and not accepted. Therefore, the said decision of the Supreme Court equally applies to additional intake also. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the objections raised by the learned Government Pleader in the matter. Accordingly, these writ petitions are allowed. The respondents are directed to include the additional intake for which NCTE has granted recognition to the petitioners' institutes also for the purpose of inclusion in the list of institutes for allotment of students in the Government quota and allot students in the Government seats for the additional intake also along with allotment to other institutes and to the petitioners' institute for the original intake of 50 students. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge W.P.C.14038/08 5