BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08.09.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI and THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH W.A.(MD)No.660 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2011 1.The Vice Chairperson, National Council for Teacher Education, Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi 110 002. 2.The Regional Director, National Council for Teacher Education, HMT Building, Jalahali, Bangalore. .. Appellants Vs. Shri Surya College of Education, No.22/2, Batlagundu Main Road, Nilakottai,Dindigul District, Rep.by its Chairman cum Secretary, A.Maragatham ... Respondent Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters patent Act, against the order dated 27.08.2010 made in W.P.(MD)No.14097 of 2009. Prayer in W.P.(MD)No.14097 of 2009.: Petition filed Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certioarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the order, dated 26.11.2009 passed by the 1st respondent in F.No.89-973/2009 Appeal A 7250 confirming the order passed by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings No.F.SROP/NCTE/B.Ed/2009- 2010/14934, dated 31.07.2009 and the quash the same as illegal and consequently to direct the respondents to grant recognition to the petitioner College of Education for conducting B.Ed., Course within the period. For Appellants : Mr.A.Sivaji For Respondent : Mr.M.Ajmal Khan JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.JYOTHIMANI,J.) The Writ Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(MD)No.14097 of 2009 dated 27.08.2010, by which, the learned Single Judge while setting aside the order of the NCTE, has allowed the Writ petition filed by the 1st respondent herein and gave a direction to the NCTE to grant recognition for the academic year 2009 – 2010. 2.The main ground on which the present appeal has been filed is that on the relevant date namely, 31.10.2008, even though the land in question was in possession of the trustee as lessee, as per the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ regulation, the land must be in the name of the trust. It is the case of the NCTE that the transfer in the name of the trust was effected on 13.04.2009, which is after the cut off date and therefore, according to the learned counsel for the NCTE/appellants, the Writ petitioner is not entitled for recognition for the year 2009-2010. The learned counsel would vehemently contend that the Court, by exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot direct the NCTE to act against its regulations. 3.Mr.A.Sivaji, learned counsel for the appellants would rely upon a judgment of the Hon’ble First Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD)No.664 of 2011 dated 25.04.2011, wherein the First Bench has held that when the regulations regarding NCTE contemplate a cut off date, any change effected in respect of the requirement after the said date, cannot be a ground for the purpose of ratifying the earlier mistake. Therefore, according to him, unless and until on the date of application, the application of the institution was strictly in accordance with the NCTE rules, the institution, as a matter of right, is not entitled to claim recognition for the said academic year. According to Mr.Sivaj, learned counsel for the appellants, the facts are same and hence, the first Bench has taken such a decision. 4.On a reading of the order of the learned Single Judge, it is clear that at least in respect of one other institution, namely, Holy Angles Trust, under similar circumstances, the registration was stated to have been effected in the name of the trust after the cut off date and in spite of it, admittedly, recognition has been given in respect of that institution. Therefore, taking note of such circumstances, the learned Single Judge has allowed the Writ petition filed by the 1st respondent. 5.On the facts of the present case, we are of the view that when the possession of the land, which is required as per the rules, has been admittedly with the institution, the ground taken that it was in the name of the trustee not in the name of trust is only purely a technical question. Inasmuch as the trust and trustee in the facts of the present case is one and the same, we are of the view that such a technical plea cannot be taken for the purpose of depriving the institution to act as per the provisions of the NCTE Act. 6.The fact that under similar circumstances, the other institution namely, Holy Angles Trust has been given recognition, has not been denied anywhere. In these circumstances, it is not open to the NCTE/appellants to take a contrary stand insofar as it relates to the 1st respondent is concerned. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the application of the 1st respondent on earlier occasions has been returned on two times and the NCTE has never raised this point at any point of time except for the first time now. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7.Due to all these reasons, we are of the view that there is nothing to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal fails and the same is dismissed. The NCTE shall pass appropriate orders for granting recognition, within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. We reiterate that we are forced to take such a stand only due to the reason that the plea taken is purely technical in nature and this cannot be taken as a precedent. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(RTI Act) /TRUE COPY/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Vice Chairperson, National Council for Teacher Education, Hans Bhawan, Wing II, 1, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi 110 002. 2.The Regional Director, National Council for Teacher Education, HMT Building, Jalahali, Bangalore. +1cc to Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, Advocate SR.No.31014 +1cc to Mr.A.Sivaji, Advocate SR.No.30493 W.A.(MD)No.660 of 2011 08.09.2011 nbj PA/13.09.2011/3P/5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/