IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.794 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision: 18.11.2009 Shri Guru Ram Das Educational and Charitable Trust. -----Appellant Vs. State of Punjab & others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Mr. Balram Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Shireesh Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Addl.A.G., Punjab. Mr. Vinod S. Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 & 3/NCTE. --- ORDER: 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge, dismissing writ petition seeking direction for grant of recognition. 2. Case of the appellant is that it made an application for recognition under the provisions of National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (for short, “the NCTE Act”) read with National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms & Procedure) Regulations, 2007. The application was followed by LPA No.794 of 2009 further clarification/information. However, vide letter dated 16.5.2009, Annexure P-12, the application was rejected on the ground that the applicant was not owner of the land nor lessee from the Government, as was required under the statutory regulation No.8 framed under Section 32(2) of the NCTE Act. The appellant preferred an appeal and pointed out that sale deed was registered in favour of the applicant on 14.5.2009. The appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority on the ground that on the date of application, the applicant was not owner. The appellant then filed writ petition, submitting that in view of subsequent event of acquisition of ownership by the applicant, rejection of the prayer for recognition was not called for. Opportunity should have been given to make up deficiency as per Regulation 7(1). 3. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition relying upon earlier order dated 15.7.2009 in CWP No.19194 of 2007 Association of Punjab Self Financed College of Education Vs. State of Punjab and others, directing as under:- “ xx xx xx xx 4) It would be appreciated if the State Government itself holds such a Common Entrance Test every year. The State Government will also constitute a Committee of experts to conduct survey regarding future requirement of such institutions and while conducting such survey, at least 1/4th of the 2 LPA No.794 of 2009 Members of the Committee shall be the representative of the existing institutions. On completion of such survey, the State Government will take a policy decision whether to permit any more institutions to come up in the State of Punjab in general or with reference to any backward or rural area in particular. Till such survey is conducted, it shall not permit any new institution to be established in the State. xx xx xx xx” 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that subject to there being law restricting establishment of an educational institution, there could be no restriction on establishment of a new institution and therefore, case of the appellant for recognition should not be rejected on this ground. Learned counsel for the respondents support this submission. Accordingly, we have considered the merits of claim of the appellant for recognition. 6. Learned counsel for the NCTE submits that rejection of the application of the appellant was justified in view of scheme of regulations which require that on the date of application, the applicant should have ownership or lease from the Government, which eligibility was not fulfilled by the appellant. He further submits that if any fresh application is made, the same will be considered in accordance with law. 3 LPA No.794 of 2009 7. We are unable to hold that the appellant had a right to be considered for recognition, irrespective of its eligibility on the date of application. Thus, acquisition of ownership after making of application was not enough. Contention that requirement of opportunity to make up deficiency of documents entitled the appellant to consideration on the basis of subsequent eligibility, cannot be accepted. However, there is no bar to making of a fresh application, as stated by learned counsel for the NCTE. 8. In view of statement made by learned counsel for the NCTE, no further order is called for. 9. The appeal is disposed of. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE November 18, 2009 ( GURDEV SINGH ) ashwani JUDGE 4