IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2011 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 13631 of 2011(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- ALLAMA IQBAL MEMORIAL NATIONAL FOUNDATION FOR EDUCATION AND TRAINING, P.B.NO.4464, ERNAKULAM NORTH, KOCHI-682 018, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, SHRI.T.A.AHMED KABEER. BY ADV. MR. P.K.SURESH KUMAR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY, HANS BHAVAN, WING-II, 1, BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG, NEAR ITO, NEW DELHI-110 002. 2. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, SOUTHERN REGIONAL COMMITTEE, NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION, IST FLOOR, CSD BUILDING, HMT POST, BANGALORE-560 031. 3. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, KOTTAYAM-686 560. R1 AND R2 BY ADV. MR. V. M. KURIAN, STANDING COUNSEL R3 BY ADV. MR. T. A. SHAJI, STANDING COUNSEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P (C) No. 13631 of 2011 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 25th May , 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the first and second respondents to grant recognition to the M.Ed course in the petitioner institution and also to direct the 3rd respondent to allocate students to the petitioner institution for the M.Ed course, on the basis of Ext. P5 notification. 2. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 20.05.2011, the following interim order was passed. 'Post on 24.05.2011 SC for respondents 1 and 2 seeks time to get instructions. There will be an interim direction to the 3rd respondent to allot students for admission to the college conducted by the petitioner on a provisional basis, subject to further orders in this writ petition.' 3. Today, during the course of hearing, it is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 that, certain specific directions were given this Court as per Ext. P3 judgment passed in W.P.(C) 29284 of 2010, which are to be satisfied by the petitioner and on satisfaction of the said W.P. (C) No. 13631 of 2011 : 2 : requirements, consequential steps will be taken to accede to the prayer of the petitioner. Paragraph 8 of the said verdict, which is relevant for the adjudication of this case, reads as follows: 8. It is the case of the both the parties that if the petitioner offers a permanent structure as against the asbestos roofed portion of the building, the petitioner satisfied the standards specified in the Regulations for recognition of M.Ed course. Apparently realizing the inadequacy of the infrastructure provided by the petitioner and affidavit has been filed before this Court undertaking to change the roof of the 3000 sq. ft area of the second floor of the building into RCC within an immediate possible period and at any rate before the admissions to be M.Ed course begins for the present academic year. In my view this offer made by the petitioner should satisfy the requirements of the Regulations and therefore, if the petitioner changes the roof of the building as offered in the affidavit and intimates the same to the 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent should restore the recognition granted for M.Ed course as per Ext. P3 to the petitioner so that the petitioner can complete the admission and commence the courses in this academic year itself. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the directions contained in the said judgment were complied with months W.P. (C) No. 13631 of 2011 : 3 : back, but the grievance was still to be redressed, which made the petitioner to approach this Court again. 5. The learned standing counsel appearing for the first and second respondents submits that, this Court had given further directions in W.P.(C) 37137 of 2010, as per Ext. P4 judgment dated 17.12.2010, whereby the University was directed to include the name of the petitioner in the notification, clarifying that allotment will be made only if the petitioner produces the recognition order issued by the NCTE for M.Ed course before the allotment of the students is made. It is also stated that the petitioner actually produced the requisite/relevant affidavit as to the compliance of the requirements only by the second week of May, 2011; that the compliance reported has to be ascertained by effecting necessary 'cross-check', before appropriate orders are passed and that some time is required for pursuing such exercise. 6. After hearing both the sides, the respondents 1 and 2 are directed to pursue further steps, including inspection if any, and pass final order with regard to the granting of recognition to the M.Ed course to the petitioner institution. The proceedings as above shall be finalized, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any W.P. (C) No. 13631 of 2011 : 4 : rate within 'two weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The steps with regard to the admission as ordered by this Court, as per the interim order dated 20.05.2011 can go on. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd