1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1285 OF 2008 Dnyandeep Education Society Trust .. Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.A.V.Anturkar i/b Mr.S.B.Deshmukh for the petitioner Mr.S.R.Nargolkar, A.G.P. for respondent nos.1 to 3 Mr.Narayan Sahu i/b Mr.S.K.Srivastav and Co. for respondent nos.2 CORAM : J.N.PATEL CORAM : J.N.PATEL CORAM : J.N.PATEL & & & SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. DATED : 11TH MARCH, 2008 DATED : 11TH MARCH, 2008 DATED : 11TH MARCH, 2008 P.C.: 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner institution has approached this court seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondent nos.2 i.e.SNDT Women University to grant affiliation to the petitioner and allow the students admitted by the petitioner for B.Ed. 2 course during the academic session 2007-08 and permit them to appear for the exams conducted by respondent nos.2 which are going to commence from 01.04.2008. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner applied for affiliation / recognition to NCTE on 30.12.05 which was being processed by NCTE and it is only on 28.11.2008 that respondent no.4 NCTE granted recognition order under sections 14 and 15 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed strong reliance on the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashta vs. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya and Others reported in (2006) 9 Supreme Court Cases 1 and submits that the institution having obtained recognition from NCTE which has been established under the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 enacted by the Parliament and Central Government, the affiliation to the University and permission of the 3 State Government is a mere formality and, therefore, the petitioner institution was justified to admit students for the academic session 2007-08 in anticipation of recognition from NCTE and as NCTE has granted recognition to the institution, the respondent and State Government now cannot deny affiliation and recognition to the B.Ed. course of the petitioner institution. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent University pointed out to us communications to the petitioner institution dated 10.01.2005 and 31.03.2006 on the subject of continuation of permission to open a new College for the academic year 2007-8. 6. It has been specifically pointed out to us that in the communications dated 10.01.2005 and 31.03.2006 it was made clear that it is only on receipt of the necessary ’No Objection Certificate’ and recognition of statutory apex bodies i.e. INC/ NCTE/AICTE, the trust shall be required to approach for grant to the proposed course and, therefore, it is their case that the petitioner institution could 4 not have admitted students prior to getting recognition from NCTE for the proposed B.Ed. course and as they have got recognition in the 1/08, they can get first time affiliation to the course for the academic year 2008-09 and that no affiliation can be granted with retrospective effect. 7. Mr.Anturkar, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner institution, submits that the petitioner cannot be made to suffer for the red tapism on the part of NCTE and that it was in anticipation and in order to save the career of the students that he was required to admit students even before recognition from NCTE so as to save their academic session. 8. In our opinion, the petitioner has no case as the petitioner should have waited for the recognition of NCTE before even commencing the course. We can understand that after recognition was granted by NCTE, the university as well as the State Government were left with no option but to grant affiliation / recognition and as in the 5 present case, the recognition was granted in 1/08, the petitioner could have started the B.Ed. course from the academic session 2008-2009. 9. The petitioner having taken a decision to start B.Ed. course in anticipation of the recognition has done so at its own risk. In so far as the fate of the students is concerned, the students have taken admission to the said course at their own risk and peril. We, therefore, do not find any merits in the petition. The same is dismissed. ( J.N. PATEL, J ) ( J.N. PATEL, J ) ( J.N. PATEL, J ) ( SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J ) ( SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J ) ( SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J )