IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.13419 of 2009 Between: Alpha College of Eudcation ..... PETITIONER AND National Council for Teacher Education, Southern Regional Committee, rep.by its Regional Director, 1st Floor, CSD Buildings, HMT Post, Bangalore and others .....RESPONDENTS ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record. The petitioner-College, which is run by the Peoples Educational Academy, Prakasam District, claims to have made an application to the first respondent, namely, National Council for Teacher Education, under Section 14(1) of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (for short ‘the NCTE Act’) for grant of recognition to it for Secondary (B.Ed.,) Course of one year duration from the academic year 2005-2006 with an annual intake of 100 students. Pursuant thereto, the first respondent, after following all the statutory formalities, granted recognition to the petitioner-College vide proceedings, dated 10.02.2006, subject to fulfillment of the following conditions: “(a) The Institution will ensure that Principal and Seven faculty members duly approved by affiliating University are in position for an intake of 100 students before commencement of the course and a report to this effect shall be sent to the Southern Regional Committee immediately. (b) The Institution shall, within one month of the receipt of recognition order, convert the Endowment fund account into a joint account to be operated along with an official of the Southern Regional Committee. (c) The Institution shall shift to its own premises/building within three years from the date of recognition. (in case the course is started in rented premises). (d) The Institution shall comply with the various other norms and standards prescribed in the NCTE Regulations.” Accordingly, the petitioner claims to have commenced B.Ed., Course of one-year duration from the academic year 2005-2006 with an annual intake of 100 students, after obtaining permission from the State Government and affiliation from the fifth respondent-Acharya Nagarjuna University, in a rented building. The petitioner states that it had complied with all the conditions stipulated in the recognition order, dated 10.02.2006, except the condition of shifting the College to own premises within three years from the date of recognition i.e., by 09.02.2009. But, it claims that it has started construction of own building in the meanwhile and that the construction would be completed in due course. While so, it is the case of the petitioner that on a complaint received against six Colleges in Podili, Prakasam District, the first respondent has proposed to conduct inspection as contemplated under Section 17 of the NCTE Act and pursuant to the same, it has sent a VTR Committee (Visiting Team Report) to examine the status of the B.Ed., Colleges in Podili, Prakasam District. Accordingly, the VTR Committee conducted inspection on 22.12.2008 and submitted a report. It is the case of the petitioner that the VTR Committee has satisfied with its functioning as well as its compliance with the conditions stipulated by the first respondent. However, on the pretext that some complaints have been received regarding the inspections and reports submitted by the VTR Committee, the first respondent has decided to examine the whole matter by deputing an Expert Team consisting of Southern Regional Committee Members, which according to the petitioner, without issuing any notice, has visited the petitioner-College and prepared a unilateral report and submitted the same to the first respondent. Basing on the said report, the first respondent issued a notice, dated 04.04.2009, under Section 17 of the NCTE Act calling upon the petitioner-College to submit its explanation as to why the recognition granted to it vide proceedings, dated 10.02.2006, to start Secondary (B.Ed.,) Course of one-year duration, shall not be withdrawn, for the following deficiencies: “1. The Management has taken lease land 1866 sq.yards and RCC building 360 sq.yards for establishment of B.Ed., College for 5 years on temporary basis and 5 acres own land to construct permanent building. The institution was accorded recognition on 10.02.2006 and the College has to shift its own permanent premises within three years i.e., before 10.02.2009 as per NCTE Act. The institution has not made any effort to shift the College to the permanent building after lapse of three years. 2. The rented shed roofed with asbestos sheet is not suitable to run the B.Ed., course. 3. No multipurpose hall is available for B.Ed., Course. 4. No teaching faculty, class are irregular as per reports. 5. The institution has to submit approved faculty list approved by the affiliating body for all existing teacher education courses with details of each faculty member in the format prescribed. 6. The Management has to explain why it is not constructed permanent building after lapse of 3 years and not fulfilled the condition of recognition order and Rules and Regulations of NCTE. Further, the Management asked to explain why the Recognition shall not be withdrawn for not fulfillment of condition for also having not shifted college to new permanent premises within three years from the date of recognition.” Pursuant to the same, the petitioner-College claims to have submitted its explanations on 25.04.2009 and 29.04.2009. However, according to the petitioner, the first respondent, without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner-College and ignoring the report submitted by the VTR Committee, dated 22.12.2008, passed the impugned order, dated 25.06.2009, withdrawing the recognition granted to it in exercise of power under Section 17 of the NCTE Act. Hence, the present writ petition. It is brought to the notice of this Court that similar matters, in W.P.Nos.22090 of 2008 and batch, were disposed of by this Court by a common order, dated 11.08.2009, granting liberty to the petitioners therein to file statutory appeals under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, if not already filed, within a period of four weeks and if any such appeals are preferred, the appellate authority was directed to receive treating the same as appeals filed within limitation and dispose of the same in accordance with law, after hearing both the parties, and till such time, directed to maintain status quo as on that date in all respects. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner-College has produced photographs showing that the construction work of permanent building for the petitioner-College is in progress. The learned counsel has also undertaken that the construction work will be completed within six months and the College will be shifted to the newly constructed building. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition granting liberty to the petitioner to file statutory appeal and till the disposal of the same, the parties shall maintain status quo. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner-College to file statutory appeal as provided under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, if not already filed, within a period of four weeks from today and on filing such an appeal, the appellate authority shall entertain the same without raising any objection as to the limitation and dispose of in accordance with law, after hearing both the parties. Till such time, status quo obtaining as on today in all respects shall be maintained. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date:21.08.2009 VGB