IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 19213 of 2007 Between: Sri Shiridi Sai Nath Education Society, Rep by its President, Sri Y. Rama Chandra Reddy, S/o. Y. Yella Reddy, Aged about 62 years, R/o. H.No. 16-5954, College Road, Nandikotkur, Kurnool District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The National Council For Teacher Eduation, Rep by its Member Secretary, Wing II Hans Bhavan, Bhadoorsah Jaffer Marg, New Delhi. 2 The National Council For Teacher Education, Southern Regional Committee, Rep by its Regional Director, 1st Floor, C.S.D. Buildings, H.M.T. Post, Bangalore. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in FSRO/NCTE/B.Ed./2006-2007/1155, dated 19-4-2007 refusing to grant recognition to Sri Shirdi Baba College of Education, Nandikotkur, Kurnool District, Confirmed by the 1st respondent in F.No. 89-70/2007 Appeal 69480, dt. 8-8-2007 as illegal and contrary to the norms and standards for Secondary Teacher Education Programme (B.Ed.) fixed by the respondents and in existence as on the date of application dt. 2-1- 2006and consequently direct the respondents to grant recognition to the petitioner institution for conducting B.Ed., course from the Academic year 2007-08 and pass such other and further orders to meet the ends of justice Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.N.SUBBA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.B.ADINARAYANA RAO The Court made the following : O R D E R : This writ petition has been filed by Sri Shiridi Sainath Education Society represented by its President Sri.Y.Ramachandra Reddy with a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings of the National Council for Teacher Education, Southern Regional Committee- 2nd respondent in refusing to grant recognition to the petitioner-society as illegal and contrary to the norms and standards of Secondary Teacher Education Programme (B.Ed) fixed by the respondents and in existence as on the date of application i.e. 2.1.2006. The petitioner is a Society registered vide Registration No.2157 of 2005, dated 31.12.2005. The society filed an application to establish B.Ed college under the name and style of Sri Shiridi Sainath Education Society. Basing on the application, an inspection team visited the premises and submitted its report. The 2nd respondent passed the order on 19.4.2007 rejecting the application and the said order is under challenge in this writ petition. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-society and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-society submits that the inspection team visited the premises of the petitioner-society and noted the existence of a large two storied building earmarked exclusively for the proposed B.Ed course and submitted the report. He took me through the report which finds place from page Nos.28 to 46 of the material papers. Particular emphasis has been made by the learned counsel on the remarks made by the inspection team and in particular on the remarks on issue No.8 that “ A large 2 storey building earmarked exclusively for the proposed B.Ed course”. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents supported the order passed by 2nd respondent. As per the order impugned in this writ petition, permission as sought for by the petitioner-Society to establish B.Ed college came to be rejected primarily on the ground of non-availability of permanent structures. But as per the remarks of the visiting team, a large two storied building earmarked exclusively for the proposed B.Ed course exists as on the date of inspection. It clearly goes to show that the 2nd respondent without considering the report of the visiting team proceeded to reject the application of the petitioner-society. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider the visiting team’s report and pass orders afresh. The 2nd respondent is at liberty to depute a team for fresh inspection, if necessary, subject to the petitioner-society paying the requisite fee as prescribed under the Rules, and pass appropriate orders. No order as to costs. 1st July 2008. (B.Seshasayana Reddy,J) tnb ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD} THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.19213 OF 2007 01-07-2008.