IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 13847 of 2009 Date of Decision: 5.9.2009 Haryana Educational Society --Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. R.K. Malik, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ashish Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) Notice of motion to respondents no. 1 and 2 only. Mr. R.S. Kundu, Addl. A.G., Haryana has been asked to accept notice on behalf of respondents no.1 & 2 and Mr. Vinod S. Bhardwaj, Advocate, present in the Court has been asked to accept notice on behalf of respondents no.3 & 4. The petitioner-society is running a college of education for J.B.T Course. The college was earlier duly recognized by the N.C.T.E in the year 2006 vide order dated 9.9.2006 (Annexure P-1). Later, this recognition came to be withdrawn vide order dated 10.6.2009 (Annexure P- 2) on account of certain deficiencies etc. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the N.C.T.E under Section 18 of the N.C.T.E. Act, 1993. The said appeal came to be decided by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 7.8.2009, whereby the order (Annexure P-2) was set aside and the matter remanded back to respondent no.4 with the following observations:- “ And whereas after perusal of documents, memorandum of appeal, affidavit, VT report and after hearing oral arguments advanced CWP. No. 13847 of 2009 -2- during the hearing the Council reached the conclusion that there was enough ground to accept the appeal and that it should be accepted. Accordingly, the appeal was accepted and NRC's decision was set aside with direction to the NRC to re-examine the staff profile of the institution afresh to ascertain whether it has been appointed as per NCTE Norms and procedure prescribed. Now therefore, the council hereby remands back the case of Haryana College of Education, Jind, Haryana to the NRC, NCTE, for necessary action as indicated above.” The grievance of the petitioner is that even when the case was remanded on 7.8.2009, respondent no.4 has not taken any decision and the petitioner is suffering for want of the counselling as also the allocation of the students. In view of the above circumstances, it is deemed appropriate that a direction be issued to respondent no.4 to take decision in terms of the remand order dated 7.8.2009 within a period of 10 days and communicate the same to the petitioner accordingly. In the event the claim of the petitioner is rejected, the same shall be by a reasoned and speaking order. In case the petitioner is found entitled for the extension of recognition, the competent authority shall include the name of the petitioner for counselling and allocate the students in accordance with rules. Disposed of as such. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 5.9.2009 lucky