mwwm généF, ’ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR L a WRIT APPEAL No. 0! Iw giwo APPELLANT , RE$PONbENT ‘ Pandit Ravishankar Shukla ,~Vishwavidyalay,thrOIighRegistrayr T Raipur (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS / 1) Maitri Educational and Cultural Association _’Bhilai, Through Sri K. Sudhakaran, President, Aged about 7O years,‘ S/o Late Shri R. Keshawan, R/o‘ 11/31—B, Ispat Nagar, RiSali, Bhilai, Dist. Durg, Chhamsgara running Bhilai Majtri College, Risali, sector, 'Bhilai — Durg (Chhattisgarh) RESPONbENT /2) State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department of School Education, DKS Bhawan, Raipur RESPONDENT PETITIONER Mantralaya, (Chhattisgarh) Director, Education State Research and Training Council, Shankar Nagar, Raipur(C.G.) National Council for Teache Education Through Regional Director, q t PESPONDam Western , Regional Committee, Bhopal (MP) r HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR DB: I-ION’BLE LM. QUDDUSI 85 HON’BLE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ WRIT APPEAL No. 01 OF 2010 APPELLANT Pandit Ravi Shankar Vishwavidyalay, through Registrar Raipur (Chhattisgarh Vs. RESPONDENTS Maitri Education and Cultural Association, Bhjlai and 3 others. WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2‘1! OF THE CHHATTISGARI-I HIGH COURT [APPEAL TO DIVISION ENCH! ACT, 2006 APPEARANCE: Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, Counsel for the appellant. Mr. Jitendra Pali, Counsel for respondent no. l. Mr. Deepali Pandey, P.L. for the State/respondent no.2. Mr. Bhaskar Pyasi, counsel for respondents 3 81s 4. Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, counsel for the intervener Neelkant Patel kn. ORAL ORDER (18.06.2010) Per LM. OUDDUSI Heard. 2. This writ appeal has been med against the impugned order dated 09th October, 2009 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P(C).N0.4061 of 2009 allowing the writ petition. x '3. Brief facts of the case are that respondent no.1 Institution namely Maitri Education and Cultural Association, 'Bhilai, was granted permission by National Council for‘Teacher Education (NC’I‘E) for the academic session 2008—2009 for imparting B.Ed,, course of 0116 year duration with an additional intake of 100 students. Earlier, it was granted intake of 100 students, therefore, in total, the institution was granted annual intake of 200 students, which applied for aiiiliation to the writ appellant on 16.06.2008 but the Executive Council of the University did not agee for the same and being aggrieved, respondent no.1 filed W.P(C).No.4003/2008 in this Court. The operation of the order passed pursuant to the decision of the Executive Council was stayed in that writ petition. Consequently, 100 students were admitted and they were further allowed to appear in the examination. Further in another writ petition being No.6591/2008 when it was filed, the writ appellant allowed the institution to admit the students for academic session 2008—2009. This time also the institution made an application for afiiliation of additional 100 seats but the same was not allowed. Being aggrieved, writ petition was filed which was decided by the learned Single Judge allowing the same. The writ appellant and the State Education Research and Training Council were directed to allow the institution to participate in counseling for admitting the students in B.Ed., course for 200 students and the writ appellant was also directed to comply with the mandatory provisions of sub-section (6) of Section 14 National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 in the matters of gant of afiliation to the respondent institution unless recognition granted to it by NCTE is stayed or set aside by a competent authority. Being aggieved the University" has tiled the instant writ appeal. Fmn cempliance of the mandatory provisions of Sub-section g- ‘ (6) of Section 14 of the NCTE Act. However, to our; The learned single judge has only directed to make mind, if th€ university finds that the conditions imposed by NCTE have not been fulfilled by the institution, it may report to the NCTE and the NCTE shall withdraw the recognition in that case. Therefore, we dispose of the writ appeal with a direction to the institution namely respondent no.1 to strictly comply with the conditions imposed by NCTE in getting recognition and allowing the additional intake of 100 students and the university/writ appellant may provide afhliation in accordance with the mandatory provisions of sub-section (6) of section 14 of the NCTE Act. However, if the writ appellant feels that there is non- fulhllment of conditions imposed by the NCTE, at any point of time, it will be open for it to raise objection before the NCTE and in that case the NCTE shall take appropriate action in accordance with law. Mewe With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition stands p disosed of. J Sd/- Judge .Rrashant Kumar Mishra Judge Sd//- I.M.Quddusi Ran