- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3976/2009 Alfa Social and Educational Foundation’s Niyojit Adhyapak Vidyalaya, Dhawalpuri. Tq.Parner Dist.Ahmednagar - 414 103, through its i] President, Dr.Saeed Ahmed Kazi, age 53 yrs., occu.doctor r/o as above. ii] Secretary, Rehan Shafi Ahmed Kazi, age 31 yrs., occu.business, r/o as above. ...Petitioners.. Versus 1] The Union of India, through its Secretary, Ministry of Education, Government of India, Parliament House, New Delhi. 2] The Regional Director, Western Regional Committee, National Council for Teacher Education, Manad Bhavan, Shyamla Hills, Bhopal (M.P.). 3] National Council for Teachers Education, through its Member Secretary, Hans Bhavan, Wing II, 1, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi – 110 002. 4] The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Department of Education, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. ...Respondents... - 2 - ..... Shri S.P. Deshmukh, Advocate for petitioners. Shri Alok Sharma, Standing Counsel for respondent no.1. Shri S.S. Bora, Advocate for respondent no.2. Respondent no.3 served. Shri K.G. Patil, AGP for respondent no.4. ..... CORAM: MOHIT S. SHAH, CJ & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE: 25.08.2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Chief Justice): 1] What is challenged in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is the order dated 10.7.2008 of the National Council for Teacher Education (for short NCTE) refusing recognition for conducting D.Ed. (Marathi) (CO-ED) course on the ground that the petitioner-institution did not fulfill the requisite norms in respect of six requirements. 2] The NCTE found following six deficiencies : [1] Book not available as per NCTE norms; [2] Laboratory not properly equipped; [3] Stock Register not maintained; - 3 - [4] Space not available as per NCTE norms; [5] Furniture not available; and [6] Roof of the building is tin sheet. 3] The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that all the deficiencies were removed after the Western Regional Committee passed the impugned order dated 8.1.2008 and the petitioners had specifically mentioned in the appeal memo that the deficiencies were removed, however, without applying its mind to the facts and the grounds urged in the appeal memo, the Council dismissed the appeal by the impugned order dated 10.7.2008 and, therefore, the said order may be set aside and the Council may be directed to re-hear the appeal. 4] The learned counsel for the NCTE has submitted that the application for recognition was made by the petitioner-institution as far back as in the year 2005 and the decision was taken by the Western Regional Committee rejecting the application for recognition on 8.1.2008 and the appeal also came to be dismissed by the NCTE on 10.7.2008. It is further submitted that the matter may not be remanded to the Council to reconsider the petitioners’ application for recognition made five years back. Our attention is also invited to the following statements made in the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the NCTE : “[i] That the petitioner had submitted photographs of books to show the number of books which was not acceptable as the only reliable - 4 - proof of number of books in the library was the Accession Register. [ii] That the petitioner had submitted purchase bills to show that laboratories had all necessary equipments which were not acceptable as the only reliable proof of availability of equipments was the Dead Stock Register. [iii] That the petitioner submitted the copy of the register which contained the list of books treating it to be the stock register whereas the stock-register should have contained the details of furniture, equipments and other material. [iv] That the petitioner had submitted photographs of the college building to show the sufficiency of space whereas the proof of sufficiency of space was the copy of approved building plan and building completion certificate showing the total plot area and total built up area. [v] That the petitioner submitted the photograph and bills to show the availability of furniture whereas the reliable proof of availability of furniture was the Dead Stock Register. [vi] That the petitioner submitted photograph of building to show that the tin sheets were replaced by RCC whereas the petitioner should have submitted the appropriate certificate issued by the local authority.” It is submitted that in view of the above, it is open to the petitioners to make a fresh application for recognition and the same will be considered on its own - 5 - merits. 5] The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent no.4 submits that affidavit in reply is filed on behalf of the respondent no.4 pointing out that there are large number of institutions, which are imparting instructions for the D.Ed. course and the State of Maharashtra does not require any more D.Ed. colleges and, therefore, the State of Maharashtra is sending negative recommendations to the NCTE, Bhopal. 6] The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the NCTE has not rejected the petitioners’ application for recognition or the petitioners’ appeal on the ground of large number of institutions imparting instructions for D.Ed. course, the respondent no.4 has no locus standi to raise any objection on the grounds indicated in the affidavit in reply dated 27.4.2010. 7] The learned counsel for the NCTE also states that absence of No Objection Certificate of the State of Maharashtra was not the ground on which the petitioners’ application for recognition and the appeal have been dismissed. 8] In view of the above, without going into the contentions sought to be raised on behalf of the State of Maharashtra, we dispose of this petition with an observation that if the petitioners make a fresh application for recognition for establishing a D.Ed. college for the academic year 2011-2012, the respondent nos. - 6 - 1 to 3 shall consider the same in accordance with law without being inhibited by the impugned orders dated 8.1.2008 of the Western Regional Committee and that of the NCTE dated 10.7.2008. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of with no order as to costs. CHIEF JUSTICE (S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.) ndk/c258103