IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.16368 of 2008 Date of decision : 15th September, 2008 Modern Shiksha Samiti … Petitioner Versus Director, National Council for Teachers Education and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present : Mr. Jitender Nara, Advocate for the petitioner. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. Present civil writ petition has been filed by Modern Shiksha Samiti (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the society’) praying that National Council for Teachers Education through its Director and Regional Director, North Regional Committee, A-46, Shanti Path, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as, ‘NCTE’) be directed to carry physical verification/ inspection of the college of the petitioner society and to give approval for starting B.Ed. Course for session 2008-09. It has been further prayed that a direction be given to the Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak to inspect the college of petitioner-society for affiliation purposes. A further direction has been sought to Kurukshetra University to allow the Civl Writ Petition No. 16368 of 2008 college of petitioner society to participate in the counseling for B.Ed. for the session 2008-09. In the writ petition, it has been averred that the petitioner is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Petitioner- society proposes to impart education of B.Ed. (Bachelor of Education), for which recognition is to be granted by the respondent-NCTE. Case of the petitioner is that vide Annexure P-1 dated 28.01.2008, an application was submitted to Regional Director, Northern Region, NCTE, Jaipur along with a duly filled application form. On 10th June, 2008, vide Annexure P-4, the petitioner society was informed that application was deficient. The letter was replied and certain deficiencies pointed out in the application form were allegedly cured and a letter to this effect (Annexure P-5) was submitted on 21st June, 2008. Again on 14th July, 2008, certain deficiencies were pointed out by the NCTE vide Annexure P- 6 and the same was duly replied by the petitioner – society vide Annexure P-7. On 23rd July, 2008, vide Annexure P-8, NCTE called upon the petitioner society to inform in the format enclosed as to whether various infrastructural instructional facilities have been created as per norms and standards of NCTE or not. Petitioner society was further asked to send documentary evidence for the provision of infrastructural and instructional facilities as per regulations of NCTE, so that visiting team could be sent. In reply to Annexure P-8, Annexure P-9 was written by the petitioner society, in which it was stated that the college of the petitioner society has completed its entire preparation for conducting its physical verification. It was requested to the NCTE to depute their visiting team to inspect the college of the petitioner society. During course of arguments, counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon Annexure P-11 to contend that in case of all complete 2 Civl Writ Petition No. 16368 of 2008 applications pending with the Regional Committees are to be processed for the current academic session i.e. 2008-2009 in accordance with the provisions of relevant Regulations and maintaining the chronological sequence and final decision, either recognition granted or refused, is to be communicated by 31st August, 2008. In another case titled ‘V.P. College of Education v. National Council for Teachers Education and others’, Civil Writ Petition No. 16027 of 2008 decided on 9th September, 2008, we had examined para 7.4 of the Notification issued by NCTE, wherein it has been stated that inspection is to be conducted within 30 days of the receipt of consent of the institution. A perusal of para 7.4 of the Notification will show that at first instance, Regional Committee has to record its satisfaction that all deficiencies have been removed. Thereafter, inspection is to be carried so far as administratively and logistically possible in a chronological order of the date of receipt of consent of the institutions and in case the consent from more than one institutions is received on the same day, alphabetical order is to be followed. We are of the view that para 7.4 of the Notification of NCTE is not a mandatory but directory and is dependant upon various factors to be fulfilled: (a) Satisfaction to be recorded by the Regional Committee; (b) Administrative and logistical possibility; (c) Chronological order of the receipt of consent of the institutions; and (d) If the consent is received on the same day from more than one institution, same is to be followed in an alphabetical order. 3 Civl Writ Petition No. 16368 of 2008 We are conscious that Annexure P-9, which petitioner insist, should be construed as a consent of the society, is dated 4th August, 2008. Therefore, one month after the consent of the society, if argument of the counsel is assumed to be correct, it will take the case of the petitioner on 4th September, 2008. Petitioner has rushed to this Court on 11th September, 2008 and approached for seeking all relief, which is dependant on many things. This kind of hurry on the part of petitioner cannot be appreciated. Until petitioner satisfies us as to on what date the Regional Committee has recorded its satisfaction, and on what date the consent had reached NCTE, we cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner. Hence, we find no merit in the present writ petition and the same is dismissed. [HEMANT GUPTA] JUDGE [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE September 15, 2008. rps 4