1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2588 OF 2010 Shri Durgamata Bahu Uddeshiya Krida And Shaikshanik Sanstha’s Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj College of M.Ed., Parbhani, through its Vice President Shri Kapil Gajananrao Gaikwad, Age 31 years, Occu.Agriculture, R/o Pedgaon, Tq. and Dist.Parbhani ..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. National Council for Teachers Education, Hans Bhavan, Wing-II, 1, Bhahdurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi 110 002 Through its Member Secretary 2. The National Council for Teachers Education, Western Regional Committee, Manas Bhavan, Shamla Hills Bhopal (M.P.), Through its Regional Director ..RESPONDENTS Mr.V.D.Hon, Advocate for petitioner Mr.S.S.Bora, Advocate for respondents 1 and 2 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ DATE : 20th July 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V.HARDAS, J.) 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2 2. This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impugns the communication of the National Council for teachers Education, dated 31.8.2009, rejecting the permission to the petitioner – institute for conducting M.Ed.(M.(Co) Education) course. The petitioner also impugns the order passed by the appellate authority, dated 5.1.2010 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner. 3. Briefly stated the facts as are germane for decision of the present present petition are - That the petitioner who was desirous of starting a course of M.Ed.(M.(Co) Education) course submitted a proposal to the respondents on 3.7.2007. The petitioner was informed that the team of expert would be visiting the institute of the petitioner on 16.4.2009. The team, accordingly visited the institute and submitted its report on 4.7.2009. A show-cause notice came to be issued to the petitioner dated 11.8.2009 informing the petitioner that the staff appointed by the petitioner was not qualified as per the National Council for Teachers Education norms i.e. they did not hold the requisite qualifications. Ultimately, the order impugned in the present petition came to be passed on 31.8.2009 declining to grant permission to the petitioner for the said course. The petitioner, who was aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 31.8.2009 preferred an appeal 3 before the appellate authority of the National Council for Teachers Education. The appeal filed by the petitioner also came to be dismissed. 4. It appears that the principal ground for declining to grant permission to the petitioner for starting the said course is that two of its staff members did not hold the requisite qualifications as per the norms set out by the National Council for Teachers Education. The petitioner had submitted before the appellate authority that it was willing to substitute the names of those teachers whom the National Council for Teachers Education did not consider as eligible and permission may be granted to the petitioner for substituting their names by names of persons who were eligible. It appears that the appellate authority did not consider the said request and ultimately dismissed the appeal. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged before us that the sole ground for refusing permission to the petitioner is that two staff members did not hold the requisite qualifications and were ineligible. It is urged before us that an opportunity ought to have been granted to the petitioner of substituting the names of the ineligible staff members by the staff members who were eligible. It is stated that the petitioner had produced the Bio- data, which included the qualifications of the proposed staff 4 members and as per the qualifications, the staff members were eligible. Our attention has also been invited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.7576 of 2009, Rashtriya Anusuchit Jati Jamati Alpasankhyank Gramin Vikas Mandal Pimpalgaon Vs. The Union of India and others, dated 5.2.2010, to which one of us, (N.D.Deshpande, J.) was a member. The Division Bench at sub para of paragraph 6 had held thus : “ We are also of the view that if and in case, it is so revealed in the enquiry, that any member of the staff is not qualified and the NCTE cannot accept him, the NCTE shall permit the petitioner to substitute the ineligible candidate by submitting the name of an eligible candidate. This would be an exercise in removing deficiencies.” 6. In the light of the ratio of the aforesaid judgment which squarely applicable to the facts of the present case, according to us, an opportunity ought to have been extended to the petitioner to substitute the names of the ineligible staff members by the names of the staff members who were eligible. Since the petitioner was denied that opportunity, according to us, the impugned orders are unsustainable in law. We, accordingly, allow this petition, quash and set aside the impugned orders and direct 5 the petitioner, if he so desires, to appear before the respondent No.2 within one week from today and submit a revised proposal which would include the names of the eligible staff members by substituting the names of the two staff members who were held to be ineligible. In addition thereto, the petitioner may also submit other documents which the petitioner may consider to be relevant and important. We further direct the respondent No.2 to consider the proposal of the petitioner afresh, in accordance with law, at its first monthly meeting. The respondent No.2 may consider the proposal of the petitioner for the academic year 2010-2011, if the time schedule so permits. 7. Rule made absolute on the above terms with no orders as to costs. 8. Copy of this judgment duly authenticated by the Sheristedar of this Court be provided to the learned Counsel for the parties to act upon. ( N.D.DESHPANDE ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE (vvr/2588.10wp) 6