1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR. WRIT PETITION NO. 7664 OF 2011. *** Venus Public Education Society. vs. National Council for Teacher Education and others. **** CONTEMPT CASE NO. 677 OF 2011. *** Venus Public Education Society. vs. Dr. Harihar Sharan Tripathi and others. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DB : HON'BLE SHRI S.K.GANGELE & HON'BLE SHRI G.D. SAXENA , JJ. Shri H.D. Gupta, Sr. Advocate, with Shri D.K. Agarwal, Advocate, for petitioner. Shri Tapan Trivedi, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 and 2. Shri Raghvendra Dixit, Government Advocate, for respondent No.3. ....................................................................................................... Whether approved for Reporting : ....................................................................................................... O R D E R. (Passed on this 07th day of December, 2011) Per S.K. Gangele, J. - 1. Petitioner has filed this petition in regard to grant of recognition for the academic session 2011-2012. The petitioner also filed Contempt Case No. 677/2011 for non- compliance of the order dated 28.07.2011 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 4541/2011. 2 2. Because the facts of both cases are inter-connected, hence, both the cases have been heard together and those are being decided by this common order. 3. After considering various aspects of the case, this Court disposed of the Writ Petition No.4541/2011 with the following directions :- “8. From the afore-quoted provision it is clear that NCTE has a right to inspect premises of the institution at the time of grant of recognition in order to verify certain requirements. In the present case, the inspection of the petitioner's institution was conducted and thereafter some deficiencies were found. The petitioner submitted a reply and in pursuance to the order of the Appellate Authority a two-member team again inspected premises of the petitioner's institution and submitted its report. On the basis of the aforesaid report, the Appellate Authority vide order dated 11.03.2011 set aside the earlier order of WRC dated 03.08.2010 and directed the WRC to consider the application of the petitioner for grant of recognition. In such circumstances, in our opinion, the inspection of the petitioner's institution vide order, Annexure R-1 is contrary to law. It is also contrary to the order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 11.03.2011. Hence, the petition of the petitioner is disposed of with the following directions :- (i) That the decision of respondent No. 1 for inspection of the petitioner's institution vide letter dated 22.07.2011 is hereby quashed; (ii) The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of recognition in accordance with the order passed by Appellate Authority dated 11.03.2011. (iii) The case of the petitioner shall be considered for grant of recognition within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (iv) No order s to costs.” 4. In pursuance to the aforesaid direction the Western Regional Committee considered the case of the petitioner and a letter of intent was issued to the petitioner – 3 institution for grant of recognition for D.El.ED. two years course. Thereafter, on 27.10.2011 a recognition order has been issued in favour of the petitioner – institution. By the aforesaid order the National Council for Teacher Education granted recognition to the petitioner – institution to conduct D.EL.ED. course of secondary level of two years with an intake of 50 for academic session 2012-2013. 5. Learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of petitioner, has contended that deliberately the recognition has been granted by the respondents from academic session 2012-2013, however, the petitioner filed the application for grant of recognition from academic session 2009-2010. This Court directed the respondents to consider the application in view of the appellate order. Hence, it was obligatory on the part of the respondents to grant recognition to the petitioner – institution for the academic session 2011-2012. 6. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents has contended that the respondents have considered the case of the petitioner – institution in accordance with law and granted recognition to the petitioner – institution from the academic session 2012-2013 because the academic session 2011-2012 had already commenced at the time of grant of recognition. Learned Counsel fairly admitted that except this reason, there is no other reason for not to grant recognition to the petitioner - institution from academic session 2011-2012. 7. The petitioner – institution applied to the National Council for Teacher Education for grant of recognition to conduct D.El.ED. course for the year 2009-2010. The institution was inspected on 25.05.2010. There were some deficiencies noticed by the inspecting team, hence, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner – institution on 4 15.06.2010. The petitioner in its reply submitted that it had cured the deficiencies. Thereafter, the Western Regional Committee in its 136th meeting held on 5th to 7th June 2010 rejected the application for grant of recognition. Against the aforesaid order petitioner filed an appeal and the Appellate Court remanded the matter back to Western Regional Committee for taking a final decision and thereafter the Western Regional Committee decided to have another inspection. That was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in Writ Petition No. 4541/2011. This Court directed the Western Regional Committee to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with the order of the Appellate Authority dated 11.03.2011. Thereafter, the case of the petitioner was to be considered in the meeting of the Western Regional Committee, scheduled to be held on 18th to 20th August 2011, however, due to fracture to the leg of the son of the Chairman, WRC, the meeting was held on 11.09.2011 to 12.09.2011 and thereafter a letter of intent was issued to the petitioner – institution and consequently the recognition order in regard to grant of recognition for the academic session 2012-2013 has been issued in favour of the petitioner – institution. 8. In this view of the matter, in our opinion, the petitioner is entitled to have recognition for the academic session 2011-2012 also because the case of the petitioner was pending before the Western Regional Committee and in pursuance to the directions of this Court dated 28.07.2010 passed in Writ Petition No. 4541/2010 it was obligatory on the part of the respondents to include the claim of the petitioner for recognition from academic session 2011-2012 also. In our opinion, the respondents have deliberately not included the same due to pendency of the contempt 5 proceedings and other proceedings. 9. Hence, the contempt petition as well as the writ petition, both are disposed of with a direction that in the recognition order dated 27.10.2011, Annexure P-1, it be also added that the petitioner is entitled for recognition for the D.El.ED. Course with an annual intake of 50 for academic session 2011-2012 also. (S.K.Gangele) (G.D. Saxena) Judge Judge (07.12.2011). (07.12.2011). Sst/-