d^l INJTHE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) W.P. (Cl No.SP^^-of 2011 PETITIONER Ramkrishna Institute of Education, run by Shri Rain Gramin Vikas Sansthan (A Registered Society), through the Director, B.R. Shanna, S/o Late Shri J.P. Sharma, aged about 78 years, Registered Office at 94, Sunder Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS •y"l--0t'*. .xs^^' n^-:yy ^y^ 1. National Council for Teacher Education, through the Secretary, Wing-II, Hansh Bhawan-I, Bahadur Shah Jafar Marg, New Delhi. 2. ^ Regional Director National Council for Teacher Education, Westem Regional Committee, Manas Bhawan, Shyamala Hills, Bhopal (M.P.) 3. ^ 4. ^ The Coinmissioner, Education Department, Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Pt. Ravishankar Higher D.K.S. Shukla '"•«. University, through the Registrar, Raipur (C.G.) -y^ .-yr WRIT PETITION UNDER .^IT!CLE^226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA The petitioner named above inost respectfully begs to subinit as under:- 1. PARTICULARS OF THE Pm'ITIONER : As stated above in the cause title. 2. PARTICULARS OF THE RBSPONDENTS HIQH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT B1LASPUR WRIT PETITiONIC) Np, 2087 pf 201 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Ramkrishna Institute of Education VERSUS Nationat Council for Teacher Educafion &0thers WRIT PETITIQN UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'bte Shri SaUsh K. Aflnihotri, J. Present: Shri Prateek Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Bhaskar Payasi, Advocate for the respondent No.1 Shri AJay Dwivedi, Deputy Govemment Advocate for the State. ORDERfORALI (Passed on 13th day of May, 2011) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Leamed counsel appearing for tfte petitioner submite that the impugned order dated 11-03-2011 (Annexure P/1) was passed by the Vice Chairpereon, NaUonal Council for Teacher Education ignoring the prefile of staff granted by the respondent No.4 on 7-12-2010 (Page 58 of the petrtion). Despite that, the impugned order was passed derecognizing the petitioner institute on the ground that the staff profite was ntit duly approved by the university. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 & 2 submits that the impugned order dated 11-03-2011 v»aspassed on the basis of order passed by the Westem Regional Committee on 2-12-2010 (Annexure P/17) and the approval was accorded by the unh/erstty, thus, thereafter, the same could not be considered while passing the impugned order. 4. !n view of foregoing, the respondent authorities are directad to consider the approva! granted by ths unh/ersity and pass appropriate order, in accordance with taw, as eariy as posslble, preferabty wHhin a period of three weeks. Tilt the recognition/approval of the unh/ersity is considered fn respect of staff profite and proper order is passed, in accordance with law, the impugned order dated 11-3-2011 shall not be given effect to. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. —-=— Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Gowri