\\^ HIGH GOURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (Cl N0.3268 OF 2007 PETITIONERS 1. Sushil Chandrakar, S/o Shri Narayan Chandrakar, aged about 42 yeare, Secretary, B.I.I.T. Coilege, Pulgaon Road, Durg (CG). 2. S. Sajeev, S/o Shri K. Sudhakaran, aged 36 years, Secretary, Bhilai Maitri College, Bhilal, District Durg (CG). 3. R.K. Shukla, S/o Shri G.P. Shukla, aged 35 years, Secretary, Bhilai Cotlege of information Technology, Nehru Nagar, Bhitai, Tah.& DistrictDurg (CG). 4. ^sociation of Private Professional Unaided Colleges of Chhattisgarhthrough its General Secretary M. Tahir Khan, S/o Late Ismail Khan, aged about 57 years, R/o Rungta Cotlege of Engineering & Technology, Kokha, Kurud Road, Bhitai, District Durg(CG). Versus 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretery, School Education Department, D.K.S.Bhawan, Mantralaya, Ralpur. 2. Dir^tor, State Educatton Researeh & TrainingCouncil.Shankar Nagar, Raipur. 3. The Registrar, Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University, Raipur (CG). 4. The Regtstrar, Guru Ghasidas Univeristy, Bilaspur (CG). (Writ petition underArticie 226/227 ofthe ConsBtutionof India) Singie Bench : Hon'bte Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Yashwant Tiwari, eounselfor the petitioners. Shri Vinay Harit, Dy. Advocate General for ttie State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 10ut day of December, 2008) With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties,.tte petition is heard finally. RESPONDENTS — L- 2) By this petition, the petitioners are seeking following reliefe from this Court: "7.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may please to direct the respondents to allow the students who have not appeared in Pre B.Ed. Test but are eligible and admitted against the vacant seats after counseling asper the guideiines and norms of the N.C.T.E. (or) 7.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may please to extend the date of final examination which are going to be held on 5-6-20)7Dp till any further suitable date." 3) The brief facts, in nutehell, as projected by the petitioners, are that the petifioners are private professional unakled colleges who are running B.Ed. courses and have recQgnition from National Council of Teachers' Education (NCTE) and haviro their affiliation from Uie respondent No.3. The institutions of the petitioners areself-financed institutions and they are totally dependant on the fees, which they are receiving from thestudents. Earlier the petitioner No.4, herein, filed a writ petitton bearing W.P.No. 6351/2006 (Associationof Private Professional Unaided Colleges of Chhattisgarh vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others) by seeking various reliefe. As per the directions issued bythis Court from timeto time, the petitioners submitted required information/documents before the respondent No.2, but e respondente are not issuing the admission cards in favour of the studente to appear in the final examination, which is against the directions of this Court and due to inaction on the part of the respondents, the students of the petitioners institutfons are facing several problems. 4) At the very outset, iearned counsel appearing for the respective parties submit that the present case is squarely covered by the writ petition inthe matter of Association of Private ProTessional Unaided Colieges of Chhattisgarh (supra) and other connected matters, which have already been decided by this Court by order dated 9-4-2008. 6-i|I<S%it;: -3. s I'i fffc-f 5) It is admitted by learned counsel appearing for the parties that the facts of the present case are same as that of AssociatiQnof Private Professional Unaided Colleges of Chhattisgarh (supra). Thus, this petition is disposed of in t'ne same terms as follows : "20. As already pointed out that the petitioner institution admitted such students to B.Ed. course, who did not participate in the counseling, as they were not selected or did not participate in the entrance test conducted for admission to B.Ed. course, in contravention of Rules 3, 6 &8 of Rules, 2006 as also in contravention of Regulation 3.3 of Regulations, 2006 framed by the NCTE. Since the students were admitted in utter violation of the statutory provisions for admission in this regard, the institution as also the studente being fuiiy aware that they could give admission through counseling and not othemise, even then they admitted the students in contravention of statutory provisions and in such circumstances no equity lies in favour of the petitioners and the petitioners cannot be granted the relief claimed inthe petition." 6) Consequently, I.A.No.1 also stands disposed of. Gowri Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge