IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 20TH JULY 2009 / 29TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 19570 of 2009(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- C.H.MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST, KANHIRODE, KOODALI.KANNUR 670 592, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, SRI.ABDUL RAHIMAN KALLAI. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.PAREETH SRI.MOHAMMED SHAMEEL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. RAGIONAL DIRECTOR, NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION SOUTHERN REGIONAL COMMITTEE FIRST FLOOR CSD BUILDING, HMT. POST, BANGALORE-560 031. 2. NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION, HANS BHAVAN WING II, I, BAHADURSHAH ZAFAR MARG (ITO NEW DELHI) IIO OO2. 3. UNION OF INDIA,REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT CENTRAL, SECRETARAIAT, NEW DELHI. ADV. SRI.P.J.PHILIP, C.G.C FOR R3 ASG SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ....................... W.P.(C).19570/2009 ....................... Dated this the 20th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner claims to be an Educational and Charitable Trust. It is running an institution called 'Unity Teacher Training Institute' which was granted recognition under Section 14(3) of the NCTE Act. Annual intake for T.T.C for the academic session 2004-05, was 50 students. By Ext.P4, an additional intake of 50 students was also sanctioned. 2. While so, on 28.8.2008, petitioner was served a show cause notice requiring it to give an explanation in the matters mentioned therein. It is essentially relating to the petitioner shifting to its new premises and apparent delay on the part of the petitioner in that behalf. Petitioner gave a reply as Ext.P6. 3. Vide Ext.P7, another show cause notice dated 8.4.2009 was issued stating that the built up space made available by the petitioner is not adequate for the W.P.(C).19570/09 2 Teachers Training College. Petitioner submitted Ext.P8. By Ext.P9 order dated 25.6.2009, petitioner's recognition was withdrawn by the Regional Director. Petitioner has preferred Ext.P10 before the 2nd respondent. This writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P9 and also seeking appropriate directions for the maintenance of the recognition till a decision is taken on the appeal. 4. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent also. 5. Learned Standing Counsel submits that a decision will be taken on Ext.P10 appeal within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Submission is recorded. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of the 2nd proviso to Section 17(1) of NCTE Act, an order withdrawing the recognition shall be applied only at the end of the academic session during which the order is passed. He submits that therefore, W.P.(C).19570/09 3 Ext.P9 should be applied only with effect from the academic year 2010-11. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that 2nd proviso would only refer to the academic session, which is already underway, at a point of time when there was due recognition. He points out that the total intake of the petitioner is 100 and 50 seats out of the same, according to the petitioner, are to be filled up by students allotted by the Government and 50 seats by the management. As is evidenced by the documents produced along with I.A.8951/09, petitioner seems to have admitted 22 students in the Management quota, on 12.6.09 ie., prior to the service of Ext.P9 order dated 25.6.09. Saving clause brought about by the 2nd proviso to Section 17 would apply several only for the continuance of the aforementioned 22 students and will not enable the petitioner to admit students allotted by the Government or even enable the Government to allot students to the merit quota in the petitioner's institution. That will have to abide the orders to be passed by the appellate authority. Nor will this W.P.(C).19570/09 4 enable the petitioner to undertake fresh admissions in the remaining seats in the Management Quota. 6. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to pass orders on Ext.P10 appeal within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In the meanwhile, 22 students admitted by the petitioner to the Teachers Training Course for the academic year 2009-10, as evidenced by Exts.P13 to P16 shall be permitted to prosecute the course. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not effect further admission to the T.T.C, 2009-10, except after obtaining orders from the appellate authority. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs