IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER FRIDAY, THE 28TH AUGUST 2009 / 6TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 19659 of 2009(S) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ ARYAMOL.A, ARYA BHAVAN, MAWALAKAM, VENGODE, KUDAVOOR P.O., ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR. 2. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCAION, SOUTHERN REGIONAL COMMITTEE, IST FLOOR, CSD BUILDING, HMT POST, BANGALORE-560 031. R1 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.M.RAGOPALAN NAIR R2 BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KURIAN, SC, SRC-NCTE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. & A.K. Basheer, J. ------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.19659 of 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 28th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT Basheer, J. This public interest litigation is at the instance of a candidate who claims that she proposes to apply for admission to the B.Ed. course in one of the institutions being run by the University of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram. According to the petitioner, while she was about to apply for centralized allotment, she came to know that the National Council for Teacher Education had forbidden the University from inviting application, but nevertheless, the University has proceeded to do so. It is in the above circumstances that the petitioner has filed this writ petition with the following reliefs: “i) issue a writ restraining the respondent University from offering B.Ed. course through their college of teacher education without obtaining the recognition from the 2nd respondent as provided in Section 14(3)(a) of the NCTE Act. WP(C) No.19659 of 2009 - 2 - ii) issue a writ declaring that the respondent university cannot merely being the examining body and has the power to grant affiliation cannot bypass the requirements of law when B.Ed. course is offered, without complying the requirements of Central Act 73/1993. iii) issue a writ directing the 2nd respondent to take further action restraining the respondent university from running and conducting examinations in the teacher education colleges run by the respondent university without granting recognition as required under law.” 2. In response to the contentions raised by the petitioner, the University in its counter affidavit has refuted all the allegations. However, it is admitted by the University that the National Council for Teacher Education had in fact withdrawn the recognition for the institutions being run by the University for the previous academic year on noticing certain defects. Those defects, according to the University, had been WP(C) No.19659 of 2009 - 3 - cured. It is further contended by the University that an appeal as provided under Section 18 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been preferred by the University on July 29, 2009 and the appeal has already been admitted by the appellate authority and notice issued to respondent No.2 calling for its remarks. It is the further contention of the University that going by the provisions contained in sub-section (5) of Section 14 of the Act, the University is entitled to continue with the admissions for the current academic year. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner takes exception to the above contention raised by the University and asserts that the attempt of the University is to misinterpret the said provision. 3. We have also perused the statement filed by respondent No.2. It is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that the recognition was withdrawn for the previous academic year due to certain defects. It is also pointed out that respondent No.2 has interdicted the University from making WP(C) No.19659 of 2009 - 4 - admissions for the current academic year. 4. Anyhow, we do not propose to make any observation on the above aspect at this stage since the statutory appellate authority is in seisin of the matter. In our view, the statutory appellate authority has necessarily to consider all those aspects and pass appropriate orders, either interim or final, in accordance with law. Writ petition is closed. S.R.Bannurmath, Chief Justice A.K. Basheer, Judge vns