1 wp-4950-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4950 OF 2010 Sadhana Education Society’s D.Ed. College (English Medium) ..Petitioners versus The Regional Director, Western Region Committee NCTE & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. C. K. Thomas i/b. C. K. Thomas & Associates for Petitioners. Mr. Uday Warunjikar i/b. Mr. Nitesh Bhutekar for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2. Mr. S. R. Nargolkar – G.P. for Respondent No. 3. CORAM : D. D. SINHA AND MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATED : JULY 27, 2010. P.C. : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and the learned Government Pleader for respondent no. 3. 2. Writ petition is directed against the impugned communication dated 3rd / 15th March, 2009 issued by the Regional Director, National Council for Teachers Education, whereby the petitioner is informed thus : 2 wp-4950-10 “AND WHEREAS, WRC considered the case of the institution in light of letters F. No. 46-3/2008/NCTE (N&S)/84003 dt. 17 Sep, 2008, F. No. 49-27/2007/NCTE (N&S) dt. 1 October, 2008 and F.No. 49-27/2007/ NCTE(N&S) dt. 31 October, 2008 received from Member Secretary, NCTE, New Delhi and negative recommendation received from Maharashtra State Govt. in respect of D.Ed. Course. Keeping in view of the negative recommendation received from the Maharashtra State Government in respect of D.Ed. Course and directions received from NCTE Hqs, the WRC decided that no further processing will be done in this case and communication to this effect to be made to this institution.” 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that the issue is no longer res integra and is covered by the Division Bench decision of this Court dated 6th November, 2009 rendered in writ petition no. 5834 of 2009 (Manganga Shikshan Sanstha Bhimai Ambedkar Adhyapak Vidyalay vs. National Council for Teachers Education, Western Regional Committee & Ors.). It is therefore contended that for the reasons stated in the said judgment, the impugned communication may kindly be quashed and set aside and the matter may be remanded back to the Authorities for reconsideration. 3 wp-4950-10 4. The learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and the learned G.P. for the respondent no.3 do not dispute the factual and legal aspect of the matter including the fact that the issue involved is covered by the said decision. 5. In the back-drop of the above referred undisputed facts, it appears that the issue involved in the present writ petition is covered by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court, referred to herein above. In the circumstances, for the reasons stated in the said decision, impugned communication dated 3rd /15th March 2009 is set aside. Matter is remanded back to respondent nos. 1 and 2 for considering the application de novo. It will be open to the respondent nos. 1 and 2 to also consider the recommendation of the State Government, if any, while taking a decision. The case of the petitioner now be considered for ensuing academic session. For the reasons stated herein above, the writ petition is disposed of accordingly. (D. D. SINHA, J.) (MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)