IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2008 / 22ND ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 7443 of 2008(J) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- N.S.S TRAINING COLLEGE, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER/ SECRETARY, N.S.S COLLEGES' CENTRAL COMMITTEE, CHANGANACHERRY. BY ADV. SRI.R.KRISHNA RAJ. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION, SOTHERN REGIONAL COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, 125, INFANTRY ROAD, BANGLORE. 2. NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION , REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY, C-2/10, SRI.AUROBUNDO MARG, SAFDARGANG DEVELOPMENT AREA, NEW DELHI. 3. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, TENHIPALAM, CALICUT. ADV. SRI.V.M.KURIAN, SC, SRC-NCTE FOR R1 & R2. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/10/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.7443/2008-J: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ORDER OF N.C.T.E. DTD. 18/10/2000. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ORDER OF N.C.T.E. DTD. 03/05/2001. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE PETITIONER DTD. 01/06/2005. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE NORMS OF N.C.T.E. DTD. 10/06/2005. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE FACULTIES APPROVED BY THE UNIVERSITY DTD. NIL. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P. NO. 15283/2001 DTD. 25/08/2006. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 23/05/2007. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE RECEIPT. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE LETTER DTD. 29/09/1995. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE RESPONDENT DTD. 04/10/1996. EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE RESPONDENT DTD. 12/03/1998. EXT.P.12: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE RESPONDENT DTD. 01/07/1999. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. prv. V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No. 7443 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 14th October, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner runs a Training College in Palakkad, which was established by the Nair Service Society under its corporate management. The college was set up in the year 1960. It seems that at present there are 300 students studying for the B.Ed Course for various subjects. M.Ed course was also started in the year 1995- 96. The NCTE Act, 1993 was enforced with effect from 1st July, 1995. But apparently, the M.ED course had been started during 1995-1996, as evidenced by Exhibit P9 communication sent by the Government on 29.9.1995. It seems that Government had approved the starting of M.Ed course in the Petitioner’s college from the year 1995-96. Calicut University had also accorded sanction for the creation of three additional posts of Lecturers in the year 1996-1997 in response to the petitioner’s request for sanctioning four additional posts of Lecturers W.P ( C) No. 7443 of 2008 2 consequent upon the starting of M.Ed course during the year 1995-96. Appointments effected by the petitioner were approved by the Calicut University, as evidenced by Exhibits P11 and P12 orders. 2. Petitioner had sought for approval of the NCTE. But such approval was declined as per Exhibit P1 order. The only reason stated therein was that there is no separate staff as per the NCTE norms. This order was affirmed by the appellate body as per Exhibit P2 order dated 3.5.2001. Petitioner challenges Exhibits P1 and 2 orders in O.P. No.15283 of 2001. It seems that on the strength of the interim order passed in the said original petition, the petitioner continued to function with fresh intake of students from year to year . 3. When O.P. No.15283 of 2001 came up for final hearing in 2006, this court noted that the rejection was mainly on the ground that petitioner’s college did not appoint separate teachers for P.G Course. This court could not accept the petitioner’s contention that subsequently additional qualified teachers had been appointed for W.P ( C) No. 7443 of 2008 3 handling M.Ed course. Such appointments had been approved also, as evidenced by Exhibit P5. The said writ petition was therefore disposed of recording the submission of the counsel for the NCTE that if the petitioner makes a fresh representation in the light of subsequent developments, it will be considered and orders passed thereon. Petitioner was therefore permitted to move the NCTE for appropriate orders for recognition of M.Ed course within one month from the date of judgment. Petitioner submits that he had submitted Exhibit P7 representation on 23.5.2007. Obviously even going by Exhibit P7, it was not within one month from the date of judgment. The time for submission of representation was later extended till 23.5.2007, the date which Exhibit P7 bears. Decision has not been taken on Exhibit P7. This writ petition was filed seeking a direction to the respondents to grant recognition to the petitioner for M.Ed course with an intake of 25 students. Later by an amendment, challenge was mounted against Exhibit P2 also. W.P ( C) No. 7443 of 2008 4 4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent . It is pointed out that though under Exhibit P6 judgment petitioner was permitted to move a representation within one month from the date of judgment, it was not done. About nine months later, an Interlocutory Application was filed in O.P.No.15283 of 2001 seeking enlargement of time. Time was allowed up to 23.5.2007 as per order dated 29.2.2008. Even within the extended time, petitioner did not file the representation. NCTE of the Southern Regional Committee has not received Exhibit P7 representation. Therefore, they have expressed their inability to consider Exhibit P7. 5. Petitioner later filed I.A No.9322 of 2008 producing therewith Exhibit P8. It seems to be a receipt issued by a courier service evidencing the despatch of a letter by the counsel for the petitioner to the Director of the Southern Regional Committee of the NCTE, Bangalore. 6. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 7. Challenge against Exhibit-P2 cannot be W.P ( C) No. 7443 of 2008 5 considered in the light of the fact that earlier writ petition was disposed of under Exhibit P6 judgment. Ideally petitioner should have filed a representation as permitted under Exhibit-P6. That would have been taken note of by the NCTE and naturally going by the spirit of directions contained in Exhibit-P6, respondent would have considered the question of approval of the petitioner for the M.Ed course, dehors Exhibits P1 and P2 in the light of subsequent developments. But representation was not submitted as permitted by this Court. In the circumstances, all that can be permitted in so far as the petitioner is concerned is a liberty to file an application within a time frame with a direction to respondents to consider the same in the same manner they would have considered the representation as permitted under Exhibit-P6 judgment. 7. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of in the following terms: i) The petitioner may , if so advised, submit an application for recognition of M.Ed course by the NCTE in terms of the provisions of the NCTE Act. If W.P ( C) No. 7443 of 2008 6 such application is filed within two weeks from today, the 1st respondent shall as an exceptional case, consider the same and pass orders within one month from the date of receipt of the application taking note of Exhibits P3, P4 and P5. 2. Since the students were admitted to the petitioner's institution during the pendency of the earlier writ petition leading to Exhibit P6 judgment on the strength of the interim order passed in O.P. No.15283 of 2001, it is made clear that the completion of course by the said students shall not be disturbed or otherwise brought under a cloud by reason of the fact that petitioner is now required to seek recognition. (V.GIRI,JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No. 7443 of 2008 7 W.P ( C) No. 7443 of 2008 8 W.P ( C) No. 7443 of 2008 9 W.P ( C) No. 7443 of 2008 10