HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.1012 of 2010 (M/S) Maa Purnagiri College of Education .…Petitioner Versus Union of India & others ...Respondents Mr Parikshit Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. None appears for respondent no.1. Mr. Sudhir Singh, Advocate for respondent nos.2 & 3. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 05.05.2010 passed by respondent no.3 as well as order dated 22.12.2009 passed by respondent no.2. Further prayer has been made for a direction to the respondents to grant the recognition to the petitioner-institute for running B.Ed Course. 2. Counter affidavit on behalf of respondent nos.2 & 3 is filed in the Court today. Personal appearance of respondent no.2-Regional Director, Northern Regional Committee is exempted in future. 3. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner is an institution run by Maa Purnagiri College of Education, society registered under the Societies Registration Act. The petitioner applied for recognition of B.Ed Course before the respondent no.2. As per the procedure, the visiting team 2 inspected the petitioner-institution on 10.07.2009 and submitted a report to respondent no.2. On the basis of the said report the respondent no.2 issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 26/28.07.2009 in which eleven deficiencies were indicated. According to the petitioner the petitioner made good all the deficiencies. Thereafter, another visiting team visited the institution on 27.09.2009 and gave a report on all eleven points which were shown in the show cause notice. In the said report most of the deficiencies pointed out in the show cause notice were corrected but in respect of some deficiencies the visiting team recommended that relaxation may be given to the petitioner as petitioner- institution is situated in remote hill area and is providing education to the students of that area. Thereafter, the respondent no.2, after considering the report of the visiting team, passed an order on 22.12.2009 and found that deficiencies pointed out in show cause notice dated 04.08.2009 still exist and the respondent no.2 closed the file. Against the said order dated 22.12.2009 the petitioner filed appeal before the National Council of Teachers Education, New Delhi which was rejected on 05.05.2010. Aggrieved by these two orders present writ petition has been filed. 4. In paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit it is mentioned that the re-inspection which was made on 27.09.2009, the visiting team observed following deficiencies:- i. The college building was incomplete and was under construction. ii. Size of classrooms was not as per NCTE norms. 3 iii. Land is not in the name of Institution. iv. The sitting capacity in library was of 20 students which has been further extended to 40 students only. v. Science and Psychology laboratories are poorly maintained. vi. Internet facility does not exist. vii. The building is not conducive as a whole. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 & 3 submitted that since aforesaid deficiencies were found by the visiting team on 27.09.2009 matter of the petitioner for grant of approval was closed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to the report of visiting team dated 27.09.2009 in which it is mentioned that most of the deficiencies pointed out in the earlier show cause notice were corrected. 7. I also find that deficiencies mentioned in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit are contrary to the report submitted by second visiting team on 27.09.2009. It appears that report of second visiting team dated 27.09.2009 was not considered by the respondents. Consequently, the order dated 05.05.2010 passed by respondent no.3 and order dated 22.12.2009 passed by respondent no.2 are quashed. The respondent no.2 is directed to reconsider the matter of the petitioner for grant of recognition for B.Ed Course afresh by considering the report dated 27.09.2009 submitted by the second visiting team. Entire exercise shall be completed within a period of one month. 4 8. The writ petition is disposed of. Stay application no.4902 of 2010 as well as Misc. application no.6433 of 2010 also stand disposed of. 9. Let a certified copy of the order be given to the counsel for the parties within 24 hours on payment of usual charges. (V.K.Bist. J,) 11.08.2010 Arti 5