IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 5TH OCTOBER 2010 / 13TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 29284 of 2010(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER : ----------------- ALLAMA IQBAL MEMORIAL NATIONAL FOUNDATION FOR EDUCATION AND TRAINING, P.B.NO.4464, ERNAKULAM NORTH, KOCHI-682 018, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, SHRI. T.A.AHMED KABEER. BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.SURESH KUMAR SMT.M.SINDHU THANKAM RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY, HANS BHAVAN, WING-II, I, BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG, NEAR ITO, NEW DELHI-110 002. 2. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, SOUTHERN REGIONAL COMMITTEE, NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION, 1ST FLOOR, CSD BUILDING, HMT POST, BANGALORE-560 031. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KURIAN, SC, SRC-NCTE R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. T.K. ARAVINDKUMAR BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 29284 of 2010(I) -2- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF ORDER DATED 9.12.2004 ISSUED BY THE NATIONALCOUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION. EXT.P2: COPY OF ORDER DATED 23.2.2005 ISSUED BY THE NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION. EXT.P3: COPY OF ORDER DATED 01.10.2007 ISSUED BY THE NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION. EXT.P4: COPY OF ORDER DATED 10.06.2008 ISSUED BY THE NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION. EXT.P5: COPY OF COMPLETION CERTIFICATE DATED 9.7.2009 ISSUED BY ASST. EXE. ENGINEER, PWD. EXT.P6: COPY OF ORDER NO. F. SRO/NCTE/2009-2010/8687 DATED 4.5.2010 ISSUED BY THE SOUTHERN REGIONAL COMMITTEE OF NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION. EXT.P6(a):COPY OF ORDER NO.F. SRO/NCTE/2009-2010/8686 DATED 4.5.2010 ISSUED BY THE SOUTHERN REGIONAL COMMITTEE OF NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION. EXT.P6(b):COPY OF ORDER NO.F. SRO/NCTE/2009-2010/8688 DATED 4.5.2010 ISSUED BY THE SOUTHERN REGIONAL COMMITTEE OF NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION. EXT.P7: COPY OF NORMS AND STANDARDS FOR SECONDARY TEACHER EDUCATION PROGRAMME LEADING TO BACHELOR OF EDUCATION (B.Ed.) DEGREE ISSUED IN THE YEAR 2007. EXT.P8: COPY OF NORMS AND STANDARDS FOR BACHELOR OF EDUCATION PROGRAMME LEADING TO BACHELOR OF EDUCATION (B.Ed) DEGREE ISSUED ON 31.8.2009. EXT.P9: COPY OF APPEAL DATED 9.6.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION UNDER SEC. 18 OF NCTE ACT. EXT.P10(a): COPY OF ORDER NO. F. NO. 89-654/2010 – APPEAL DATED 22.09.2010 PASSED BY VICE – CHAIRPERSON, NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION. EXT.P10(b): COPY OF ORDER NO. F. NO. 89-655/2010 – APPEAL DATED 22.09.2010 PASSED BY VICE – CHAIRPERSON, NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION. EXT.P10(c): COPY OF ORDER NO. F. NO. 89-669/2010 – APPEAL DATED 22.09.2010 PASSED BY VICE – CHAIRPERSON, NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C) No.29284 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 5th day of October 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a Trust, which has established Educational institutions with the recognition of the 1st respondent. In this writ petition, they are aggrieved by Ext.P10 series of orders. 2. In so far as it is relevant, the facts are that, by Ext.P1 order the 1st respondent granted recognition to the petitioner for conducting TTC course. Thereafter, Ext.P2 order was issued granting recognition for B.Ed course. This was followed by Ext.P3 granting recognition for M.Ed course. Again Ext.P4 order was issued on 10.6.2008 granting recognition for an additional batch of B.Ed course. Accordingly petitioner commenced the courses. 3. It is stated that thereafter certain complaints W.P.(C) No.29284 of 2010 -: 2 :- were received against the petitioner's institution which led to an inspection conducted by a team deputed by the 2nd respondent. Based on the report submitted by the Inspection Team, 2nd respondent passed Ext.P6 series of orders on 4.5.2010 stating that the infrastructure provided by the petitioner was inadequate and on that basis, the recognition granted for conducting courses in M.Ed and B.Ed were cancelled. Petitioner filed appeals before the 1st respondent. Appeals were finally heard on 18.8.2010, but orders were not passed. It is in these circumstances, seeking expeditious disposal of the appeals and also seeking to impugne Ext.P6 order, this writ petition was filed. 4. Pursuant to the directions of this Court, appeals have been disposed of by Ext.P10 series of orders of the 1st respondent whereby, the 1st respondent has restored one batch of B.Ed course to the petitioner but upheld the orders derecognizing M.Ed and Additional B.Ed courses. The main reason stated in Ext.P10 series of orders reads thus:- W.P.(C) No.29284 of 2010 -: 3 :- “The building completion certificate dt.06.07.09 mentioned the availability of 28827 sq.ft. or 2679 sq.mt of area with R.C.C. roof on ground floor and first floor and 3000 sq.ft of area with ACC roof on second floor. So, excluding the ACC roof area of 3,000 sq.ft, it was having only 2676 sq.mt. of built-up area and it would be adequate for the existing T.T.C. Programme and a unit of B.Ed. Programme. In view of the above, the Council came to the conclusion that there was adequate justification in accepting the appeal with the direction to the SRC for restoring the recognition of the B.Ed. programme with an intake of 100 only and for addition unit of B.Ed programme & M.Ed programme the recognition stands withdrawn.” 5. In this writ petition, what survives is the validity of Ext.P10 series of orders. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Ext.P4 order granting recognition for additional batch of B.Ed course was issued by the 2nd respondent only after the physical verification of the infrastructure provided by the petitioner. It is stated that during inspection the respondents were satisfied about the infrastructure provided by the petitioner and that they were also satisfied all the requirements laid W.P.(C) No.29284 of 2010 -: 4 :- down in the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2007 have been complied with. It is stated that subsequently even if it is found that the infrastructure provided is inadequate, having regard to the recognition as already granted by the 1st respondent and atleast a breathing time to rectify the inadequacies should have been granted. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents relied on Clause 8(11) of National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2005 and Clause 8(10) of National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2007 and contended that institutions shall comply the requirements laid down in the norms and standards prescribed by the 1st respondent not later than the commencement of the academic year. It is also his contention that in terms of 2007 Regulations, at the time of inspection the building shall be a completed permanent W.P.(C) No.29284 of 2010 -: 5 :- structure having necessary amenities and fulfilling all such prescribed norms and standards. It is pointed out that admittedly the second floor of the building offered by the petitioner has only asbestos roofing, which did not satisfy the requirements of the Regulations. 7. The correctness of the findings of the Inspection Committee reflected in Ext.P10, is not disputed by the petitioner. As already noticed, the case of the petitioner is that even if any inadequacy is found, the institution should have been given a reasonable time to rectify the inadequacies. 8. It is the case of both the parties that if the petitioner offers a permanent structure as against the asbestos roofed portion of the building, the petitioner satisfies the standards specified in the Regulations for recognition of M.Ed course. Apparently realizing the inadequacy of the infrastructure provided by the petitioner an affidavit has been filed before this Court undertaking to W.P.(C) No.29284 of 2010 -: 6 :- change the roof of the 3000 sq.ft area of the second floor of the building into RCC within an immediate possible period and at any rate before the admissions to the M.Ed course begins for the present academic year. In my view this offer made by the petitioner should satisfy the requirements of the Regulations and therefore, if the petitioner changes the roof of the building as offered in the affidavit and intimate the same to the 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent should restore the recognition granted for M.Ed course as per Ext.P3 to the petitioner so that the petitioner can complete the admission and commence the courses in this academic year itself. 9. Yet another grievance of the petitioner is that in respect of one batch of B.Ed course for which recognition has been restored by the 1st respondent as per Ext.P10, students are not allotted by the 3rd respondent. Now that recognition has been restored as per Ext.P10, petitioner is entitled to allotted students. Therefore, I direct the 3rd W.P.(C) No.29284 of 2010 -: 7 :- respondent to allot students to the B.Ed course offered by the petitioner on the strength of a copy of this judgment. Subject to the above, Ext.P10 will stand in all other respects. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. Jvt