IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2009 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 938 of 2009(J) ---------------------------- PETITIONER: ---------------- PROF.E.MUKUNDAN VICE PRESIDENT, SREE SATHYA SAI PUBLICATIONS SOCIETY, KERALA SREE SATHYA SAI COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION THIRUVALLOOR, ALUVA 683 511. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SRI.S.SUJIN RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION SOUTHERN REGIONAL COMMITTEE, IST FLOOR, CSD BUILDING, HMT POST, BANGALORE. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 4. THE REGISTRAR MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM 5. THE SECRETARY (CS) NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION HANS BHAWAN, WING -II,BAHADURSHAH ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI 110 002. ADV. SRI.V.M.KURIAN, SC, SRC-NCTE FOR R1 SRI. T.A. SHAJI, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No. 938 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of April, 2009. JUDGMENT Ext.P7 s a communication issued by the first respondent, declining recognition to the petitioner's college for commencing B. Ed course. Reasons are that the cut of date, namely 31.8.2008 had expired and that the Government of Kerala had decided not to recommend any more B. Ed college for recognition. 2. Petitioner submits that their request for NOC was already pending before the Government and that while processing their application, by Ext.P1, the Government had directed them to execute an agreement with the Government in the format appended to Ext.P1. It is stated that in pursuance there of, petitioner has executed Ext.P2 agreement and that the same was submitted to the Government for approval. It is stated that in the meanwhile WP(c).NO.938/09 /2/ that Ext.P7 was issued. 3. If as stated by the Petitioner, it was in pursuance to Ext.P1 that they executed the agreement and that was awaiting the approval of the 2nd respondent for grant of NOC, it is only appropriate that the 2nd respondent considers the request of the petitioner in the light of Ext.P2 and takes a decision in the matter. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider the request of the petitioner for NOC for establishing a B. Ed college taking into account Ext.P2 agreement submitted by them. It is directed that if the decision of the Government is in favour of the petitioner, necessarily it will be open to the petitioner to produce the decision before the first respondent for reconsideration of Ext.P7. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).NO.938/09 /2/