IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 22ND MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 2835 of 2009(K) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- PROF D.A.STEPHEN,MANAGER,C.S.I.COLLEGE OF EDUCATION, CHURCH OF SOUTH INDIA,SOUTH KERALA DIOCESE,L.M.S.COMPOUND, PARASSALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695502. BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SRI.V.VIJULAL RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY, HANS BHAVAN, WING II, I, BAHADUR SHA ZAFAR MARG (NEAR I.T.O.) NEW DELHI 110002. 2. REGIONAL DIRECTOR, SOUTHERN REGIONAL COMMITTEE, NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION 1ST FLOOR, C.S.D. BUILDING, HMT POST, BANGALORE 560031. ADV. SRI.V.M.KURIAN, SC, SRC-NCTE FOR R1 & R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 2835 OF 2009 (K) ==================== Dated this the 11th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is an existing B.Ed College. By Ext.P2, it was granted conditional recognition to start M.Ed course. Subsequently, by Ext.P11, they were asked to comply with certain conditions within 21 days. That was not complied with within the specified time and therefore by Ext.P13, conditional recognition granted by Ext.P2 was withdrawn. According to the petitioner, the only requirement which has to be complied with was the production of staff profile as endorsed by the University. It is stated that by the time they got the staff profile endorsed, the time had expired and that despite the expiry of the period specified in Ext.P11, Ext.P16 has already been produced before the 2nd respondent. 2. In this writ petition all that the petitioner seeks is that the 2nd respondent should consider Ext.P16 and reconsider the proceedings which led to Ext.P13 order withdrawing the conditional recognition. 3. I heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondents also. 4. Admittedly, there has been a delay on the part of the petitioner, but still fact remains that he has already produced the staff WPC 2835/09 :2 : profile as endorsed by the University, a copy of which is Ext.P16. Therefore, it is only fair that the question of continuance of recognition is reconsidered by the 2nd respondent, in the light of Ext.P16 also. In order to enable the 2nd respondent to do so, I quash Ext.P13 and direct the 2nd respondent to consider the matter afresh taking into account Ext.P16 also. This shall be done, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 6 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. 5. Petitioner may produce a copy of this judgment before the 2nd respondent for compliance. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp