HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.No. 22408 of 2007 DATE: 22.01.2008 Between: Hereditary, Honarary President & Correspondent of Sri Mandati Reddy Dora Educational Society, Sree Veera Hanuman Teacher Education Training Institute, Rep., by its President, Prakasam District. … Petitioner and The Regional Director, Southern Regional committee, National Council for Teacher Education, C.S.D. Buildings, Bangalore and another. … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.NO.22408 of 2007 ORAL ORDER: The petitioner claims to be the hereditary, honorary President and Correspondent of Sri Mandati Reddy Dora Educational Society, Sri Veera Hanuman Teacher Education Training Institute, Chintagunta Rural, Markapur Mandal, Prakasam District. This writ petition is filed challenging the order/memo dated 03- 01-2007, 27-06-2007, 03-01-2006, 28-06-2007 and 19-12-2006. The petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondents to grant recognition and permission to the society administered by the petitioner to run TPT (Telugu Pandit Training), B.Ed. (Bachelor of Education), D.Ed. and PPT (Pre Primary Training) courses, for the academic year 2007-2008. From the chronology of events, which will be referred to hereinafter, it appears that the petitioner has been going about haphazardly strategising his campaign for obtaining recognition for starting an Educational Institution. The brief chronology of the events to the orders impugned in this writ petition: (a) On 23-12-2002, the petitioner applied for starting B.Ed., T.P.T., D.Ed., and PPT courses. The first respondent by the order dated 28-06-2005 rejected the application on the ground that the specified requirements were not fulfilled as spelt out in the proceedings. These include non payment of the processing fee of Rs.40,000/-, submission of separate applications for each course applied for, non furnishing of documents pertaining to ownership of the land, non deposit of fixed deposit for Rs.5,00,000/- towards endowments fund, non furnishing of an undertaking in a non-judicial stamp paper in the prescribed format and non furnishing of a sworn affidavit duly attested. Earlier a letter dated 04-02- 2003 was addressed by the first respondent to the petitioner to submit a No Objection Certificate from the State Government. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted another application dated 21-01-2004 being a single application for starting TPT, B.Ed., courses as well as NTE, ETE and DIET’s. Since it was a single application and separate applications as required were not submitted and the prescribed processing fee for each course applied for did not accompany the applications, a deficiency letter was sent to the respondent on 25-08-2004 to rectify all the defects. The petitioner-Institution filed W.P.No.3193 of 2004. By the judgment, dated 31-01-2005, this Court affirmed that the regulations of the NCTE as per the notification dated 01-01-2004 would be applicable for a new institution starting Pre-School and Nursery Teacher Education Programme and declared that the relief as sought for by the petitioner could not be granted without a No Objection Certificate from the Government. (b) The first respondent’s proceedings dated 28-06-2005 recorded further reasons for rejecting the applications of the petitioner and referred to the interim directions of this Court in W.P.No.5948 of 2005 filed by the petitioner and the observations in C.C.No.292 of 2005 which were recorded while dismissing the Contempt Case. (c) As against the above order of the Primary Authority, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the second respondent. By order dated 28-09-2005 the Appellate Authority-second respondent confirmed the order of the Primary Authority and reiterated the conclusion that the petitioner had applied for three courses in one application without depositing separate processing fee for each course and therefore, the single application was rightly rejected by the Primary Authority. Assailing the appellate order, the petitioner filed W.P.21697 of 2005. During the course of hearing of this writ petition, the petitioner brought to the notice of the Court that subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, the petitioner had filed separate applications for each course by paying separate processing fee as per the revised Regulations then in force. In that view of the matter, W.P.No.21697 of 2005 was disposed of by the order dated 14-09-2006. This Court set aside the order of the Primary Authority dated 28-06-2005 and of the Appellate Authority, dated 28-09-2005 and directed reconsideration of the separate applications of the petitioner. It requires to be noticed that this Court clarified that consideration of the petitioner’s applications shall be in accordance with the revised Regulations framed under the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (for short ‘the Act’) and subject to fulfillment of the required norms in this regard, for recognition. The petitioner’s applications were duly considered. By the order dated 03-01-2007 and in so far as the application for starting of B.Ed., course is concerned, 9 deficiencies were pointed out and the petitioner was informed that as per the provisions of the current Regulations, namely, Regulation dated 27-12-2005 published in the Gazette of India on 13-01-2006, the petitioner may make up the deficiencies and submit a written application along with all the required documents within 90 days from the date of the proceedings. The petitioner was also intimated that compliance should be made in respect of all the deficiencies enumerated in one go and on one time basis; that part submission of documents would not be entertained; and a visiting team would inspect the infrastructure, equipment and instructional facilities provided by the petitioner. Thereafter, by another proceeding dated 26-07-2007 the petitioner, in continuation of the earlier proceeding dated 03-01-2007 was informed that the 90 days period specified for removal of deficiencies had expired and that the petitioner’s application was considered by the first respondent at its 156th meeting held on 7th and 8th June, 2007; the first respondent decided to close the file relating to the petitioner’s application; and since the application was incomplete, no further correspondence in this regard would be entertained. Similar orders were passed in respect of the petitioner’s other applications for starting D.T.Ed and TPT courses and for identical reasons, namely non-compliance of deficiencies within time. The substantive grievance of the petitioner, and projected on a very creative legal premise, is that his several applications for starting the three courses in Education should have been considered on the basis of the Regulations as were in force in the year 2002 when he first initiated his campaign for obtaining approval from the National Council for Teacher Education. The petitioner’s single application for the three courses was earlier rejected on the ground of 6 deficiencies pointed out. According to the petitioner and a contention strenuously articulated by Sri Rajeswar Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, the earlier Regulations enabled an institution to provide the stipulated facilities in suitable temporary premises for a maximum period of 3 years before expiry of which the institution should shift to its own permanent building. The current Regulations dated 27-12-2005 published in the Gazette on 13-01-2006, however, enjoin other requirements, which have admittedly not been fulfilled by the petitioner. From the chronology of events briefly set out earlier, it is clear that the petitioner has systematically pursued an erroneous strategy for obtaining approval of the National Council of Teacher Education for starting an Educational Institution. On the earlier occasion, the petitioner failed to meet the requirements under the then current Regulations. The petitioner now canvasses the fact that his infrastructure is now in conformity with the 2002 Regulations and that approval should be accorded for commencing courses in Teacher Education on the basis of the 2002 Regulations. Sri Rajeswar Reddy, the learned counsel would also urge that in the “unlimited discretion” of this Court, a direction be issued to the respondents to grant recognition for the petitioner’s institution and that this Court should stipulate that the petitioner should comply with all the deficiencies as per the current Regulations, within three years. This Court is not persuaded to the invitation of the petitioner on these aspects. It is not within the province of this Court to novate the statutory Regulation framed under the provisions of the Act. The current Regulations have not been challenged by the petitioner at all or on any discernible grounds. Admittedly and demonstrably the petitioner’s applications and the infrastructure and other facilities provided by the petitioner fall short of the requirements of the current Regulations. In the circumstances and on the analysis above, this Court perceives no infirmity in the orders impugned, issued by the first respondent. Thus no interference is called for. There are no merits in the writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. There shall be however no order as to costs. ------------------------------ GODA RAGHURAM, J Date: 22.01.2008 KLP