IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17884 of 2010 MAHENDRA DAS B.ED.TEACHER'S TRAINING COLLEGE, AT MATHIA NECHUA JALALPUR, GOPALGANJ, DISTRICT-GOPALGANJ, BIHAR, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY RAM DULAR PRASAD, S/O LATE DEONARAYAN YADAV. .........PETITIIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHERS EDUCATION, HQURS. (A STATUTORY BODY OF THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA), HANS BHAWAN, WING-II, 1, BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG, NEW DELHI-110002 THROUGH ITS CHAIRPERSON. 3. NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHERS EDUCATION, EASTERN REGIONAL COMMITTEE (A STATUTORY BODY OF THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA), 15, NEELAKANTHA NAGAR, NAYAPALLI, BHUBANESWAR THROUGH THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR. 4. JAI PRAKASH UNIVERSITY, DAK BUNGLOW ROAD, CHAPRA THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR. ..........RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr.Y.V.Giri, Sr. Adv. and Mr.Pranav Kumar, Adv. For J.P. University: Mr.Shivendra Kishore, Adv. For the N.C.T.E. : Mr.S.N.Pathak, Adv. ------------ 2 11.04.2011 A Teachers Training College is petitioner here. It appears that by Annexure-8, the Eastern Regional Committee of National Council for Teachers Education (in short ‘N.C.T.E.’) had not granted recognition to the Institution due to certain deficiencies as pointed out in the letter itself. One of the deficiencies was that the Principal of the College had not submitted experience certificate for secondary level teaching. Some of the deficiencies were cured and thereafter the Institution 2 filed another application before the Regional Committee for reconsideration. Application was reconsidered, but the same was rejected, vide Annexure-10, pointing out that still three deficiencies were existing in the Institution as per the norms of the N.C.T.E. Hence, an appeal was filed against the order and the Central Committee rejected the appeal also, vide Annexure-12 dated 05.03.2010. Thereafter, the management of the Committee, finding no way out, advertised the post of Principal on 06.04.2010, held interview and appointed one experienced and qualified Principal in the College. After the appointment an application was filed before the Regional Committee on 20.08.2010, vide Annexure- 14. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that this application has not been considered by the Regional Committee so far. Learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3 as well as learned counsel for respondent no.4 submit that once the application of the petitioner stands rejected, a fresh application has to be filed again for grant of recognition before the Regional Committee giving all the details of the College and details in respect of removal of deficiencies pointed out earlier. They submit that mere intimation of change of Principal is not sufficient for that. They also submit that once the 3 appeal of the petitioner stood rejected, the security money of the petitioner must have been refunded to him. As such the Institution has to apply afresh in accordance with the requirements of law with the security money to the Regional Committee for reconsideration of its case for recognition. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has an objection to the same. Firstly, he submits that the security money deposited with earlier application of the Institution has not yet been refunded. Secondly, he submits that, if the Institution applies afresh the entire process for recognition will be started de novo which may take years. Hence, he submits that since in the earlier order of the Regional Committee, as contained in Annexure-8, after inspection, only six deficiencies were found, the Regional Committee should consider the case of the petitioner only from that stage and, if it finds that the said six deficiencies stand removed by the College now, it may proceed further. He refers to last paragraph of Annexure-8 which reads as follows:- You are advised to comply the above requirement before formal permission is considered under Regulation 7(11). The reply along with supporting relevant documents may be sent to ERC, NCTE, within 20 days of the issue of this letter. He also submits that thereafter the Institution 4 removed all the deficiencies and the only deficiency which remained was appointment of an experienced Principal which has also been done by the Institution as pleaded in paragraph 1 and 2 of the writ application and intimated to the Regional Committee by Annexure- 14. From the last paragraph of Annexure-8, as quoted above, it is apparent that the application of the petitioner for grant of recognition was not finally rejected. However, when the Institution did not rectify all the deficiencies the same was finally rejected by the Regional Committee, vide Annexure-10, against which petitioner moved in appeal which was also rejected on the ground that the deficiencies still continued. Now the documents show that one after another the Institution has removed the deficiencies. The last deficiency which remained with the Institution at the time of consideration of its appeal was inexperienced Principal functioning in the Institution. As per the case of the petitioner, the same has also been removed which has been intimated to the Regional Committee, vide Annexure-14. In the circumstances, this Court is of the view that the Regional Committee can proceed in the matter from that stage itself on the basis of the earlier 5 inspection report and, if it finds that all the deficiencies have been removed by the Institution it can proceed to consider the case of the petitioner for final recognition. This Court directs the Regional Committee to do so. For this purpose this Court also directs that the earlier rejection order of Regional Committee, as contained in Annexure-10, and the order of rejection of appeal of the petitioner, as contained in Annexure-12, shall not come in the way. Since it is a matter of educational Institution and without recognition the Institution cannot proceed with the teaching, the Regional Committee is directed to take a final decision in the matter within four months. In case, the Regional Committee requires a formal application for the purpose, it may ask the Institution within two weeks from today for the same. On receipt of such intimation from the Regional Committee, the Institution shall submit a formal application within one week thereafter with all the details. If the earlier security money has been refunded to the petitioner, the petitioner will deposit security money afresh. In case, it has not been refunded the same shall stand exempted to the petitioner for his present application. On submission of application by the petitioner the Regional Committee shall take all steps in accordance with law 6 and take a final decision in the matter of recognition of the petitioner-Institution within four months positively. The writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Arvind/ ( J. N. Singh, J.)