IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 1068 of 2007 Date of decision: May 26, 2010 _________________________________________________________________ Divesh Sharma ....Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & others .....Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. For the petitioner: Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. For respondent No. 1: Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Additional Advocate General. For respondent No. 2: Mr. B.C. Negi, Advocate. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral). The writ petition is filed with the following prayers: “(i) That the respondents No. 3 to 5 may very kindly be directed to strictly adhere to the norms and standards for Secondary Teacher Education Programme leading to Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) Degree, M.Ed., B.P.Ed, E.T.T. etc. particularly regarding the appointment of qualified staff after its proper selection and approval by the competent authority and proper infrastructure for imparting teacher training programme in Himachal Pradesh. (ii) That the respondents No. 3 to 5 may be restrained from giving any relaxation to the conditions of appointment of approved staff in the institutions imparting teacher training courses in H.P. before the grant of recognition in their favour. (iii) That the respondent No. 2 may also be directed to ascertain the fulfillment of all the conditions imposed by the National Council for Teacher Education in the letter of recognition, particularly regarding the appointment of the staff in the institutions imparting Teacher Training Courses, while granting affiliation to the institutions. (iv) That the respondent No. 1 may also be directed to ascertain :-2-: the existence of the proper infrastructure and availability/appointment of the qualified staff duly approved by the competent authority after its proper selection, while granting No Objection Certificate of giving its consent for the establishment of new educational institutions in H.P. imparting education particularly in B.Ed., M.Ed., B.P.Ed., E.T.T., B.Pharma, B.Tech, Medical Education, Engineering etc. so as to maintain the quality and standards of education in the larger public interest and National interest.” 2. Going by the nature of the reliefs prayed in the Writ Petition and in view of the statutory duty cast on the 3rd respondent, we are certainly of the view that the 3rd respondent has to look into the matter. According to the petitioner, there are several instances of N.C.T.E. either relaxing the conditions or ignoring the conditions. In the event of petitioner pointing out any such instance, prompt action shall be taken by the 3rd respondent to ensure that the institutions comply with the required conditions as per requirement by the N.C.T.E. Even otherwise also, there will be direction to 3rd respondent (N.C.T.E.) to keep a constant vigil over the institutions by an appropriate regulatory mechanism and see that the institutions function only in accordance with the norms prescribed by N.C.T.E. 3. The petition is disposed of, so also the pending application, if any. Copy Dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice (Justice Surinder Singh), Judge. 26th May, 2010 (karan/virender)