drp {1} W.P.No.8269/2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.8269 OF 2009 Saraswati Bahu-Udeshiya Seva Bhavi PETITIONER Sanstha, Gojegaon, Tq-Mukhed, Dist-Nanded Through its Secretary, Venkatrao s/o Rajeshwarrao Patil, Gojegaonkar, Age-52 years, Occ-Social Service and Agri R/o Gojegaon, Tq-Mukhed, Dist-Nanded VERSUS 1. The Union of India, RESPONDENTS Through its Secretary, Ministry of Human Resources Development Room No.313, C-Wing, Shastri Bhavan New Delhi-110 001 2. The National Council for Teacher Education, Through its Member Secretary, Hansa Bhavan, (Wing-II), Bahadurshha Jafar Marg, New Delhi 110 002 3. Regional Director, Western Regional Committee, National Council for Teachers’ Education, Manas Bhavan, Yamala Hills Bhopal 462 004 (MP) 4. The State of Maharashtra, Through its State Secretary, drp {2} W.P.No.8269/2009 School Education and Sports Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 5. The Director of Education, (Secondary and Higher Secondary Education, Maharashtra State, Pune-1 ....... Mr.S.B.Talekar, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Alok Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General for Respondent No.1 Mr.S.S.Bora, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3 Mrs.R.K.Ladd, AGP for respondents State ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE : 24th February 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER A.V.POTDAR, J.): 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. By this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 08.10.2009 passed by respondent No.2 thereby confirming the order dated 27.05.2009 passed by respondent No.3. The petitioner has also prayed for directions to respondents No.1 and 2 to grant recognition to the D.Ed. college of the petitioner at Markhel, Tq- drp {3} W.P.No.8269/2009 Degloor, Dist-Nanded for the academic year 2010-11. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respective respondents. It appears that respondent No.3 had received a proposal submitted by the petitioner, seeking permission to start a new D.Ed. college, on 29.01.2007. Thereafter, necessary compliance was done by the petitioner. The petitioner was intimated that in view of the directions of respondent No.2, pursuant to the negative recommendations from the State Government, the proposal of the petitioner has been closed. Ultimately, vide order dated 27.05.2009, the petitioner was informed that the proposal of the petitioner cannot be processed. It further appears that the petitioner, being aggrieved by the said decision, had preferred Appeal No.724/2009 before respondent No.2. However, vide order dated 08.10.2009, the said appeal came to be rejected. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the order dated 08.10.2009, rejecting to process the proposal submitted by the petitioner for grant of recognition to start a new D.Ed. college was rejected only on the ground that the State Government had recommended, as per the policy of the Government, not to further recognize or permit institutes for conducting B.Ed. or D.Ed. courses within the State of Maharashtra. Learned counsel for the petitioner further asserted that the issue involved in the present petition is squarely covered drp {4} W.P.No.8269/2009 by the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of “State of Maharashtra V/s Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshanshastra Mahavidyalaya” (2006) 9 SCC 1. The Apex Court, in the said judgment, has observed that negative recommendation of the State Government are not binding on the National Council for Teachers’ Education, and the Council has to take decision on its own subjective satisfaction. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied on the Division Bench Judgment of this Court dated 10th February 2011 passed in Writ Petition No.932 of 2011. The Division Bench, in the said Judgment, has held that the authorities have to process the proposal independently and should apply its mind while arriving at a conclusion and the authorities cannot reject the proposal merely on the ground that negative recommendation has been received from the State Government. 5. We have perused the impugned orders with the assistance of learned counsel for the petitioner. According to us, the impugned order does not indicate that the authorities have processed the proposal of the petitioner independently and after application of mind, have arrived at the conclusion. 6. In the light of the above aspects, we quash and set aside the impugned order and relegate the petitioner to the appellate authority, who shall consider the proposal of the petitioner, afresh on its own merits and shall not be solely guided by the negative recommendation received from the Maharashtra drp {5} W.P.No.8269/2009 State Government. 7. The appellate authority shall decide the Appeal, in the light of the Judgment of the Apex Court in case of “State of Maharashtra V/s Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshanshastra Mahavidyala” referred supra. All issues are kept open. We have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the mater. The appellate authority shall dispose of the Appeal as expeditiously as possible. 8. Rule is made absolute on the above terms, with no order as to costs. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/A11/wp8269-09