Little Rose College Of Elementary Education v. Southern Regional Committee
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18535 OF 2018 O R D E R :
The case of the petitioner is that petitioner made an application for grant of recognition for D.El.Ed - A1 course for the academic year 2018-2019. Thereafter, the 1st respondent issued show cause notice dated 03.03.2018 asking the petitioner to comply certain deficiencies and petitioner complied with the same through letter dated 06.03.2018. Thereafter, the 1st respondent passed impugned order dated 22.05.2018 granting recognition to the for conducting the D.El.Ed-A1 programme from the academic year 2019-2020 instead of 2018-2019. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without stating any reasons, the 1st respondent has granted recognition for the academic year 2019-2020 instead of granting recognition for the academic year 2018-2019. He also submits that the petitioner has already appointed staff and the same is also approved.
On the other hand Sri K.Ramakanth Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent produced Judgment of this Court in Baba Educational and Rural Development Society, Kadapa City v. National Council for Teacher
Education, New Delhi and others 1 wherein similar request of the petitioner was rejected in view of the time schedule fixed by the Apex Court in Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya v. State of U.P and others2.
It is to be seen that though the petitioner has complied the deficiencies raised by the 1st respondent in his show cause notice dated 03.03.2018, no reasons were stated in the impugned order for not granting recognition for the year 2018-2019. Learned Standing Counsel states that because of the Judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Maa Vaishno Devi case, instead of rejecting the application of the petitioner, they have granted recognition for the year 20192020. Though the has complied with the deficiencies within time in the month of March, 2018, itself, in response to the show cause notice dated 03.03.2018, it is not known why the respondents kept quite till 22.05.2018 and granted recognition for the year 2019-2020 which affected the petitioner as petitioner has already appointed staff and made arrangements for running the said programme.
It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner has failed to comply with the deficiencies as pointed out in the show cause notice dated 03.03.2018. But in view of the 1 2016 (5) ALT 16 2 2013 (2) SCJ 22 = 2013 (3) ALT 25.1
Judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Maa Vaishno Devi, the relief claimed by the petitioner cannot be granted in the writ petitioner. In similar circumstances, the learned Single Judge considered the issue and rejected the case of the therein in Baba Educational and Rural Development Society case.
In view of the above, this Court is unable to grant any relief to the petitioner though the petitioners are not at fault. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. _______________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J 06.06.2018 t k.