Sri Raghavendra B.Ed. College v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY WRIT PETITION No.29444 of 2016 ORDER:

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the second respondent in not issuing the affiliation to the petitioner's college to run B.Ed.Courses for the academic year 2016-17 as illegal and arbitrary.

2.

Heard Sri S.Satyam Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri K.V.Rajasree, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for School Education(Andhra Pradesh) representing the 1st respondent, Sri P.Harinath Guptha, learned standing counsel for 2nd respondent and Ms.Hima Bindu, learned standing counsel appearing for 3rd respondent. 3.

It is the case of the petitioner that after thorough inspection, the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) issued proceedings in F.SRO/ SRCAPP2368/ B.Ed./ AP/ 2016/ 84061 dated 12.04.2016 granting permission for conducting B.Ed. programme of two years with annual in take of 100 students from the academic session 2016-17 to the petitioner college. A perusal of the record further reveals that the Government of Andhra Pradesh also issued G.O.Ms.No.195, Education (Trg) Department dated 24.08.2016 granting permission to the petitioner-college for the academic year 2016-17. It is the case of the petitioner that

the second respondent University has not so far granted affiliation to the petitioner-s college for the academic year 2016-17. 4.

At the time of arguments, learned senior counsel submitted that the petitioner-college submitted a representation to the second respondent - University in the second week of May 2016 with a request to grant affiliation. The only relief sought by the petitioner is to direct the second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible. Learned standing counsel for the second respondent also consented for the same.

5.

In view of the submissions made by both the counsel, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the main case. 6.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also the submissions made by both the counsel, the second respondent is hereby directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on the representation of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

7.

With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

______________________ T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J September 1, 2016.

Note:

Issue C.C. by 06.09.2016.

B/ o. Rns.