Usha Letchuman College Of Education v. The Registrar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.12.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY Usha Latchuman College of Education (Administrated by Smt. Anjalai Ammal, Educational Society) Rep. By its Correspondent Dr.M.Lakshmanan, Vazhapadiar Nagar, Thirukkanur Post, Puducherry-605 501.
Petitioner(s) Vs 1.The Registrar Pondicherry University, R.V. Nagar, Kalapet, Pondicherry.
2.The Regional Director National Council for Teachers Education, Southern Regional Committee, G.7, Sector 10, Near Metro Section, Dwarka, New Delhi-110 075.
Respondent(s) PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent herein to release the staff approval with provisional affiliation to the petitioner - B.Ed Institution for this Academic Season Year 2025-26. For Petitioner(s) : Mr.S.Gajendran 1/6
For Respondent 1 : Mrs.A.V.Bharathi Standing Counsel For Respondent 2 : Mr.J.Hari Krishna
ORDER
The prayer in the writ petition is for a mandamus directing the 1st respondent namely Pondicherry University to release the staff approval with extended provisional affiliation to the petitioner B.Ed. Institution for the academic session for the year 2025-26 and for further or other orders.
2. Heard Mr.Gajendran, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that with reference to the recognition, they had already approached this Court by way of W.P.No.34165 of 2025. By an order dated 10.09.2025, this Court directed the petitioner to approach the appellate authority by way of an appeal as contemplated under Section 18 of the National Council for Teachers Education (NCTE) Act, 1993, with a period of two weeks from the date of of the order, but however, the online link for filing the said appeal was not kept open by the respondents and the petitioner was prohibited from filing an appeal. Therefore, it is just and necessary the 1st respondent University be directed to extend the provisional affiliation. The petitioner counsel would also submit that even the Delhi High Court has granted interim order as 2/6
against the action of the 2nd respondent.
3. Per contra, Mrs.A.V.Bharathi, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the University would submit that firstly in order to get affiliation including provisional affiliation, there must be recognition of the institution by the 2nd respondent namely the National Council for Teachers Education, as on date, the same is absent. This apart, if every year there has been orders directing the petitioner institution to make compliance both with reference to infrastructural and academic requirements which are not being complied with by the institution, there is absolutely no scope for the University to grant staff approval or extend the provisional affiliation in the absence of the compliance of earlier directions and also in the absence of recognition by the 2nd respondent.
4. Mr.J.Hari Krishna, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd respondent namely the National Council for Teachers Education would submit that as far as the recognition is concerned, it is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was an earlier round of writ petition in which the petitioner was directed to file an appeal, the statement that the link is not opened is factually incorrect and it is for the petitioner to file appeal. 3/6
In the absence of any appeal being filed, the order of withdrawal of recognition that was passed on 15.07.2025 has become final and therefore the petitioner is not entitled for the prayer that is made in the writ petition.
5. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the material records of the case.
6. As far as the prayer in the writ petition to release the staff approval with extended provisional affiliation to the petitioner B.Ed. Institution is concerned, it can be seen that as on date by an order dated 15.07.2025, the recognition of the petitioner itself is withdrawn for the violations mentioned in the said order. The petitioner earlier filed a writ petition wherein this Court directed the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 18 of the National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the link for filing of the appeal is not kept open by the concerned respondent which factual situation is disputed by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. In any event, even if the link is not kept open, it is for the petitioner to come up with such prayer to either accept the appeal offline or to keep the link open. Without filing the appeal and restoring the recognition or any interim order being passed as 4/6
against the order of withdrawal of recognition, as on date the prayer made in the writ petition to direct the Pondicherry University to grant staff approval along with extended provisional affiliation cannot be granted especially when certain shortcomings and irregularities have been pointed out in the withdrawal order.
7. In view thereof, the said liberty is kept open to the petitioner to first agitate the appeal as against the order of withdrawal in the manner known to law and thereafter if the petitioner succeeds may come up with the renewal of prayer. The writ petition stands disposed of with the above directions. No costs.
03.12.2025 mka Index: Yes/No Speaking/ Non-Speaking order To:
1.The Registrar Pondicherry University, R.V. Nagar, Kalapet, Pondicherry.
2.The Regional Director National Council for Teachers Education, Southern Regional Committee, G.7, Sector 10, Near Metro Section, Dwarka, New Delhi-110 075.
5/6
D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
mka 03.12.2025 6/6