The Secretary, v. The National Council For

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 25.09.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2015 The Secretary, St.Justin's College of Education, 161, Kamarajar Salai, Madurai - 625 009, Madurai District.

... Petitioner Vs.

1.The National Council for Teacher Education, Rep. by its Secretary, Hans Bhawan, Wing II, Bahadur Shahzafar Marg, New Delhi - 110 002.

2.The Regional Director, Southern Regional Committee, National Council for Teacher Education, Ist Floor, CST Building, HMT Post, Bangalore - 560 031.

3.The TN Teacher Education University, Lady Willington College Campus, Kamaraj Salai, Chennai - 600 005, Rep. by its Registrar.

... Respondents 1/6

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned order issued by the 2nd respondent NCTE Regional Director in SRC/NCTE/RD/2015/66968 dated 28.05.2015 to the effect that the order of Revised Provisional Recognition would not be given to the petitioner's college for conducting the B.Ed Degree programme (conducted over the past 47 years with recognition) and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Ragatheesh Kumar For Respondents : No appearance

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioner. There is no representation on the side of the respondents. 2.The writ petitioner is an educational institution running B.Ed. programme. It was granted affiliation by NCTE. Earlier, B.Ed was one year course. In the year 2014, a revised regulations came into force and the programme duration got extended to two years. The petitioner 2/6

therefore had to submit a consent affidavit for coming under the new regulation. The case of the petitioner is that even though such consent affidavit was submitted, vide communication dated 28.05.2015, National Council for Teacher Education, Southern Regional Committee declined to issue revised provisional recognition order. The same is put to challenge in this writ petition.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner did submit such consent affidavit for both B.Ed. programme. He draws my attention to the proceedings dated 13.05.2015 issued by the second respondent wherein the submission of consent affidavits by the petitioner has been referred to in Paragraph No.2. In Paragraph No.13 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner averred that the college submitted the consent affidavit in the format on 27.01.2015. This averment made by the petitioner had not been controverted by the respondents.

4.In this view of the matter, the order impugned in this writ petition is quashed. The matter is remitted to the file of the second 3/6

respondent to pass order afresh on merits and in accordance with law. Till such order is passed, the status quo as on date will continue. Before passing any order, the petitioner will be put on notice. 5.This writ petition is allowed on these terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions is closed. 25.09.2023 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No ias 4/6

5/6

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

ias 25.09.2023 (2/2) 6/6