The High Court directed the respondent to consider restoring the recognition of the petitioner college for D.Ed. and B.Ed. courses in its next meeting after the petitioner claimed deficiencies were removed.
N/A
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
wp3387.12-Orde r
1/2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETN. NO.3387/2012
Adarsha Bahuudesiya Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and another
-vs-
National Council for Teacher Education and others
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.
Court's or Judge's Orders.
Shri A. C. Dharmadhikari, counsel for the petitioners. Shri C. S. Kaptan, counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2. Ms Kalyani R. Deshpande, AGP for the respondent No.3.
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK & SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, JJ.
DATE : 05.09.2012.
By this petition, the petitioners seek a direction to the respondent No.2-Committee to restore and continue the recognition of the petitioner No.2-College for conducting D.Ed. Course. The petitioners seek a writ of certiorari to quash the communication dated 18/07/2012 restraining the petitioner No.2-College from admitting students in the B.Ed. Course until the recognition is restored.
It is submitted on behalf of the respondent No.2 that the recognition of the petitioner No.2-College to run the said courses stood cancelled in view of the fact that there were some deficiencies which the petitioners failed to remove.
It appears that the appellate authority had set aside the order of the respondent No.2 cancelling the
wp3387.12-Orde r
2/2
recognition and had remanded the matter to the respondent No.2 after granting two months time to the petitioners for removal of the deficiencies.
Shri Dharmadhikari, the learned counsel for the petitioners, states that the deficiencies have now been removed and it is necessary for the National Council for Teacher Education to restore the recognition.
In view of the statement made on behalf of the petitioners that the deficiencies have been removed, the respondent No.2 is directed to consider whether the deficiencies have been removed and further consider in the next meeting of the National Council for Teacher Education whether the recognition of the petitioners could be restored.
Hence, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.2 to consider the proposal of the petitioners for restoration of recognition in the next meeting of the National Council for Teacher Education. In the facts of the case, there would be no order as to costs.
Steno copy granted on request.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the respondent body should be directed to restore the recognition of the petitioner college after removal of deficiencies.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Adarsha Bahuudesiya Shikshan Prasarak Mandal
National Council for Teacher Education
Vasanti A. Naik
Sunil P. Deshmukh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
