Allowed

M/S Davanagere University v. National Council of Teacher Education (Ncte)

Karnataka HC5 Sept 2022WP/2815/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Writ Court quashed rejection orders by NCTE against a university for B.P.Ed. and M.P.Ed. course recognition, remitting the matter for fresh consideration due to procedural lapses rather than a merit-based rejection.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders quashed; matter remitted for fresh reconsideration; liberty granted to submit replies and documents.

M/S Davanagere University Vs National Council of… — Education and Admissions | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¹

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.2815 OF 2022 (EDN-REG)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

M/S DAVANAGERE UNIVERSITY, THOLAHUNASE, BADA ROAD, DAVANAGERE-577 002. REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR PROG. GAYATRI DEVARAJA.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. ANOOP HARANAHALLI, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

NATIONAL COUNCIL OF TEACHER EDUCATION (NCTE) G-7, SECTOR-10, DWARAKA,

¶12

NEW DELHI-110 075.

¶13

REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL DIRECTOR

¶14

SOUTHERN REGIONAL COMMITTEE.

¶15

NATIONAL COUNCIL OF TEACHER EDUCATION(NCTE) G-7, SECTOR-10, DWARAKA,

¶16

NEW DELHI-110 075.

¶17

REPRESENTED BY ITS

¶18

MEMBER SECRETARY.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. VINOD KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶21

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED REJECTION ORDER DATED 26.02.2018 ISSUED BY THE R-1 REJECTING THE RECOGNITION OF THE PETITIONER WITH RESPECT TO B.P.ED COURSE. A COPY OF THE SAID ORDER IS PRODUCED HEREIWTH AS ANNEXURE-A.

¶22

THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶23

²

¶24

ORDER

¶25

In this petition, petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:

¶26

a. Quash the impugned rejection order dated 26.02.2018 bearing No.F.SRO/SRCAPP2250/ B.P.Ed/KA/2018/96722 issued by Respondent No.1 rejecting the recognition of the Petitioner with respect to B.P.Ed course. A copy of the said order is produced herewith as Annexure-A.

¶27

b. Quash the impugned order dated 15.12.2021 bearing File No.89-200/E-212204/2021 Appeal/23^rd Meeting, 2021 APPLSRC202114148 wherein Respondent No.2 refused to condone the delay and admit the appeal. A copy of the said order is produced herewith as Annexure-A1.

¶28

c. Quash the impugned rejection order dated 17.02.2017 bearing No.F.SRO/NCTE/SRCAP P3524/M.P.Ed/KA/2016-17/91889 issued by Respondent No.1 rejecting the recognition of the Petitioner with respect to M.P.Ed course. A copy of the said order is produced herewith as Annexure-B.

¶29

d. Quash the impugned order dated 15.12.2021 bearing File No.89-285/E-207262/2021 Appeal/23^rd Meeting, 2021 APPLSRC202114147 wherein Respondent No.2 refused to condone the delay and admit the appeal. A copy of the said order is produced herewith as Annexure-B1.

¶30

³

¶31

e. Grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶32

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶33

learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

¶34

In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the Memorandum of Petition and referring to the documents produced by the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the petitioner applying for recognition of B.P.Ed., course and M.P.Ed., course with the 1^st respondent, the 1^st respondent passed the impugned order dated 17.02.2017 rejecting the request made by the petitioner and subsequently, on 29.11.2017, the 2^nd respondent – appellate authority allowed the appeal preferred by the petitioner and remitted the matter back for fresh consideration insofar as the B.P.Ed., course is concerned. The application having been rejected once again by the 1^st respondent vide order dated 26.02.2018, the petitioner preferred an appeal before 2^nd respondent – appellate

¶35

⁴

¶36

authority. In addition thereto, petitioner preferred one more appeal before the 2^nd respondent – appellate authority against the rejection order dated 17.02.2017 insofar as M.P.Ed., course also was concerned.

¶37

3.1 By the impugned orders dated 15.12.2021, the

¶38

appeals preferred by the petitioner in respect of both B.P.Ed., course and M.P.Ed., course were dismissed by the 2^nd respondent – appellate authority, aggrieved by which, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

¶39

A perusal of the impugned orders passed by the 1^st respondent and 2^nd respondent will indicate that while the 1^st respondent has rejected the applications filed by the petitioner on the ground that proper reply was not submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice issued by the 1^st respondent, the 2^nd respondent – appellate authority has dismissed the appeals solely on the ground of delay of more than three years (B.P.Ed.,) and four years (M.P.Ed.,) without considering the appeals on merits. In this context, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if one more opportunity is granted to the petitioner to file its

¶40

⁵

¶41

reply / additional reply to the show cause notice and produce documents in support of its applications, petitioner would do so before the 1^st respondent who is to be directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner afresh in accordance with law by setting aside the impugned orders.

¶42

Per contra, learned AGA for the respondents submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶43

Though several contentions have been urged by both sides in support of their respective claims, in view of the specific assertion on the part of the petitioner that if one more opportunity is granted in favour of the petitioner to submit reply, additional reply, documents etc., in support of its applications for recognition for B.P.Ed., and M.P.Ed., courses, without expressing any opinion on the merits / demerits of the rival contentions and by adopting a justice oriented approach and in order to provide one more opportunity in favour of the petitioner to put forth its claim on merits, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned orders and remit the matter back to the 1^st

¶44

⁶

¶45

respondent for reconsideration of the application of the petitioner afresh in accordance with law.

¶46

In the result, I pass the following:

¶47

ORDER

¶48

(i) The petition is hereby allowed.

¶49

(ii) The impugned orders dated 26.02.2018 and 17.02.2017 at Annexures – A and B respectively passed by the 1^st respondent as well as the impugned orders at Annexures - A1 and B1, both dated 15.12.2021 passed by the 2^nd respondent are hereby quashed.

¶50

(iii) The matter is remitted back to the 1^st respondent -National Council of Teacher Education, Southern Regional Committee for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.

¶51

(iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to submit reply, additional reply, pleadings, documents etc., before the 1^st respondent, who shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.

¶52

Sd/JUDGE

¶53

Bmc/Srl.

M/S Davanagere University v. National Council of Teacher Education (Ncte)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Davanagere University v. National Council of Teacher Education (Ncte)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Gowramma Vs Mr. Narayanaswamy

Jayanti Botanical Gardens Vs Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner

Eshwar R Vs Karnataka Examination Authority

Prakashnagar Credit Co-Operative Society Limited Vs Smt Meeramukunda

H S Vishwanatha Vs the Assistant Registrar of Co. Operative

M/S Quest Alliance Vs the Union of India