Disposed

Mount Carmel College v. National Council of Teacher Education (Ncte)

Karnataka HC23 Feb 2024WP/16046/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition where the petitioner, a college, challenged the NCTE's rejection of its recognition application. The petitioner undertook to submit missing land documents within 15 days. The court did not quash the rejection but directed the authority to consider the fresh application once documents were submitted.

What did the court decide?

Disposed of the writ petition by directing the respondents to consider the application afresh after the petitioner furnishes land documents within 15 days.

Mount Carmel College Vs National Council of… — Education and Admissions | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:7618 WP No. 16046 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO.16046 OF 2023 (EDN-RES)

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

MOUNT CARMEL COLLEGE, NO.58, PALACE ROAD, VASANTH NAGAR, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560 052, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL.

¶6

…PETITIONER

¶7

(BY SRI P.P. HEGDE, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT. RACHITHA RAJSHEKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶8

AND:

¶9

Digitally signed by GURURAJ D Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶10

NATIONAL COUNCIL OF TEACHER EDUCATION (NCTE), G-7, SECTOR 10, DWARKA, NEW DELHI - 110 075, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL DIRECTOR SOUTHERN REGIONAL COMMITTEE.

¶11

NATIONAL COUNCIL OF TEACHER EDUCATION (NCTE), G-7, SECTOR 10, DWARKA, NEW DELHI - 110 075, REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY.

¶12

…RESPONDENTS

¶13

(BY SRI VINOD KUMAR M., ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)

¶14

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED COMMUNICATION DATED 04.02.2023 BEARING NO./NCTERT1011/6/2023-RTI SECTION-SRC PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-P ISSUED BY THE R1 AS THE SAME IS ARBITRARY AND WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND AND ETC.,

¶15

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:7618 WP No. 16046 of 2023

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This writ petition is filed seeking for following reliefs:

¶20

"Quash impugned communication dated 04.02.2023 bearing no./NCTE-RTI011/6/2023-RTI Section-SRC produced as Annexure-P, issued by respondent no.1 as same is arbitrary and without application of mind and etc."

¶21

Sri P.P. Hegde, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Smt.Rachitha Rajshekar, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner was declared as Minority Educational Institution by National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions on 03.03.2010 as per Annexure-B. On 21.04.2012, National Assessment and Accredition Council accredited petitioner's college as per Annexure-C and Bangalore University issued "No Objection" for running integrated B.Ed. Courses as per Annexure-D on 29.06.2015. However, respondent no.1National Council of Teacher Education (NCTE) rejected application for recognition under order at Annexure-E dated 15.10.2015 on ground that documents required under Regulation 5(4) of National Council for Teachers Education Regulations 2014 ("NCTE Regulations 2014", for short) were not submitted. On 30.06.2015, petitioner submitted said documents. However, respondents adopted new regulations and thereafter on 05.04.2017, granted recognition to petitioner-

¶22

¶23

NC: 2024:KHC:7618 WP No. 16046 of 2023

¶24

Institution for conducting B.Sc.-B.Ed., a 4 year Course with annual intake of 100 students. Thereafter on 30.12.2017, Government of Karnataka, under its order at Annexure-M, granted affiliation for BA-B.Ed. and B.Sc.-B.Ed. with annual intake of 100 students each. And on 22.10.2018, Central Bangalore University renewed affiliation of petitioner - College.

¶25

It was submitted that petitioner was having all adequate facilities of proper infrastructure for running said Courses. However, Bangalore University issued an intimation stating that petitioner-Institution does not have recognition for running B.Ed College as it was not having permission from NCTE. Thereafter, petitioner filed application before NCTE on 30.06.2015. However, under order dated 15.10.2015 at Annexure-R1, same was rejected, mainly on ground of failure to furnish application fee under Rule 9 of NCTE Regulations 2014 and failure to submit land documents.

¶26

It was submitted that despite petitioner complying with said requirements under impugned order dated 04.02.2023 at Annexure-P, there was refusal to consider petitioner's application yet again. It was submitted that since petitioner was having all adequate infrastructural and other

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:7618 WP No. 16046 of 2023

¶29

requirements and had furnished relevant documents, respondents were not processing application arbitrarily and therefore sought for allowing writ petition.

¶30

On other hand, Sri Vinod Kumar M., learned counsel for respondents no.1 and 2 drew attention of this Court to memo dated 20.09.2023, wherein copy of order dated 15.10.2015, accompanied with resolution of Committee of respondent no.1 and order dated 15.01.2016 passed by Appellate Authority, confirming order of rejection were produced and submitted that petitioner complied with all other requirements, but had not complied with requirements regarding land.

¶31

It was submitted that in case petitioner were to furnish land documents as required under Regulation 5(4) of NCTE Regulations 2014, there would be no impediment for respondents to consider petitioner's application in accordance with law.

¶32

On previous date of hearing, a clarification was sought regarding particulars of land documents. Learned counsel for respondents submitted that respondents framed

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:7618 WP No. 16046 of 2023

¶35

regulation namely, National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations 2014 governing, filing and consideration of applications.

¶36

It was submitted that regulation 5(4) required land documents issued by competent authority indicating that society or Institution applying for programme, possess land as on date of application, to be attached with application. It was submitted that Regulation 8 of NCTE Regulations 2014 provided all further clarifications regarding land documents and guide petitioners/applicants.

¶37

In response, learned Senior Counsel for petitioner

¶38

would submit that petitioner would furnish said documents within a period of 15 days and sought for direction to respondents to re-consider petitioner's application.

¶39

Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition

¶40

records.

¶41

From above, it is seen that petitioner is seeking for grant of permission/recognition from NCTE for running BAB.Ed., B.Sc.-B.Ed., Courses by filing application. Respondent has rejected application on ground of failure to submit land

¶42

¶43

NC: 2024:KHC:7618 WP No. 16046 of 2023

¶44

documents. Since petitioner has undertaken to submit land documents as prescribed, within a period of 15 days, there would be no impediment for respondents to consider same in accordance with law.

¶45

With above observations, writ petition stands disposed of reserving liberty to petitioner to furnish land documents as per NCTE Regulations 2014, to respondents no.1 and 2 - Authority within a period of 15 days from date of receipt of certified copy of this order and in case documents are furnished, respondents no.1 and 2 shall consider same within a period of 8 weeks and inform petitioner of result.

¶46

Needles to observe that at time of consideration, orders of rejection at Annexure-P and Annexures-R1 and R2 would not come in way and consideration shall be afresh and on merits.

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

MKM

Mount Carmel College v. National Council of Teacher Education (Ncte)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mount Carmel College 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Sunandamma Vs the Chief Officer Town Municipal Council

Sri C Muniswamy Reddy Vs Sri Ravindra Kumar

G Prashantha Kumar @ Babu Vs T Muddarangegowda

Sri. Ramesh N P Vs State of Karnataka

Ravi B Vs the Pharmacy Council of India

Sneha Chandran Vs Vydehi Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre