Disposed

Ponniyah Ramajayam College of v. the Chairman

Madras HC13 Jun 2023WP(MD)/20239/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the withdrawal of B.Ed. and M.Ed. course recognition by the NCTE's Southern Regional Committee. The High Court directed the respondent to inspect the college within four weeks and issue a decision within three weeks of that inspection.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the second respondent to inspect the college premises within four weeks and take a decision on recognition within three weeks of the inspection report.

Ponniyah Ramajayam College of Vs the Chairman — Education and Admissions | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.20239 of 2014

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 13.06.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.20239 of 2014 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2014

¶7

Ponnaiyah Ramajayam College of

¶8

Education

¶9

Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Trustee of Sri Ponnaiyah Ramajayathammal Educational & Charitable Trust, Prof.P.Murugesan, Natarajapuram South, Thanjavur – 613 007 Tamilnadu. ... Petitioner versus

¶10

The Chairman, The National Council for Teacher Education,

¶11

Hans Bhavan, Wing – II, No.1, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi – 110 002.

¶12

The Regional Director, The National Council for Teacher Education, Southern Regional Committee, Nagarabhavai, Jnana Bharathi Campus Road, Opp. National Law School, Bangalore – 560 031. ... Respondents

¶13

1/6

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

W.P.(MD)No.20239 of 2014

¶16

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for the issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the order passed by the 2^nd respondent in and by its proceedings in F.SRO/NCTE/APSoo936/B.Ed./TN/2014-15/60373, APS03278/B.Ed/TN/2014-15/60373, APS04432/B.Ed/TN/2014, 15/60373, APS07646/M.Ed./TN/2014-15/60373 and APS07649/M.Ed/ TN/2014-15/60373 dated 25.11.2014, quash the same and consequently, direct the 2^nd respondent to permit the petitioner to run B.Ed. and M.Ed. course.

¶17

For Petitioner : M/s.Muthukamatchi For Respondents : Mr.S.Sivakumar, Central Govt. Standing Counsel for Mr.Su.Srinivasan

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order

¶20

dated 25.11.2014 passed by the second respondent. By the order impugned in this writ petition, the second respondent/the Southern Regional Committee of NCTE has withdrawn the recognition of B.Ed. and M.Ed. courses conducted by the petitioner College at Thanjavur, Vallam and Kumbakonam.

¶21

2/6

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

W.P.(MD)No.20239 of 2014

¶24

A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the petitioner has

¶25

not complied with the requirements of NCTE and therefore, show cause notices were issued to the petitioner College on 05.02.2013, 13.02.2013 and 15.02.2023, for which, no reply was given by the petitioner College. Therefore, the impugned order has been passed.

¶26

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner College has given a common reply for the show cause notices and sought for personal hearing and also for production of required documents, however, the impugned order has been passed without providing an opportunity. She further states that the petitioner College has complied with all the requirements of NCTE. Therefore, she prays for allowing this writ petition. She also submits that this Court, while entertaining this writ petition on 12.12.2014, has granted an order of interim stay. Pursuant to the order of interim stay, the petitioner College is running the courses from the year 2014.

¶27

3/6

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

W.P.(MD)No.20239 of 2014

¶30

It appears that the petitioner College was accorded recognition to conduct B.Ed and M.Ed. courses from the year 2005 onwards. To accord recognition for the Academic Year 2014-2015, the Southern Regional Committee of NCTE has inspected the petitioner College premises and passed the impugned order for withdrawal of recognition provided for B.Ed. Courses at Kumbakonam and with regard to other courses, decision is yet to be taken.

¶31

This Court, while entertaining this writ petition on 12.12.2014,

¶32

granted an order of interim stay and based on the earlier recognition, which was granted to the petitioner College, the petitioner College appears to have admitted the students.

¶33

It is now reported that the petitioner College has complied

¶34

with all the requirements and the Southern Regional Committee of NCTE has also inspected the college premises and ascertained the

¶35

4/6

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

W.P.(MD)No.20239 of 2014

¶38

same, however, decision is yet to be taken.

¶39

Considering the above, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent/the Southern Regional Committee of NCTE to conduct an inspection to ascertain whether the petitioner College is having all required facilities, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and based on the inspection report, take a decision in accordance with law, within a period of three weeks from thereon. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶40

13.06.2023

¶41

ogy NCC : Yes / No. Index : Yes / No. Internet : Yes / No.

¶42

To 1. The Chairman, The National Council for Teacher Education, Hans Bhavan, Wing – II, No.1, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi – 110 002.

¶43

5/6

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶45

W.P.(MD)No.20239 of 2014

¶46

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

¶47

ogy

¶48

The Regional Director, The National Council for Teacher Education, Southern Regional Committee, Nagarabhavai, Jnana Bharathi Campus Road, Opp. National Law School, Bangalore – 560 031.

¶49

W.P.(MD)No.20239 of 2014

¶50

13.06.2023

¶51

6/6

¶52

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Ponniyah Ramajayam College of v. the Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ponniyah Ramajayam College of v. the Chairman

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

Anbazhagan.R Vs R.Shanthi Malar

Sakkarias, Vs the Chief Manager

A. Seeni @ Seenivasan Vs the Chairperson

G. Manuel Ayyadurai Vs v. Thirupathy

R. Rajamani, Vs Kakarla Usha I.A.S.

Selvam @ Arocikasamy Vs the Commissioner of Municipal