Partly allowed

Sri Shiridi Sainath Education Society, v. The National Council For Teacher Education

Telangana HC1 Jul 2008WP/18504/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging refusal to grant B.Ed recognition. Court observed rejection contradicted inspection report noting adequate infrastructure. Directed 2nd respondent to consider report and pass afresh orders.

What did the court decide?

Directed 2nd respondent to consider visiting team report and pass orders afresh; liberty for fresh inspection subject to fee payment.

Sri Shiridi Sainath Education Society, Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 18504 of 2007

¶5

Between:

¶6

Sri Shiridi Sainath Education Society, rep.by its Secretary and Correspondent,Sri T.C Venkataiah, S/o. T.Venkataiah, R/o.Sunnambatti Street, Yammiganur,Kurnool Dist ..... PETITIONER

¶7

AND

¶8

1 The National Council For Teacher Education, Rep.by its Member Secretary,Wing II Hans Bhavan, Bhadoorsh Jaffer Marg, New Delhi 2 The National Council for Teacher's Education, Sourthern Regional Committee, Rep.by its Regional Director,1st Floor, C.S.D, Buildings, H.M.T Post, Bangalore

¶9

.....RESPONDENT(S)

¶10

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in FSRO/NCTE/B.Ed/2006-07/1154, dated 19-4-2007 refusing to grant recognition to Sri Sainath College Education, Yemmiganur, Kurnool District, Confirmed by the 1st respondent in F.No.89-71/2007-Appeal 69479, dt.8-8-2007 as illegal and contrary to the norms and standards for Secondary Teacher Education Programme(B.Ed.) fixed by the respondents and in existence as on the date of application dt.2-1-2006 and consequently direct the respondents to grant recognition to the petitioner institution for conducting B.Ed; Course from the Academic Year 2007-08 and pass such other order or orders

¶11

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.N.SUBBA RAO

¶12

Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN)

¶13

The Court made the following :

¶14

O R D E R :

¶15

This writ petition has been filed by Sri Shiridi Sainath Education Society represented by its Secretary and Correspondent, Sri.T.C.Venkataiah with a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings of the National Council for Teacher Education, Southern Regional Committee-2^nd respondent in refusing to grant recognition to the petitioner-society as illegal and contrary to the norms and standards of Secondary Teacher Education Programme (B.Ed) fixed by the respondents and in existence as on the date of application i.e. 2.1.2006. The petitioner is a Society registered vide Registration No.2157 of 2005, dated 31.12.2005. The society filed an application to establish B.Ed college under the name and style of Sri Shiridi Sainath Education Society. Basing on the application, an inspection team visited the premises and submitted its report. The 2^nd respondent passed the order on 19.4.2007 rejecting the application and the said order is under challenge in this writ petition.

¶16

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-society and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-society submits that the inspection team visited the premises of the petitioner-society and noted the existence of a large two storied building earmarked exclusively for the proposed B.Ed course and submitted report. He took me through the report which finds place from page Nos.28 to 46 of the material papers. Particular emphasis has been made by the learned counsel on the remarks made by the inspection team and in particular on the remarks on issue No.8 that “ A large 2 storey building earmarked exclusively for the proposed B.Ed course”.

¶17

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents supported the order passed by 2^nd respondent.

¶18

As per the order impugned in this writ petition permission as sought for by the petitioner-Society to establish B.Ed college came to be rejected primarily on the ground of non-availability of permanent structures. But as per the remarks of the visiting team a large two storied building earmarked exclusively for the proposed B.Ed course exists as on the date of inspection. It clearly goes to show that the 2^nd respondent without considering the report of the visiting team proceeded to reject the application of the petitioner-society.

¶19

In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2^nd respondent to consider the visiting team’s report and pass orders afresh. The 2^nd respondent is at liberty to depute a team for fresh inspection, if necessary, subject to the petitioner-society paying the requisite fee as prescribed under the Rules, and pass appropriate orders. No order as to costs.

¶20

1^st July 2008. (B.Seshasayana Reddy,J) tnb ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{BMR}

¶21

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶22

WRIT PETITION 18504 OF 2007

¶23

01-07-2008.

Sri Shiridi Sainath Education Society, v. The National Council For Teacher Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Shiridi Sainath Education Society, v. The National Council For Teacher Education

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

Syed Najmul Hasan Razvi Vs G.H.M.C

P.Vaman Rao Vs The Commissioner and Special Officer, Greater Hyderabad

Madina Education and Welfare Society, Vs The Secretary, Municipal Administration

J. Chandraiah Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, rep. by its

Lalit Kumar Gupta, S/o Late Shankar Lal Gupta, Vs Municipal Corportion of Hyderabad, rep by Commissioner

R. Venkata Ramana, Vs The Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation