Allowed

Sasi and Swatika Reddy Educational and Development Society, v. National Council for Teacher Education

Telangana HC5 Oct 2012WP/31122/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a refusal to shift the B.Ed course to new premises due to a reply submitted 23 days against a 21-day limit. The Court set aside the order as the period should be calculated from receipt of notice, not issue date.

What did the court decide?

Order of respondent No.2 set aside; directed to reconsider petitioners' application on merits and permit B.Ed course if regulations are met.

Sasi and Swatika Reddy Educational and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.31122 of 2012

¶3

Date: 05.10.2012

¶4

Between:

¶5

Sasi and Swatika Reddy Educational & Development Society, and another.

¶6

and

¶7

National Council for Teacher Education, Hans Bhavan, Wing-II, 1, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi, rep. by its Member Secretary, and another

¶8

Counsel for the Petitioners: Mrs. A.Harija for

¶9

Mr. M.Subba Reddy.

¶10

Counsel for respondents: Mr. Ashish Samat for

¶11

Mr. D.Madhava Rao

¶12

(SC for NCTE)

¶13

The Court made the following :

¶14

Order:

¶15

This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside proceedings in F.No.APSO4356/B.Ed/AP/2012-13/45903, dated 05.09.2012, of respondent No.2, whereby it has refused and rejected the petitioners’ application for continuation of B.Ed course in the newly constructed premises.

¶16

A perusal of the record shows that the only ground on which the petitioners’ application for permitting to shift the premises to its newly constructed own building is rejected is that they have submitted their reply within 23 days from the date of the show cause notice against the prescribed period of 21 days.

¶17

At the hearing, it is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents that if the period of 21 days is calculated from the date of receipt of the show cause notice by the petitioners, the reply submitted by them is within the stipulated time.

¶18

This Court, in its judgment dated 26.06.2012 in W.P.No.17740 of 2012, held that the period of 21 days shall be reckoned from the date of receipt of the show cause notice by the Institutions and not from the date on which the show cause notice was issued. Having regard to this ratio, the order of respondent No.2 cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly set aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to forthwith reconsider the petitioners’ application on its own merits in the

¶19

light of the explanation submitted by them. If respondent No.2 is satisfied that the petitioners’ application conforms to the NCTE Regulations, they shall be permitted to conduct the B.Ed course in terms of their application from the academic year 2012-13 itself.

¶20

Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.

¶21

As a sequel, WPMP.No.39676 of 2012, filed by the petitioners for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.

¶22

_____________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 5^th October, 2012 v v

Sasi and Swatika Reddy Educational and Development Society, v. National Council for Teacher Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sasi and Swatika Reddy Educational and Development Society, v. 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

G. Narsing Rao Vs Khaja Shaik Ruknuddin Mohammed Farooq Chisti

Ameer Shareef Vs Mohd.Basith Ali

Sri.Yerni Satyanarayana, Vs Smt.Yerni Padmavathi

Y.Adithya, Vs Acharya Nagarjuna University, Rep. by its Registrar

Roza-e-Hazrath Shazada Vali Vs The Chairman

Lankireddy Venkata Rami Reddy, Vs The Joint Collector