Christian College of Education vs The Regional Director, National Council for Teacher Education (SRC)

M. Jaichandren, J.—Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent.

It has been stated that the petitioner College has been established with a view to offer B.Ed. Course for the students interested in pursuing the

said course. While so, the petitioner College had made a request to the respondent for recognition and for starting M.Ed. Course. The application

for recognition was sent to the respondent in the year, 2007. The petitioner College had also deposited Rs. 5 lakhs, as endowment and Rs. 3

lakhs, as Corpus Fund. It had also paid Rs. 40,000/-, as processing fee.

It has been further stated that the respondent, after receiving the application submitted by the petitioner College, had issued the APSO number

as 8653. A deficiency letter had been served on the petitioner College, on 14.9.2008. A reply had been sent by the petitioner College, along with

the necessary documents, on 1.5.2008. However, the respondent, without conducting an inspection had issued a letter, dated 12.5.2008, stating

that, since no reply had been received from the petitioner College for the letter, dated 1.1.2008, the file relating to the request of the petitioner

College was being closed. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner College had submitted that, in spite of the fact that the

petitioner College had rectified all the defects, as on 14.9.2007, there is no good reason for the respondents to close the file, without giving an

opportunity to the petitioner College.

It has been further stated that the petitioner College had not received the letter, dated 1.1.2008, said to have been sent by the respondent. Even

though the petitioner College has sufficient infrastructural and instructional facilities, the respondent had acted, arbitrarily, in closing the file of the

petitioner College, without conducting an inspection of the petitioner College.

The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent had submitted that, on inspection of the petitioner College, pursuant to its request

for grant of recognition for starting M.Ed. Course, certain deficiencies had been found. The petitioner College had been requested to comply with

the deficiencies. By a communication, dated 27.6.2007, the petitioner College had been requested to rectify the deficiencies in the infrastructural

and the instructional facilities provided by the College. Ninety days time had been granted to the petitioner College for the removal of the

deficiencies. Thereafter, on receipt of the compliance report, submitted by the petitioner College, on 22.9.2007, it was found that the building plan

in original, duly approved by the competent authority, for M.Ed. course and the Fixed Deposit receipt in original, for Rs. 3 lakhs towards reserve

fund, had not been submitted. Therefore, the petitioner College was granted fifteen days time, from the date of the said communication, to submit

the necessary documents. The said communication, dated 1.1.2008, had been sent to the petitioner College, by speed post. Since, there was no

communication from the petitioner College thereafter, the application submitted by the petitioner College, for recognition for M.Ed. Course, had

been treated as incomplete and it was closed.

The claim of the petitioner College that the communication, dated 1.1.2008, sent by the respondent, pointing out the deficiencies, had not been

received by the petitioner College, cannot be accepted in view of the fact that it was not returned to the respondent as unserved, in view of the

decision of the Supreme Court, in M/s. Attabira Regulated Market Committee Vs. M/s. Ganesh Rice Mills, .

In view of the submissions made by the learned Counsels appearing for parties concerned, this Court is of the considered view that the

petitioner College has not shown sufficient cause or reason for granting the reliefs, as prayed for by the petitioner College, in the present writ . The

claim of the petitioner College that the communication of the respondent, dated 1.1.2008, had not been received by the petitioner College, is not

acceptable, as it is seen, from the records available before this Court, that the respondent had sent it to the correct address of the petitioner

College, by speed post. The said communication had not been returned to the respondent by the postal authorities, as unserved. Since the

petitioner College had not submitted the building plan in original, duly approved by the competent authority and the fixed deposit receipt in original,

for Rs. 3 lakhs towards the reserve fund, to the respondent, within the stipulated period, the respondent had treated the application of the

petitioner College, for grant of recognition, for starting M.Ed. Course, as incomplete. Therefore, the respondent had closed the application of the

petitioner College. In such circumstances, the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner, cannot be countenanced. As the writ petition is devoid

of merits, it stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected writ petition miscellaneous petitions are closed.