AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mr C.S.Kotwani, Mr Kuldeep Mathur and Mr B.S.Sandhu have appeared as caveator for respondent-institutions.
These intra court appeals are preferred on behalf of the State and others being aggrieved with the order dated 03.02.2021 passed by the learned
Single Judge in a bunch of writ petitions, whereby while admitting the writ petitions, the interim order has been passed. The operative portion of the
interim order reads as under:
Meanwhile, effect and operation of the communication dated 04.12.2020, written by the Principal Secretary, Department of Education to the
NCTE asking to withdraw their recognition, shall remain stayed.
The respondents shall permit the petitioners - institutions to take part in the ensuing counseling for admission of students for D.El.Ed. course.
In the meanwhile, it will be required of the petitioners - institutions to file response to the enquiry report so prepared and furnished by the
respondents and try to meet the objections in accordance with law.
It is informed by the learned counsel for the petitioners that during pendency of the writ petitions, the respondent - State has conducted counseling,
wherein the petitioners were not permitted and still many students, who have cleared entrance examination, are waiting for admission.
Hence, it is hereby directed that the respondent - State shall conduct fresh counseling in accordance with law, within a period of two weeks so
that all desirous students having cleared entrance examination may be accommodated in vacant seats available in the colleges and/or petitioners -
Institutions.
Assailing the validity of the interim order, Mr M.S.Singhvi - learned Advocate General has submitted that the order impugned virtually amounts to
granting final relief to the respondent-institutions, which is main prayer in the writ petitions.
It is argued that Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again has deprecated the practice of granting interim orders, which amount to grant of final relief. It
is further argued that the learned Single Judge has stayed the effect and operation of the communication dated 04.12.2020, written by the Principal
Secretary, Department of Education to NCTE asking to withdraw the recognition of respondent-institutions, though the aforesaid order is not under
challenge in the writ petitions and none of the respondent- institutions has requested for staying the said order.
It is also argued that it is settled position of law that academic calendars shall not be disturbed by allowing of late intake of students in the institutions.
It is further submitted that by allowing intake of students in an institution while disturbing the academic calendar will not only create further
complications but might also have serious repercussions on the future of the students, who ought to join such institutions.
Several other arguments regarding the merits of the controversy involved in the writ petitions have been advanced.
Per contra, learned counsels appearing for the respondent-institutions have argued that learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality in passing
the impugned order. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge was convinced after hearing the learned counsels for the parties and after going
through the rival pleadings that the action of the State of not granting NOC to the respondent - institutions is without any justification and in such
circumstances, there is no illegality in directing the State to permit the respondent-institutions to take part in ensuing counseling of the petitioner for
D.El.Ed Course and also to conduct fresh counseling within a fixed time, so that all the desirous students, who have cleared entrance examination may
be accommodated on vacant seats available in the respondent- institutions.
Learned counsels for the respondents have also argued that so far as argument made on behalf of the appellant-State regarding the academic
calendar is concerned, it is submitted that even after passing of the impugned order, the counseling for admitting the students in D.El.Ed. Course was
going on up to 20.02.2020, therefore, by passing of the order in favour of the respondent-institutions, there is no question of any disturbance in the
academic calendar.
Learned counsels for the respondents have also argued that there is no bar in issuing interim directions, if the court is convinced that impugned action
of a party is illegal or without any justification.
Learned counsels for the respondents have also advanced arguments in support of eligibility of the respondent- institutions for conducting the D.El.Ed.
Course.
Heard learned counsel for the rival parties at length. In all the writ petitions filed on behalf of the respondent-institutions, it is mainly prayed that the
respondent- institutions be allowed to conduct D.El.Ed. Course and the appellant-respondents may kindly be directed to permit them to admit the
students in the aforesaid course.
The question regarding eligibility of the respondent- institutions to conduct the course in question is still pending before the learned Single Judge and in
such circumstances, we are of the opinion that without deciding the said question, it was not appropriate for the learned Single Judge to pass the
interim order, which really amounts to grant of final relief. Hence, without going into the merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to set aside the
directions given by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order to the extent of permitting the respondent-institutions to take part in ensuing
counseling for admission of students for D.El.Ed. Course and of directing the State to conduct fresh counseling within a period of two weeks to
accommodate the students, who have cleared entrance examination.
Ordered accordingly.
The learned Single Judge is requested to decide the main writ petitions expeditiously as per his own discretion.
Resultantly, all these Special Appeals are disposed of. A copy of this order be placed in all the files.