AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
They are heard. This review petition has been filed for review of the order dated 16/4/2013 passed by this Court in WP 2455/2013.
This Court disposed of the aforesaid writ petition with the following directions:
The petitioner had submitted an application for grant of permission to run D. El. Ed. Course for academic session 2011-2012 which has been rejected by the impugned order. As the academic session 2011-2012 has already commenced, therefore, at this point, no relief can be granted to the petitioner for the academic session 2011-2012. However, the petitioners would be at liberty to submit a fresh application to the competent authority for grant of permission to run D.El.Ed. Course for the academic session 2013-2014 within a period of one week. The competent authority shall process the application which may be submitted by the petitioner and shall decide the same afresh after inviting comments from the State Government in accordance with law in the light of the observations made by Principal Seat at Jabalpur in Writ Petition No. 9988/2012.
It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of.
CC as per rules.
Learned counsel for the review petitioner has contended that as per public notice issued by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), the last date for receiving applications was 31/12/2012. The writ petitioner (respondent No. 3 herein), did not submit any application in regard to recognition in pursuance to the public notice, hence, directions could not be issued by this Court to consider the application of respondent No. 3 for recognition. It is further submitted that the order passed in WP 17778/2012 at the Main Seat, relied upon by this Court, is not applicable in the present case because the aforesaid order was passed on 29/11/2012 and at that time, line was open for submitting applications.
The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the review petitioner could not be accepted in the particular facts of the case. Respondent No. 3 filed application for grant of recognition on 1/10/2011. Copy of the application submitted by respondent No. 3 on line was filed as Annexure P/5 in the writ petition. Aforesaid application was rejected by the NTCE vide order dated 25/6/2012 with the following observations:
The Commissioner, Rajya Shiksha Kendra, vide letter no. 21/R.S.K./S.S./Recognition/12/311 dated 27/01/2012 and the Principal Secretary, (School Education), Govt. of M.P. vide letter No. 91/Admin/School Edn/2012 dated 22/03/2012 have conveyed not to grant recognition/permission for D.EL.ED. course in the state of Madhya Pradesh.
The letters received from the Govt. of M.P. were placed before WRC in its 62nd meeting held on 10th May, 2012. The committee decided that view of the state Govt. would need to be taken into account for decision on the applications. Hence, fresh cases for recognition cannot be considered until the state Govt. changes its advice.
Since the Govt. of Madhya Pradesh has given negative recommendation for opening of new D.EL.ED. college/increase in intake in D.EL.ED. course, the application of your institution is hereby rejected/refused.
The application submitted by respondent No. 3 was rejected on the ground that the State Government submitted its opinion that no fresh recognition or permission be granted in the State of Madhya Pradesh for opening D.El.Ed. course. The NCTE further observed that in view of the opinion of the State Government it was not possible to consider the application of respondent No. 3 as a fresh application, until and unless the State Government changes its advice. In another petition, this Court has held that the State Government had no power and authority to submit general opinion about non-granting recognition. In these particular facts of the case, this Court had issued directions to consider the application of respondent No. 3 for the academic session 2013-14. In such circumstances, the contention of the review petitioner that respondent No. 3 did not submit any application in pursuance to the public notice upto 31/12/2012 is hereby rejected.
It is further observed that the NCTE is at liberty to consider the application of respondent No. 3 for grant of fresh recognition in accordance with the time schedule fixed by Hon''ble the Supreme Court. Review petition is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.