EDUCATION = affiliation/permission for the academic year 2012-13 to start D.Ed., course.= It is well settled that once recognition is granted by the NCTE further steps of affiliation should normally follow as per Section 14 (6) of the NCTE Act, 1993. The role of the State is very formal and the State is not expected to obstruct the commencement of admission process and academic course once recognition is granted and affiliation is found to be acceptable. It is true that under G.O.Ms.No.104, dated 24.11.2007, the Affiliation Committee is required to ensure that conditions of recognition and affiliation are fulfilled by the institutions and submit its recommendation to the Government for its approval. Admittedly this exercise has been done in the case of the petitioner-institutions on 6.02.2013 by which date the petitioners had complied all the requirements. No apparent reason is forthcoming from the respondents for not granting affiliation immediately thereafter. It is not in dispute that the counseling was still in progress as on 6.02.2013 and in fact the last date for the students to report to the colleges was on 28.02.2013.- For the foregoing reasons, these writ petitions are allowed and consequently a direction shall go to the 1st respondent to accord affiliation to the petitioner-institutions to run D.Ed., course so as to enable them to admit the students for the academic year 2012-13. No costs.


THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI

W.P.Nos.4968, 4950, 4504, 4663, 4700, 4790, 4970, 5116, 5122, 5275, 5279, 5526,6386 and 6388 of 2013

W.P.No.4968/2013

Between:

1.               Shilpa Elementary Teacher Education rep., by its Secretary/Correspondent, Dr. Ch. V. Narayana Rao, and others.

PETITIONERS

AND

  1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary, Primary Education Department, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad-500 022, and others.

RESPONDENTS
































ORDER:
1.       All these writ petitions are connected and hence there are being disposed of by this common order at the stage of admission after hearing Sri S. Satyam Reddy, learned Senior Counsel instructed by Smt. K.V. Rajasree, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, and Sri S. Sriram, Sri S. Girimoji Rao, Smt. Y. Anupama Devi, Sri S. Surender Reddy, Smt. P. Rajeswari, the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, the learned Government Pleader for School Education and Sri K. Ramakant Reddy, learned counsel appearing for NCTE.
2.       The petitioners in these writ petitions are educational societies, which are running educational institutions. They are aggrieved by the action of the 1st respondent-State Government in not granting affiliation/permission for the academic year 2012-13 to start D.Ed., course.
3.       The facts, which are not in dispute, are that National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) accorded recognition to the petitioner-institutions to run D.Ed., course for the academic year 2012-13. These recognitions were given in the months of August/September/October 2012. The petitioner-institutions, thereafter, submitted applications to the State Government seeking affiliation during the months of September/October/November 2012. The proposals were duly verified through the inspection teams. After being satisfied with the infrastructure provided by the petitioner-institutions, the Affiliation Committee recommended the State Government for granting affiliation. The Committee, though processed the applications for the academic year 2012-13, recommended affiliations for the academic year 2013-14. The petitioners, who have obtained recognition from the NCTE for the academic year 2012-13, are aggrieved by this action of the Affiliation Committee. They contend that they are entitled for affiliation for the academic year 2012-13.
4.       From a perusal of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, the Affiliation Committee has taken the decision to recommend affiliation for 2013-14 because there will be shortage of working days if the affiliation is granted for the academic year 2012-13. According to the respondents there should be at least 200 working days in an academic year and that as the number of working days will fall short, it is not in the interest of the students to give affiliation for the academic year 2012-13.
5.       It is well settled that once recognition is granted by the NCTE further steps of affiliation should normally follow as per Section 14 (6) of the NCTE Act, 1993. The role of the State is very formal and the State is not expected to obstruct the commencement of admission process and academic course once recognition is granted and affiliation is found to be acceptable.
6.       It is true that under G.O.Ms.No.104, dated 24.11.2007, the Affiliation Committee is required to ensure that conditions of recognition and affiliation are fulfilled by the institutions and submit its recommendation to the Government for its approval. Admittedly this exercise has been done in the case of the petitioner-institutions on 6.02.2013 by which date the petitioners had complied all the requirements. No apparent reason is forthcoming from the respondents for not granting affiliation immediately thereafter. It is not in dispute that the counseling was still in progress as on 6.02.2013 and in fact the last date for the students to report to the colleges was on 28.02.2013.
7.       It is relevant to mention that in all these cases interim orders were granted by this Court during 16.02.2013 to 26.02.2013 to include the names of the petitioner-institutions in the list of colleges for allotment of candidates in the 3rd phase of counseling. There was ample time for according affiliations. Therefore, the objection that there will be shortage of working days from the prescribed 200 days does not stand to reasoning. Admittedly, counseling was done till 8.02.2013 and admissions were given till 28.02.2013. Further more, the material placed before this Court shows that in the past, in similar matters, institutions were permitted to make spot admissions and they were required to complete the number of working days by working extra hours on working days, on public holidays and also in summer vacation. There is no valid reason why the Government should not extended the same benefit to the petitioner-institutions. Further more, huge investments have gone into creating infrastructure by the petitioner-institutions and it will be unfair to ask them to wait for one more year and it frustrates the NCTE’s recognition for present academic year as well.
8.       For the foregoing reasons, these writ petitions are allowed and consequently a direction shall go to the 1st respondent to accord affiliation to the petitioner-institutions to run D.Ed., course so as to enable them to admit the students for the academic year 2012-13. No costs.
9.       In view of disposal of writ petitions, W.P.M.P.No.6206/2013 in W.P.No.4968/2013; W.V.M.P.No.863/2013 and W.P.M.P.No.6178/2013 in W.P.No.4950/2013; W.V.M.P.No.862/2013 and W.P.M.P.No.5626/2013 in W.P.No.4504/2013; W.P.M.P.No.5825/2013 in W.P.No.4663/2013; W.V.M.P.No.856/2013 and W.P.M.P.No.5870/2013 in W.P.No.4700/2013; W.V.M.P.No.865/2013 and W.P.M.P.No.5991/2013 in W.P.No.4790/2013; W.V.M.P.No.867/2013 and W.P.M.P.No.6208/2013 in W.P.No.4970/2013; W.V.M.P.No.864/2013 and W.P.M.P.No.6386/2013 in W.P.No.5116/2013; W.V.M.P.No.860/2013 and W.P.M.P.No.6393/2013 in W.P.No.5722/2013; W.V.M.P.No.861/2013 and W.P.M.P.No.6566/2013 in W.P.No.5275/2013; W.V.M.P.No.868/2013 and W.P.M.P.No.6571/2013 in W.P.No.5279/2013; W.P.M.P.No.6894/2013 in W.P.No.5526/2013; W.P.M.P.No.7990/2013 in W.P.No.6386/2013; W.P.M.P.No.7992/2013 in W.P.No.6388/2013 are dismissed as unnecessary.

_________________
NOUSHAD ALI, J
20th March, 2013
Js.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.