The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the proceedings dated 17.02.2023, which nullified the effect of the earlier proceedings dated 16.03.2021, and restored the recognition from the academic year 2021-2022, allowing the students to sit for the examination.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents herein to permit the petitioners herein being the students of third respondent college to write the B.Ed Semester Examination forthwith or any other date for the II semester to IV semester of the year 2021-2023 and publish all the results including the I semester results of the year 2021-2022, based on the proceedings of the second respondent in F.No.SRC/NCTE/APS/03576/Bed./TN/2023, dated 17.02.2023.)

1. The petitioners herein are the students of the third respondent, College of Education, who joined the course in 2021 for the academic year 2021-2023. They now seek a direction from this Court to direct the first respondent to let them sit for the examination that is scheduled to take place on 03.08.2023.

2.1 The third respondent-College had obtained the approval from the second respondent vide its proceedings dated 30.06.2009, and ever since it was continuing its institution till academic year 2020-2021. What happened thereafter was that vide proceedings dated 16.03.2021, the second respondent withdrew its recognition issued to the third respondent. The first respondent - University to which the third respondent was affiliated followed suit, and withdrew its affiliation on 28.07.2021.

2.2 In its proceedings, the first respondent had categorically indicated to the third respondent that the third respondent-College should not admit the students for the academic year 2021-2022 in terms of the prevailing Rules. However, ignoring this and perhaps driven by a sense of over confidence, the third respondent proceeded to admit 100 students, which included the petitioners before this Court. They now have come before this Court to seek a direction of this Court to sit for the examination.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners brought to the notice of the Court the proceedings of the second respondent dated, 17.02.2023, that for and from the academic year 2023-2024, the second respondent has accorded recognition, and added that the permission accorded by the second respondent pointedly state that it is a continuation order and that permission is granted to the third respondent "for continuation of recognition for B.Ed., Programme for two years duration with an annual intake of (2 basic unit) of 50 students each subject to fulfilment of the following conditions". The emphasis, the learned counsel makes is on the expression "for continuation of recognition". According to the learned counsel, this would imply that the intent of the second respondent is to accord recognition from the academic year 2021-2022.

4. The learned counsel for the second respondent logged in online and has some difficulty in making his submissions. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent brought to the notice of the Court a copy of the proceedings of the second respondent dated 16.03.2021, and it refers to the 396th meeting of the Southern Regional Committee (SRC) has minuted certain specific reasons for withdrawing the recognition of the third respondent. Indeed, the proceedings also informs the third respondent about the right of appeal it has under Section 18 of NCTE Act, 1993. The learned counsel added :

(a) Consistent with the proceedings of the second respondent, withdrawing the recognition of the third respondent-College, the first respondent withdrew the affiliation on 28.07.2021.

(b)And despite the third respondent having been informed that it should not admit any students for the academic year 2021-2022, the third respondent cheated the students and admitted them. Section 17(3) of NCTE Act 1993, provides that once the recognition of an institution is withdrawn, the institution should discontinue the course or training in Teacher Education and the concerned University to which such Schools of Education is affiliated, should cancel affiliation. And