Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 48042
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Devan Ramachandran, J
KUNJUKRISHNAN NADAR EDUCATIONAL, – Appellant
Versus
THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR – Respondent
WP(C)/24027/2022
B.S.SWATHI KUMAR ANITHA RAVINDRAN HARISANKAR N UNNI SARANGADHARAN P.N.S.SHAMILA DR.ABRAHAM P.MEACHINKARA,SC,NCTE SMT PARVATHY K-GP;SRI THOMAS ABRAHAM-SC
Recognition by NCTE is valid until legally revoked, with the need for compliance to information requisites for continued status.
Headnote:
Recognition - Educational Agency - NCTE - Sections regarding maintenance of recognition - The court affirmed that recognition of the petitioner by NCTE continues, subject to compliance with information requests, thus permitting student admissions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an educational agency running a B.Ed college, sought a declaration for continued recognition from NCTE and inclusion in the list of affiliated colleges for student admissions in 2022-23 based on prior granted recognition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the recognition granted through earlier NCTE order still holds unless legally withdrawn, confirming the petitioner’s right to student admissions contingent on providing required information.
Issues: Whether the petitioner’s recognition by NCTE continues and if they can admit students for the B.Ed course for 2022-23 based on the existing recognition.
Ratio Decidendi: The recognition of the petitioner remains valid until officially revoked, and compliance to NCTE's information requests is necessary for continued validity.
Final Decision: The writ petition is allowed, confirming continued recognition and permitting the petitioner to admit students.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, which is an Educational Agency running a B.Ed College at Neyyattinkara, has approached this Court for a declaration that their recognition by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), granted to them through Ext.P1, is till continuing; and resultantly, that they are entitled to be included in the list of affiliated colleges in Ext.P12 by the University of Kerala, so as to allow them to admit students for the B.Ed course in the year 2022-23, based on the allotment to be made by the competent Authority.
2. Sri.B.S.Swathi Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, explained that, when an earlier attempt was made by the NCTE to cancel Ext.P1 recognition to his client, they approached this Court and obtained Ext.P5 judgment, whereby, such action was interdicted and quashed and consequently that the recognition still continues. He submitted that, therefore, there is no reason why the University should disallow them to admit students for the B.Ed course in the academic year 2022- 23, by referring to include them in the list of affiliated colleges in Ext.P12.
3. On hearing Sri.B.S.Swathi Kumar as afore, I asked Dr.Abraham P. Meachinkara - learned standing counsel for the NCTE, who conceded that, consequent to Ext.P5, the recognition granted to the College in question through Ext.P1 still continues. He, however, submitted that this is subject to the condition that they furnish all necessary information for the purpose of continuing with the said recognition; and that therefore, even though he does not stand in the way of the reliefs in the writ petition being granted to them, it may be made clear that unless they furnish all the details within the time frame as have been mandated by the NCTE, they would not be entitled to continue such recognition.
4. Sri.Thomas Abraham - learned standing counsel for the University submitted that his client has absolutely no cause against the petitioner per se, but are concerned that they should have recognition from the NCTE before they are allowed to admit students for the next academic year.
5. When I consider the afore submissions, it is evident that, even going by NCTE, the recognition granted to the petitioner through Ext.P1 still continues, though they have now sought certain information from them for the purpose of continuing such. Of course, the argument of Sri.B.S.Swathi Kumar - learned counsel for the petitioner, is that such requisition for information has not reached his client; but he undertook that the moment they receive it, all such will be made available to the NCTE without fail.
In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition with the following directions:
(a) It is declared that until such time as Ext.P1 is withdrawn or set aside by the NCTE through a process known to law, the recognition granted to the petitioner thereunder will continue to be in the effect.
(b) Consequently, the Kerala University will include the name of the College, along with the others, in Ext.P12 and allow them to admit students for the B.Ed course, based on the allotments to be made by the competent Authority.
(c) The NCTE will be at full liberty to seek any information from the petitioner/college for the purpose of continuing with the recognition and it shall be acceded to by them without any avoidable delay.
(d) In the event the petitioner/college refuses to accede to any valid and legally permitted information sought for by the NCTE, the said Authority will be at full liberty to take any appropriate action, but only after affording them an opportunity of being heard.
Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE stu APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24027/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. F.KL/SEC/N/
214/SRO/NCTE/2005-2006/4009 DATED 16-11-2005 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE NO. AC.B1/NEW COLLEGES/2006-07 DATED 30-12-
2005 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO.
AC.B11/03/42895/2021-22 DATED 1-3-2022 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE PROS
