BALA GURUKULAM SANSKRIT TEACHER Vs. REGIONAL DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner claims to be a linguistic minority educational Institution established in the year 1985 at Melakodumalur in Ramanathapuram District of State of Tamil Nadu. It was, according to the petitioner, in existence as on the date the National Council for Teacher Education act, 1993 came into force. An application seeking recognition of the ncte established under the aforementioned Act was filed by the petitioner before the Southern Regional Committee at Bangalore in February 1996. On receipt of the said application, the Regional Committee appears to have in terms of a communication dated 1st of January, 1999 informed the petitioner that the request for recognition could not be considered since the Institution was not functioning as on 17th of August, 1995 the date on which the Act came into force. The communication further required the petitioner to produce a no objection certificate from the State Government as required by Regulation 5 (e) of the NCTE regulations framed under the Act aforementioned. By another communication dated 27th of January, 1999, the petitioner was once again informed that since it was not included in the list of recognised Institutions furnished by the Government of Tamil Nadu, its request for recognition as an existing Institution could not be considered. The petitioner was asked to furnish a no objection certificate from the State Government besides depositing a sum of Rs. 4,000/- representing the balance of the processing fee. It was at this stage that the petitioner filed W. P. No. 4454 of 2000 challenging the constitutional validity of Regulation 5 (e) of the NCTE Regulations. The said petition was allowed by a Single Bench of this Court by order dated 31-5-2000 following an earlier decision in dr. Sri Jachani Rashtreeya Seva Peetha, Bangalore v State of Karnataka and Others. No appeal against the said direction of this Court was filed by the respondent-NCTE. An appeal was however filed against the decision of this Court in National Council for Teacher Education, Southern regional Committee, Bangalore and Another v Dr. Sri Jachani rashtreeya Seva Peetha, Bangalore and Another, which was eventually allowed by a Division Bench holding that Regulation 5 (e) of the Regulations did not suffer from any vice of unconstitutionality. A no objection certificate, observed the Division Bench, was only one of the inputs required to be considered by the Southern Regional Committee while examining a request for grant of recognition to a new Institution offering a Course in teachers training. The following observations made in the said decision are in this regard apposite.

(2.) ). The application made by the petitioner was not however disposed off by the Southern Regional Committee although the petitioner had paid the deficit processing fee as demanded by the Southern Regional committee. In the present writ petition, the petitioner now prays for a mandamus directing the respondent-Southerr Regional Committee to consider the application of the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

(3.) APPEARING for the petitioner, Mr. Sabarad submitted that the petitioner was in existence as on the date the NCTE Act, 1993 came into force. The Southern Regional Committee was not, according to the learned Counsel, justified in holding otherwise. The production of a no objection certificate as envisaged by Regulation 5 (e) was not therefore necessary according to Mr. Sabarad. Alternatively, he argued that even if the Institution was not treated as an existing Institution, the petitioner's application could be treated as a fresh application for recognition of a new Institution. He urged that the Southern Regional committee had by demanding a no objection certificate from the petitioner and the processing fee prescribed for consideration of new applications virtually treated the petitioner's application as one seeking recognition of a new Institution. Since the petitioner had deposited the requisite fee, the Southern Regional Committee was under an obligation to consider the application and pass appropriate orders having regard to the law declared by this Court that issue or refusal of a no objection certificate was only an input, which was not conclusive or binding upon the Southern Regional Committee, who had to independently examine whether the recognition prayed for could or could not be granted. Inasmuch as the Southern Regional Committee had not considered the application and disposed off the same despite considerable delay, a mandamus deserved to be issued to it to discharge its statutory obligation.