K S RAJA EDUCATIONAL TRUST GINGEE VILLUPURAM DISTRICT TAMIL NADU Vs. NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION SOUTHERN REGIONAL COMMITTEE BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in these petitions have all approached the respondent-National Council for Teacher Education ('the NCTE' for short), under Section 14 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 ('the Act' for short), for grant of recognition to the institutions already established by them or in the process of being established. The NCTE in all these cases has refused to consider their applications presented under Section 14 of the Act on the ground that the same were not accompanied by a 'no objection certificate' from the State Government. Aggrieved by the refusal of the NCTE to consider their applications, the petitioners have presented these writ petitions.

(2.) THE Act was enacted by the Central Government in 1993 and it came into force with effect from 2-9-1995. The matter of recognition of teacher education institutions was left to the National Council under section 14 of the Act. Every existing institution and every institution proposed to be established had to submit an application for recognition within the period prescribed along with the prescribed fee. Section 16 of the Act bars holding of examination after the appointed date i. e. , 2-9-1995 by any examining body for any course or training unless the institution concerned has obtained recognition under Section 14 of the Act. The respondent is one such Regional Council constituted under Section 3 (2) of the Act having jurisdiction over the States of Andhra Pradesh, karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Lakshadweep and Pondicherry in southern India. As required by the provisions of the Act, the petitioners presented their respective applications with the requisite fee to the respondent for grant of recognition. The respondent failed to consider their applications on the ground that they are not supported by the 'no objection certificate' from the State Government as required under Regulation 5 (e) of the NOTE Regulations. The petitioners are aggrieved by the inaction of the respondent in the matter of recognition and hence have come up before this Court in these writ petitions.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for petitioners in their respective writ petitions as also Mr, N. Devadas, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent.