AJITH ISSAC Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed in the form of a public interest litigation for quashing the decision taken by Southern Regional Committee (for short 'SRC') of National Council for Teacher Education (for short NCTE) and for consequential reliefs. The impugned decision at Sl. No. 77 of Ext. P9, which reads as under:

(2.) The short facts of the case would disclose that the petitioner claiming to be a pro bono publico filed WP (C) No. 16187/2012 inter alia alleging that the B.Ed. training colleges conducted by the University of Kerala (hereinafter referred to as 'the University') is without recognition from the NCTE. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the aforesaid decision, which is impugned herein, was placed on record by which it was informed before this Court that the SRC of NCTE has taken a decision to relax the prescribed norms and standards for the aforesaid institutions and the recognition given to the ten Teacher Education Centers of the University is continued. The University was given time till 2015-2016 to remove the deficiencies. Though it was contended that such a decision is contrary to the provisions of S.14 of the National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred as the Act) since the petitioner had filed a separate writ petition, the aforesaid writ petition was dismissed. It was further mentioned that all contentions pertaining to the decision of the NCTE to continue the B.Ed. centres of the University are kept open.

(3.) In this writ petition, it is contended that Ext. P9 decision is contrary to S.14(3) of the Act. It is contended that no power is available with the SRC of NCTE to relax any of the conditions prescribed under the Statute. Specific reference is made to Clause 12 of the Regulations, which inter alia gives power only to the Chairperson of the NCTE to relax any of the provisions of the regulations in respect of any clause or category of institutions in the State and subject to conditions as may be specified in the order. Such a decision has to be subject to ratification by the Council as well. The contention is that in the absence of any such relaxation made by the Chairperson of the National Council, the SRC had no jurisdiction to make relaxation as evident from the decision at Ext. P9 and therefore any such relaxation granted is bad in law and for that reason, the respondent University is not entitled to continue the course which they have started pursuant to the aforesaid decision. The petitioner also contends that the said decision is the outcome of bias and is issued at the instance of K. A. Hashim, who was the previous Registrar of Kerala University and a member of SRC, which considered the claim of the University.