SAURASHTRA GANDHIJI GRAMODHYOGTRUST Vs. WESTREN REGIONAL COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr.Jani, learned Counsel for respondents No.1 and 2, waives service of notice of rule. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.

(2.) The short facts of the case are that the petitioner, which is a charitable Trust, applied for recognition of B.Ed. College to respondent No.1. The application was made on 4-9-2000. The application was processed and ultimately the inspection visit was made on 24-7-2001. On the basis of the said inspection visit and after considering the material, on 8-11-2001, the decision was communicated by respondent No.1, whereby the request to grant recognition was refused. The matter was carried by the petitioner to the appellate authority and ultimately the appellate authority, on 25th June, 2002, passed the order, whereby the other deficiencies which were mentioned in the order of the first authority were considered as complied with. However, so far as the strength of the lecturers is concerned, it was found by the appellate authority that as per the regulations, for the strength of the students of 100 or less, there must be a minimum seven lecturers plus one principal and since the petitioner has appointed only four lecturers plus one principal, petitioner is not meeting with the requirement and, therefore, the appeal was dismissed. The stand of the petitioner was that at the time when the application was made, requirement as per the regulations was one teacher for ten students and since the petitioner wanted to open the class with the strength of 40 students, four teachers were sufficient. However, without prejudice to the said contentions, the petitioner communicated to the appellate authority that it is ready to appoint three more teachers and on the said aspect the petitioner made representation to respondent No.2. However, respondent No.2, as per the letter dated 5-8-2002, communicated to the petitioner that once the appellate authority has taken decision, there is no power of review and hence the request could not be accepted and under these circumstances, the present petition.

(3.) Mr.Joshi, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that at the time when the application was made the regulations which were prevailing prior to September, 2001 were applicable and in his submission, the petitioner had complied with all the requirements as per the regulation then prevailing and still, however, with a view to see that the petitioner meets with the present regulations also, the willingness was shown to have seven teachers plus one principal, but the said request was turned down on the ground that there is no power of review. Mr.Joshi submitted that when the petitioner is ready to comply with the existing regulations also, without insisting for the earlier regulations, the authority should have taken a reasonable view of the matter, but the representation is rejected only on the ground that there is no power of review. It has been submitted by Mr.Joshi that since the term is to expire in a very short time, if immediate action is not taken in this regard by the competent authority, it would create other complications. Mr.Joshi also submitted that when the petitioner is meeting with the requirements as per the new regulations, the order of the appellate authority be quashed and recognition may be ordered, so that the petitioner can continue with the B.Ed. College.