LAWS(MAD)-2009-7-864

VINAYAKA VIDHYALAYA CHARITABLE TRUSTS, VINAYAKA VIDHYALAYA COLLEGE OF EDUCATION REPRESENTED BY ITS CORRESPONDENT Vs. MEMBER SECRETARY, NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION AND NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION REP BY THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, SOUTHERN REGIONAL COMMITTEE

Decided On July 06, 2009
Vinayaka Vidhyalaya Charitable Trusts, Vinayaka Vidhyalaya College Of Education Represented By Its Correspondent Appellant
V/S
Member Secretary, National Council For Teacher Education And National Council For Teacher Education Rep By The Regional Director, Southern Regional Committee Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.

(2.) This writ petition had been filed to call for and quash the records relating to the order of the first respondent, dated 19.12.2008, confirming the order of the second respondent, dated 22.9.2008, rejecting the request of the petitioner Institution for the grant of recognition.

(3.) It has been submitted that the petitioner Institution has been granted recognition by the National Council for Teacher Education, the second respondent herein, to offer B.Ed., course. Pursuant to the said recognition the petitioner Institution has been successfully running the B.Ed., course. It has a built up space of 36,268.08 Sq.Ft., which is more than the minimum requirement of 16,000 Sq.Ft., prescribed by the respondents for the granting of recognition. While so, the petitioner Institution had applied to the second respondent for the grant of recognition for starting M.Ed. course for the year 2008-2009, through their application, dated 22.2.2008, made under Section 14 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993. As per the norms prescribed by the respondents a sum of Rs. 8 lakhs had also been deposited, on 15.7.2008. On 31.7.2008, the second respondent had sent an inspection team to verify if the petitioner Institution had complied with the requirements, as prescribed by the respondents. The visiting team, after inspecting the petitioner Institution, had submitted a report to the second respondent stating that the petitioner Institution had satisfied the norms prescribed by the respondents, as per law.