RASHTRIYA SEVA PARISHAD Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner praying for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant recognition to the petitioner-College for conducting D.Ed. course in Hindi medium.

(2.) THE petitioner, an education institution applied for starting D.Ed. College called Teachers Training College of Education for the year 1986-87 in Hindi Medium in pursuance of the Government policy allowing private colleges to conduct D.Ed. Courses. And on 22nd August 1986 the petitioner-institute was given permission to start D.Ed. College for the year 1986-87. Accordingly, the College was started. It is submitted that the Deputy Education Officer inspected the functioning of the college on 5th January 1988 and a satisfactory report as regards the facilities and infrastructure of the college was given and it was recommended for recognition of the said college for the period 1988-89. However, it is submitted that respondent no.2 took a different view and the petitioner-institute was called upon to show cause as to why action should not be taken for deficiencies in the college and for not making any attempts to raise the standard of education by its notice dated 1st February 1988. It is also submitted that along with the petitioner-college other 177 colleges were also issued similar notices. It is further submitted that by order dated 30th May 1988 the petitioner-college was declared to be derecognised along with other 177 colleges. Thereupon a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 2811 of 1988 was filed in this Court and stay was granted. However the respondents filed special leave petition in the Supreme Court challenging the order of the High Court and the Supreme Court granted ad-interim stay to the High Court's interim order. It is submitted that the petitioner-college along with the others before the Supreme Court had given an undertaking to close down the college from 1989-90 and not to admit students. It was assured to the petitioner-college that after the Government's policy is revoked in future, first preference will be given to the petitioner-college. Otherwise, the petitioner-college will be free to challenge in the Court of law. It is submitted that in the year 1991 the petitioner-college applied for recognition for the year 1992-93. The petitioner-college was called upon to pay Rs.2000/- towards their application but that application was not decided by the respondents. Therefore, the petitioner-college filed another writ petition, being Writ Petition No.201 of 1993, in the High Court. In that petition, the respondents were directed to dispose of the application of the petitioners on merits. Thereafter the respondents informed by letter dated 17th April 1993 to the petitioners that their application has been rejected as a matter of government policy. Again, the petitioners challenged that decision by filing a writ petition, being Writ Petition No.3225 of 1993, in this High Court. In that petition, the Division Bench directed the respondents to consider the petitioners' application on merits. However, the application of the petitioners came to be rejected by the respondents by letter dated 24th September 1993. Against that, the petitioners filed another writ petition, being Writ Petition No.4273 of 1993, in this High Court which came to be decided on 15th February 1994. In pursuance of the order passed in that petition, the petitioners again applied for recognition for the year 1994-95 by application dated 25th February, 1994. However, that application came to be rejected by letter dated 25th March 1994. Hence this petition.

(3.) IN the result, this petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 25th March 1994 passed by the respondents is quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to take the report of the Committee constituted by this High Court for the purpose of satisfying the formalities and grant permission to the petitioner-institute for the academic year 1997-98. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.