JOSEPH SRIHARSHA MARY INDRAJA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, HYDERABAD Vs. NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION, NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner No. 1 is an Educational Society, under whose management petitioner No. 2 is functioning. It made an application for establishment of petitioner No. 2 College for the academic year 2012-13 for running D.El.Ed course. Respondent No. 2 has communicated certain deficiencies to petitioner No. 1 vide letter dated 29.12.2011. Petitioner No. 1 submitted compliance report dated 29.02.2012. Not satisfied with the said report, respondent No. 2 issued show cause notice, dated 15.05.2012. Petitioner No. 1 submitted a detailed reply to the show cause notice on 04.06.2012. In its meeting held on 31.07.2012, respondent No. 2 has rejected the application of petitioner No. 1 and issued proceeding dated 03.09.2012 in that regard. The petitioners filed W.P. No. 26400 of 2012 questioning the said rejection order. This Court dismissed the said writ petition with liberty to the petitioners to file a statutory appeal. Accordingly, the petitioners filed an appeal before respondent No. 1 against the rejection order. By order dated 03.01.2013, respondent No. 1 allowed the appeal and remanded the case to respondent No. 2 for consequential action. The petitioners represented to respondent No. 2 for complying with the order of respondent No. 1. As no further action was taken by respondent No. 2, the petitioners filed W.P. No. 4954 of 2013 feeling aggrieved by the inaction of respondent No. 2. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 has rejected the petitioners' application in its meeting held on 11.05.2013 by an order, dated 25.05.2013, under which the rejection was intimated to the petitioners. Assailing the said order, the petitioners filed W.P. No. 16561 of 2013, wherein they pleaded that the rejection order passed by respondent No. 2 is on repetitive grounds, which were earlier set aside by respondent No. 1 in the appeal filed by the petitioners. The petitioners pleaded that at the hearing of W.P. No. 16561 of 2013, the counsel for respondent No. 2 has undertaken to re-consider the petitioners' application. However, by order dated 25.07.2013, respondent No. 2 passed a fresh order reiterating its earlier decision. After withdrawing W.P. Nos. 4954 & 16561 of 2013 with liberty to question the order dated 25.07.2013, the petitioners filed the present writ petition.

(2.) On behalf of respondent No. 2, its Regional Director (I/C) filed its counter affidavit, wherein he has sought to support the grounds on which respondent No. 2 has repeatedly rejected the petitioners' application. It is stated in the counter affidavit that respondent No. 1 has merely remanded the case to respondent No. 2 for fresh consideration and that, therefore, the latter is well within its right to reject the petitioners' application if it is satisfied that the petitioners have not complied with the provisions of National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 and the Regulations made thereunder.

(3.) I have carefully considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.