MAA DURGA SHIKSHAN SANSTHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents on 4. 3. 2004 with the prayer that by appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 5. 1. 2004 (Annex. P/1) passed by the respondent No. 2 Dy. Secreatry, Education (Group-I) Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur by which the petitioner was denied NOC for running B. Ed. Course for the Academic Session 2004-05, be quashed and set aside and it may be held that the petitioner is entitled to get renewal of NOC from respondent State of Rajasthan for the B. Ed. Course for the Academic Session 2004-05 and also entitled to get recognition from respondent No. 4 Northern Regional Committee, National Council for Teacher Education (N. C. T. E.), Jaipur irrespective of renewal of NOC from State of Rajasthan.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner as put forward by it in this writ petition is as follows:- THE petitioner is a registered society under the Rajasthan Society Registration Act, 1958, having its registration No. 10/jodhpur/1999-2000. A copy of the registration certificate dated 23. 4. 1999 issued by the Competent authority is marked as Annex. P/2. THE petitioner Society sought permission from the State Government to open the B. Ed. College for girls exclusively within the State of Rajasthan and the respondent No. 2 Dy. Secretary, Education vide letter dated 6. 10. 2001 (Annex. P/3) granted permission to the petitioner by issuing NOC for the year 2002-03 for 120 seats at Jaisalmer. THE further case of the petitioner society is that on 30. 12. 2002, the respondent No. 2 Dy. Secretary, Education issued NOC for the Session 2003-04 to run the B. Ed. Course. A copy of the NOC for the Session 2003-04 is marked as Annex. P/9. THE further case of the petitioner Society is that for getting NOC for the Academic Session 2003-04 from the respondent No. 4 Northern Regional Committee of the National Council for Teacher Education (for short "ncte"), a statutory body created under the National Council for Teacher Education act, 1993, the petitioner Society could not submit its application before the respondent No. 4 on or before 31. 12. 2002, the last date prescribed, for the reasons mentioned in para No. 5 of the writ petition and since the application was submitted by the petitioner before the respondent No. 4 with one day delay on 1. 1. 2003, therefore, the respondent No. 4 Northern Regional Committee of NCTE through letter Annex. P/13 dated 7. 2. 2003 refused to permit the petitioner to run the B. Ed. Course for the Session 2003-04, but in that letter Annex. P/13, it was specifically mentioned that the application of the petitioner would be carried forward for consideration for the subsequent academic year 2004-05 provided some of the deficiencies, which were pointed out in that letter Annex. P/13, were made good by the petitioner. Aggrieved from the said letter Annex. P/13 issued by the respondent No. 4 Northern Regional Committee of NCTE, the petitioner preferred a writ petition being S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1069/2003 before this Court and this Court through order dated 4. 7. 2003 (Annex. P/14) dismissed that writ petition of the petitioner But, this Court advised the petitioner to resume the matter in next academic session i. e. 2004-05. THE order of the Single Bench of this Court dated 4. 7. 2003 (Annex. P/14) was upheld by the Division Bench of this Court through judgment dated 4. 8. 2003 in D. B. Civil Special Appeal No. 494/2003 ). THE further case of the petitioner Society is that in view of the facts and circumstances just narrated above, it again applied before the respondent No. 2 Dy. Secretary, Education for granting NOC to run B. Ed. Course for the academic session 2004-05, but the respondent No. 2 Dy. Secretary, Education through impugned order Annex. P/1 dated 5. 1. 2004 refused to grant NOC to the petitioner Society on the ground that the petitioner Society did not start the B. Ed. course earlier though permission was granted to it twice for the Session 2002-03 and 2003-04. Aggrieved from the said order Annex. P/1 dated 5. 1. 2004 passed by the respondent No. 2 Dy. Secretary, Education refusing to grant NOC to the petitioner for the Session 2004-05, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. In this petition, the petitioner Society has challenged the order Annex. P/1 dated 5. 1. 2004 on various grounds and the main ground is that when the respondent No. 4 Northern Regional Committee of NCTE had already observed in the letter Annex. P/13 that the case of the petitioner would be considered for the next academic year 2004-05, therefore, denial of NOC for the academic year 2004-05 by the respondent No. 2 Dy. Secretary, Education is in flagrant violation of justice, fairness and principles of natural justice. Hence, impugned order Annex. P/1 passed by the respondent No. 2 Dy. Secretary, Education cannot be sustained and liable to the quashed and set aside. A reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents nos. 1 to 3 stating that there is no dispute on the point that for the academic sessions 2002-03 and 2003-04, the petitioner Society was granted NOC to run B. Ed. Course at Jaisalmer, but since the petitioner Society was not in a position to satisfy the prescribed norms of the respondent No. 4 Northern regional Committee of NCTE, therefore, the respondent No. 4 Northern Regional Committee of NCTE through letter Annex. P/13 dated 7. 2. 2003 did not grant NOC to the petitioner for the academic session 2003-04. Apart from this, the formalities for grant of NOC were to be completed by the 31st December and the time is over now, therefore, it is not possible for them to grant NOC to the petitioner Society for the academic session 2004-05. Hence, no case for interference is made out and this writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

(3.) THERE is also no dispute on the point that the petitioner challenged the letter Annex. P/13 before this Court by filing writ petition being S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1069/2003 and this Court dismissed that writ petition through order Annex. P/14 dated 4. 7. 2003, but this Court advised the petitioner to resume the matter in next academic session and that order of the Single Bench of this Court dated 4. 7. 2003 (Annex. P/14) was upheld by the Division Bench of this Court through judgment dated 4. 8. 2003 in D. B. Civil Special Appeal No. 494/2003.