Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/2189/2010 of SHAKUNTALA DEVI EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTE DEHRADUN Vs NORTHERN REGIONAL COMMITTEE on 30 December 2010
COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 2189 of 2010 (M/S) Shakuntala Devi Educational Institute ……Petitioner Versus Northern Regional Committee …….Respondent Mr. V.K. Kohli, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Rajendra Tamta, counsel for petitioner. Mr. Sudhir
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Conclusion
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition No. 2189 of 2010 (M/S)
Shakuntala Devi Educational Institute
Versus
……Petitioner
Northern Regional Committee
…….Respondent
Mr. V.K. Kohli, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Rajendra Tamta, counsel for petitioner. Mr. Sudhir Singh, Advocate for respondent.
Dated:-30-12-2010
Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
By means of this petition, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 16.12.2010 (Annexure no. 1 to the writ petition), whereby National Council for Teacher Education (for short N.C.T.E.) rejected the application for M.Ed. course, moved by the petitioner institute.
Learned counsel for the respondent stated before this Court that there is no need to file counter affidavit and the writ petition be disposed of finally without counter version.
The grievance of the petitioner is that petitioner institute had applied earlier for recognition of two courses i.e. M.Ed. and B.P.Ed. The petitioner institute was informed by the N.C.T.E. that recognition for two courses cannot be granted in the same year. On this, the petitioner institute wrote a letter dated 06.12.2010 to Northern Regional Committee (respondent), requesting that the inspection for M.Ed. course be made and fees paid for inspection for B.P.Ed. course be refunded back.
The petitioner wrote letter to respondent on 06.12.2010 prior to passing of the impugned order dated 16.12.2010, whereby N.C.T.E. has rejected the application for M.Ed course and decided to make inspection for B.P.Ed. course.
Since the petitioner gave option for inspection of M.Ed. course and it is the Institute, who will take decision to run the course and N.C.T.E. is the authority to give recognition in view of provision of N.C.T.E. Act, the impugned order dated 16.12.2010 (Annexure no. 1 to the petition) and consequential order dated 16.12.2010 (Annexure no. 5 to the petition) are hereby quashed.
The writ petition is allowed. The respondent Committee is directed to consider the application of the petitioner for M.Ed. course, and to make inspection as per N.C.T.E. Rules, as expeditiously as possible.
S
(B.S.Verma, J.) 30-12-2010