Karnataka High Court
Deccan Teachers Training Institute ... vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors on 23 May, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3292-DB
WA No. 200111 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23 RD DAY OF MAY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
WRIT APPEAL NO. 200111 OF 2024 (EDN-RES)
BETWEEN:
DECCAN TEACHERS TRAINING INSTITUTE
D.ED. COLLEGE,
NEAR PEER BANGALI DARGA,
RING ROAD, KALABURAGI-585104,
REP. BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY.
...APPELLANT
Digitally signed (BY SMT. RATNA N. SHIVAYOGIMATH, ADVOCATE)
by KHAJAAMEEN
L MALAGHAN
Location: HIGH AND:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY
EDUCATION,
MS BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560001.
2. SOUTHERN REGIONAL COMMITTEE
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHERS EDUCATION,
OFFICE G-7, SECTOR-10,
NEAR SECTOR-10, METRO STATION,
DWARKA,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3292-DB
WA No. 200111 of 2024
NEW DELHI-110075.
REP. BY ITS REGIONAL DIRECTOR.
3. THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE EDUCATIONAL
AND RESEARCH TRAINING, NO.4, 100 FT,
RING ROAD, BANASHANKARI, 3RD STAGE,
BENGALURU-560085,
BY ITS DIRECTOR.
4. THE DISTRICT INSTITUTE TRAINING EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT (DIET),
KALABURAGI,
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL, KAMALAPUR,
DIST. KALABURAGI-585101.
5. THE DIRECTOR (OTHER EXAMINATIONS)
KARNATAKA SCHOOL EXAMINATION,
ASSESSMENT BOARD,
MALLESHWARAM,
BENGALURU-560003.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MALHAR RAO, AAG ALONG WITH
SRI G.B. YADAV, HCGP FOR R1,R3 TO R5;
SRI SUDHIRSINGH R. VIJAPUR, DSGI FOR R2 )
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 14.05.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE
OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP NO.201199/2024 (EDN RES)
AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY
THE APPELLANT IN TOTO; SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
25.1.2023 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2, IN NO.
F.SRC/NCTE/APSO2277/Elementary (D.Ed)/414 TH
MTG/KA/2022/139771 VIDE ANNEXURE-A OF THE WRIT
PETITION AND PASS SUCH ANY OTHER ORDERS AS DEEMED
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3292-DB
WA No. 200111 of 2024
FIT BY THIS HON'BLE COURT UNDER THE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY
R.NATARAJ. J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The petitioner in W.P.No.201199/2024 has filed the
present appeal challenging the order dated 14.05.2024 in
terms of which, the petition was dismissed reserving
liberty to prefer an appeal as provided in the order dated
25.01.2023, impugned in the writ petition.
2. The facts in brief are that the appellant is a
society registered under the Societies Registration Act,
1961 which had established an institution for imparting
D.Ed. course. The appellant had failed to comply with the
provisions contained in Section 17 of the National Council
for Teacher Education Act, 1993 ('NCTE Act' for short).
Though the appellant did not admit any students from the
year 2019 to 2022, till a show-cause notice was issued on
05.08.2022 by respondent No.2 herein, to show cause why
the recognition granted to the appellant should not be
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3292-DB
withdrawn. Later, an order dated 25.01.2023 was passed
withdrawing the recognition of the appellant on the ground
that it did not file the performance appraisal report.
However, the appellant was advised to file an appeal
under Section 18 of the NCTE Act if it was aggrieved by
the order dated 25.01.2023.
3. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order
withdrawing the recognition granted to it, filed
W.P.No.201199/2024. The learned Single Judge after
considering the fact that there was an alternative
efficacious remedy under Section 18 of the NCTE Act,
dismissed the petition in terms of the order dated
14.05.2024. The learned Single Judge reserved liberty to
the students which were admitted to proceed against the
appellant in the manner known to law for the damages
caused to them.
4. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the
learned Single Judge, the petitioner has filed this appeal.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3292-DB
5. The learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner
contended that in similar circumstances, the learned
Single Judge in W.P.No.201231/2024 had relegated the
petitioner therein to the remedy of an appeal and
contemporaneously granted permission to the students
who were admitted to appear in the ensuing examination
of the first year D.Ed. scheduled from 27.05.2024, which
was however subject to the result of the appeal that may
be preferred before the appellate authority. The learned
counsel therefore contends that the appellant is also
similarly placed and the learned Single Judge must have
also extended the benefit granted to the students in
W.P.No.201231/2024.
6. Per contra, the learned High Court Government
Pleader representing respondent Nos.2 and 3 submitted
that the examination which was scheduled on 27.05.2024
is now postponed sine die and therefore, the appellant
may be directed to avail the alternative remedy of an
appeal as directed by the learned Single Judge. He
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3292-DB
contends that the circumstances in W.P.No.201231/2024
was entirely different, inasmuch as in the said writ
petition, this Court took note of the fact that some
students were admitted against the Government quota
and therefore, this Court felt that the students so admitted
cannot be put to jeopardy and hence, granted an interim
order. He submits that in the present case, the appellant
did not admit the students from 2019 to 2022, but after
proceedings were initiated for cancellation of the
recognition, the petitioner had admitted students and
therefore, no leniency be shown to the petitioner.
7. The fact that the recognition of the appellant
was withdrawn is not in dispute. If that is so, under
Section 18 of the NCTE Act, there is an efficacious
alternative remedy which the petitioner is bound to
pursue. Therefore, there is no error committed by the
learned Single Judge in relegating the appellant to the
remedy of an appeal. Since the appellant had admitted
students even while proceedings for withdrawal of the
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3292-DB
recognition were underway, its conduct did amount to an
act of fraud and therefore, there is no error in the learned
single Judge reserving liberty to the students to proceed
against the appellant in accordance with law.
8. The appellant cannot seek equation of its case
with the case of the petitioner in W.P.No.201231/2024 as
in the said case, it was contended that the recognition was
withdrawn without proper enquiry and without following
the principles of natural justice. It was also contended
therein that the academic year for the D.Ed. course
commence from June, 2023 by which time students were
already admitted and the order communicating the
withdrawal of recognition was received on 20.11.2023. It
was also contended that there were 25 students were
admitted in the management quota and 25 students were
admitted against the Government quota. Thus, the learned
single Judge of this court felt it appropriate to safeguard
the interest of the students by allowing them to take up
the examination scheduled on 27.05.2024. The facts of
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3292-DB
the present case are entirely different as the appellant has
admitted students after proceedings for withdrawal of the
recognition of the appellant was initiated.
9. In this regard it is profitable to refer to the
judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Medical
Council of India Vs. N. C. Medical College and
Hospital and Others reported in (2019) 17 SCC 655
and St. Johns Teachers Training Institute vs.
Regional Director N.C.T.E. reported in AIR 2003 SC
1533.
10. In view of the facts and circumstances stated
above, the appellant is not entitled to any relief in this
appeal and consequently, the appeal stands dismissed.
11. If any appeal is filed before the appellate
authority, the time consumed in pursuing this appeal shall
be deducted by calculating limitation applicable to such an
appeal.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3292-DB
In view of disposal of main appeal, pending
applications do not survive for consideration.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
RSP
CT:PK
