Veena Vadini Teachers Training ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 9599 MP

                             1
         IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                      AT GWALIOR
                             BEFORE
                HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ROHIT ARYA
                                &
           HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
                      ON THE 13th OF JULY, 2022

               WRIT PETITION No. 11828 of 2022

      Between:-
      VEENA    VADINI   TEACHERS     TRAINING
      INSTITUTE (RUN BY VEENA VADINI SAMAJ
      KALYAN VIKASH SAMIT) THR. ITS SECRETARY
      DR. OM PRAKASH GUPTA S/O LT SHRI B D
      GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, ANAND NAGAR
      BAHODAPUR LASHKAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                    .....PETITIONER
      (BY SHRI N.K.GUPTA - SR.ADVOCATE WITH SHRI D.K.AGARWAL -
      ADVOCATE)

      AND

1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH SECRETARY
      SATPURA    BHAWAN   BHOPAL    (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

2.    THE   COMMISSIONER, HIGHER EDUCATION
      D EPARTM EN T STATE OF M.P. SATPURA,
      BHAWAN 5TH FLOOR BHOPAL (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

3.    THROUGH REGIONAL DIRECTOR WESTERN
      REGIONAL COMMITTEE (NCTE) NATIONAL
      COUNCIL    FOR   TEACHER  EDUCATION
      WESTERN REGIONAL COMMITTEE (NCTE) G-7
      SECTOR-10, DWARKA LAND MARK NEAR
      METRO STATION (DELHI)

                                                  .....RESPONDENTS
      (BY SHRI MPS RAGHUVANSHI - ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE
      GENERAL)
      (SHRI R.P.SINGH - ADVOCATE - COUNSEL FOR THE
      RESPONDENT NO.3).

     Th is petition coming on for admission this day, JUSTICE ROHIT
                                      2
ARYA passed the following:
                                     ORDER

At the outset, Shri Raghuvanshi, learned Sr.Advocate and Additional Advocate General submits that regard being had to the nature of relief, no indulgence is warranted under Article 226 in as much as, multiple reliefs sought for in fact, is in the realm of the policy decision of the State. Even otherwise, as regards percentage of reservation of seats, controversy is no more Res integra, as the same is governed by the judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Preston College and Another Vs. State of M.P. and Others, reported in AIR 2008 MP 99.

Shri R.P.Singh appearing for newly added NCTE submits that the

admissions to B.Ed courses are as per Clause 3.3 of Appendix IV appended to Regulations 2014 and on the basis of qualifying marks in the open examinations only and nothing else.

Shri Gupta and Shri Agrawal though tried to justify the relief sought for, raising contentions on the judgment of Supreme Court in Vishal Goyal and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others reported as (2014) 11 SCC 456, but we are of the view that looking to the pleadings in the writ petition and the relief sought for, it shall be appropriate to relegate the petitioner to the respondent/State, as prayed for, seeking indulgence in the context of reservation of seats in the B.Ed examinations.

With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of. It is submitted that this court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case.

  (ROHIT ARYA)                                     (MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)

                       JUDGE       JUDGE
Rks

 RAM KUMAR SHARMA
 2022.07.14 10:15:32
 +05'30'