Lalit Narayan Mithila University vs National Council For Teacher ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 941 Patna

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                    Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 9421 of 2020
     ======================================================

1. Lalit Narayan Mithila University Kameshwaranagar, Darbhanga 846004 (Bihar) through its Registrar.

2. Directorate of Distance Education, Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Darbhanga, Plot No. 7195-99, 7202-06, 7218, Vill.- West of Harahi Pokhar, PO- Lalbagh, Tahsil- Sadar, Town- Darbhanga, District- Darbhanga, Bihar 846004 (ERCAPP 1075) through its Director.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. National Council For Teacher Education G-7, Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075 through its Chairperson.

2. Eastern Regional Committee, National Council for Teacher Education, 15, Neelkantha Nagar, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, through its Regional Director.

3. State Nodal Officer, CET-B.Ed.-2020, Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Bihari Sinha, Advocate For the NCTE : Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State Nodal Officer : Mr. Md. Nadeem Seraj, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 18-02-2021

Heard Mr. Ajay Bihari Sinha, learned counsel for the

petitioners; Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the

National Council for Teacher Education (hereinafter referred to as

the 'NCTE') and Mr. Md. Nadeem Seraj, learned counsel for the

State Nodal Officer, CET-B.Ed.-2020.

2. At the outset, learned counsel for the NCTE

submitted that he has filed counter affidavit showing compliance

of the order of the Court dated 22.12.2020 and further that on 2 nd Patna High Court CWJC No.9421 of 2020 dt.18-02-2021

February, 2021, the respondent no. 2 has passed an order and the

grievance of the petitioners has been redressed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners does not

controvert the position.

4. Learned counsel for the Nodal Officer submitted that

they have recommended for admission on the extra seats which

have been allowed by the NCTE to the petitioner University.

5. In view thereof, nothing further remains in the

present writ petition and accordingly, the same stands disposed

off.

6. The Court would only observe that the petitioner

University is required to adhere to all the norms and parameters

for running the course in question required for the approved intake

capacity, as per the statutory requirement.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)

P. Kumar

AFR/NAFR U T