Pannadhay Mahila Shikshak ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 9449 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6826/2021

Pannadhay Mahila Shikshak Prashikshan Mahavidhyalay, Tonk Running By Society Of Manav Dharm Viklang Seva Sansthan, Tonk, Through Its Secretary Chandra Veer Singh S/o Madan Singh, Aged 42 Years, Resident Of Bhilwara (Rajasthan).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Director, Elementary Education, Education Directorate, Bikaner.

2. The Western Regional Committee, National Council For Teachers Education Through Its Under Secretary, Plot No. G-7, Sector 10, Near National Highway Authority, Dwarka, New Delhi.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. C.S. Kotwani through Cisco Webex App For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kailash Choudhary Mr. Vivek Shrimali through Cisco Webex App

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

13/05/2021

1. Mr. Kotwani, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

the issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered

by decision dated 17.03.2021 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this

Court in a bunch of writ petitions led by the case of Murli Singh

Yadav Memorial Prashikshan Sansthan Vs. State of Rajasthan &

Anr. (SBCWP No.2676/2021).

2. Mr. Kailash Choudhary, learned counsel for the respondents,

points out that there is no rejection order and the petitioner's

(2 of 3) [CW-6826/2021]

petition is thus, premature. He is, however not in a position to

dispute the position of facts and law, as stated by Mr. Kotwani.

3. Be that as it may. Even if there is no order of rejection, in

the opinion of this Court, the State is required to decide the same

or fresh application as has been ordered by the Co-ordinate Bench

in the judgment of Murli Singh Yadav Memorial Prashikshan

Sansthan (supra).

4. In Murli Singh Yadav Memorial Prashikshan Sansthan

(supra), following order has been passed :-

"Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners, who are the Educational Institutes, fulfilling all mandatory conditions of the Act of 1993 and Rules of 1997. He further submits that the petitioners were eligible for grant of recognition to increase the seats in Diploma in Elementary Education (D.El.Ed.) preferred online applications before the NCTE. He also submits that the NCTE issued Letter of Intent as per Clause 7 sub-clause 13 of the National Council for Teacher Education Regulations, 2014, which is Annexure 3 dated 22.01.2021. He further submits that the petitioners were however, did not give the staff approval in pursuance of Letter of Intent.

Upon being asked, learned AAG submits that there is no policy or no conscious decision by the State, in which, staff approval has been denied and moreover, in reply, the State is not in a position to justify the non-consideration of the petitioners by any reason.

Learned counsel for NCTE assures this Court that once the regulations are fulfilled, appropriate consideration for grant of permission shall be made.

In light of such limited submission made by the parties and in light of the inability of the State to provide with any reason for not giving the staff approval, the present petitions are disposed of with the direction to the petitioners to make fresh applications seeking staff approval. Such applications shall be considered by the State and the State shall be required to pass a speaking order within a period of 30 days from today strictly in accordance with law. After such orders are passed, appropriate consideration shall be made by the NCTE for granting the approval to the respondents if so

(3 of 3) [CW-6826/2021]

required. Stay applications as well as all pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly."

5. The present writ petition is also disposed of in terms of the

judgment aforesaid.

6. Stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 9-Rahul/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)