Dr. Matta Raja Reddy vs The State Of Telangana
2022 Latest Caselaw 5219 Tel

            HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

               WRIT PETITION No.38915 OF 2022
ORAL ORDER:

      Heard Mr. Rajeshwar Rao Garige, learned counsel representing

Mr. Shashank Garige, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.

Bhanu Prakash, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent

No.4, Mr. Muddu Vijay, learned Standing Counsel appearing for

respondent Nos.2 and 3 and Mrs. C. Vani Reddy, learned Standing

Counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6.

2. This writ petition is filed to declare the orders of respondent

No.2 - SRC in F. No.SRC/NCTE/APS00044/B. Ed./TS/2022/136004-

136005 dated 12.10.2022 whereby respondent No.2 decided to request

respondent No.4 to cause inspection in the light of earlier decision

taken by the SRC NCTE and a comprehensive report may be

submitted within 15 days keeping in view the provisions of the NCTE

Regulations, 2014 and if the institution is not affiliated to the

university and admissions were not made earlier the same may also be

informed pursuant to the order of respondent No.3 vide file No.89-

267/E-199212/2021/Appeal/6th Meeting 2022/113713 dated

13.09.2022 as illegal, and for a consequential direction to the

KL,J W.P. No.38915 of 2022

respondents to include the name of the petitioner's College in the

counseling and permit the petitioner College to participate in the

counseling process to be held from 18.10.2022 to 26.10.2022.

3. Vide order dated 28.07.2021, respondent No.2 had

withdrawn the recognition issued in favour of the petitioner on the

ground that there are certain deficiencies with the petitioner college

and the same are as follows:

1. At the time of recognitition the institution submitted a copy of sale deed dated 27.03.1998. In response to FSCN the institution submitted Deed of Gift settlement deed dated 17.11.2015. Both the land documents are different and the institution failed to submit satisfactory explanation.

2. The institution has submitted new CLU at time of submitted of RPRO.

3. The institution has submitted photocopy of Building plan but the stamps and signatures of approving authority are not legible. Moreover, the total built up area is not mentioned in Building plan.

4. As per the building plan, the size of Multipurpose Hall is shown as 1350 sq.ft. which is less than 2000 Sqft. required under NCTE Regulations, 2014.

5. The institution not appointed faculty of Performing Arts, Health and Physical Education and Fine Arts.

KL,J W.P. No.38915 of 2022

4. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner herein had

filed an appeal under Section - 18 in The National Council for Teacher

Education Act, 1993 ('Act, 1993' for brevity). Vide order dated

26.11.2021, the Appellate Authority had dismissed the said appeal.

Challenging the said order, the petitioner herein had filed a writ

petition vide W.P. No.31252 of 2021, and this Court vide order dated

26.07.2022 disposed of the said writ petition setting aside the said

order dated 26.11.2021 of the appellate authority and the matter was

remanded back to the appellate authority with a direction to pass

appropriate orders in accordance with law by considering all the

grounds raised by the petitioner and the documents submitted by it.

This Court also directed the appellate authority to complete the entire

exercise within two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of

the said order.

5. In compliance of the said order, the appellate authority -

respondent No.3, vide order dated 13.09.2022, disposed of the said

appeal remanding the matter back to the Southern Regional

Committee (SRC) with a direction to consider all the relevant

documents submitted by the petitioner institution, take further

appropriate action in terms of the NCTE Regulations, 2014, guidelines

KL,J W.P. No.38915 of 2022

and amendments issued from time to time. On remand, the SRC, vide

letter dated 12.10.2022, directed respondent No.4 to conduct

inspection and submit a comprehension report within fifteen (15)

days. Challenging the said letter, the petitioner herein filed the

present writ petition.

6. Mr. Rajeshwar Rao Garige, learned counsel for the

petitioner, would submit that once the appellate authority allowed the

said appeal filed by the petitioner vide order dated 13.09.2022, it is

deemed that the original order dated 28.07.2021 is quashed/set aside.

Therefore, the NCTE has to restore the approval granted in favour of

the petitioner and permit the petitioner institution to participate in the

counseling. He has also placed reliance on the judgments of the Delhi

High Court in Arihant College v. National Council for Teacher

Education1 and this Court in W.P. Nos.2195, 2225, 2278 and 2376 of

2021, dated 05.02.2021.

7. Perusal of the order dated 05.02.2021 passed by this Court in

W.P.No.2195 of 2021 and batch would reveal that this Court has

noticed about the participation of the students in the first-phase of

. W.P. (C) No.7260 of 2021, decided on 30.07.2021

KL,J W.P. No.38915 of 2022

counseling, whereas, in the present case, as stated above, there are five

(05) deficiencies pointed out by NCTE. According to the petitioner, it

has complied with the said deficiencies and the said fact was not

considered by the appellate authority or SRC. Without considering

the same, the appellate authority has remanded the matter back to the

SRC, which in turn, requested respondent No.4 to conduct inspection

and submit a comprehensive report. However, the petitioner herein

has not challenged the order dated 13.09.2022 passed by respondent

No.2 appellate authority remanding the matter back to the SRC with a

direction to consider all the relevant documents submitted by the

petitioner in terms of the NCTE Regulations, 2014. Therefore, on

remand, respondent No.3 has requested respondent No.4 to conduct

inspection and submit a comprehensive report. Therefore, the facts of

the aforesaid two decisions are different to the facts of the present

case.

8. Perusal of the record would reveal that there is delay at every

stage by the respondents. This is the second round of litigation. The

petitioner herein had submitted a letter dated 15.10.2022 to respondent

No.4 with a request to conduct inspection and submit report to

respondent No.3 in terms of the letter dated 12.10.2022. Having

KL,J W.P. No.38915 of 2022

received and acknowledged the same, respondent No.4 did not

conduct inspection and submit a comprehensive report.

9. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case,

this Writ Petition is disposed of directing respondent No.4 to conduct

inspection and submit a comprehensive report to respondent No.2

within fifteen (15) days from 15.10.2022. On receipt of the said

report from respondent No.4, respondent No.2 shall consider the same

and pass appropriate orders within one (01) week thereafter.

Respondent No.2 shall communicate the copy of the said order to the

petitioner. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be

no order as to costs.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the

writ petition shall stand closed.

_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 20th October, 2022 Note:

Furnish C.C. of order by 21.10.2022.

(B/O.) Mgr