Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Swaminarayan B.Ed. College vs National Council For on 19 June, 2013

Author: Chief Justice

Bench: Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.B.Pardiwala

  
	 
	 SWAMINARAYAN B.ED. COLLEGE....Applicant(s)V/SNATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHERS'EDUCATION- WESTERN REGION
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	

 
 


	 


	C/MCA/2991/2012
	                                                                    
	                           ORDER

 

 


 
	  
	  
		 
			 

IN
			THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
		
	

 


 


 


MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION
(FOR DIRECTION) NO. 2991 of 2012
 


 


 
	  
	  
		 
			 

In
			LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.  907 of 2012
		
	
	 
		 
			 

In
			SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7855 of 2012
		
	

 


 


 

================================================================
 


SWAMINARAYAN B.ED.
COLLEGE....Applicant(s)
 


Versus
 


NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR
TEACHERS'EDUCATION- WESTERN REGION  &  2....Opponent(s)
 

================================================================
 

Appearance:
 

MR
PRATIK Y JASANI, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
 

MR
AMIT M PANCHAL, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 3
 

MR
PS CHAMPANERI, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 1 - 2
 

================================================================
 

 


 


	 
		  
		 
		  
			 
				 

CORAM:
				
				
			
			 
				 

HONOURABLE THE
				CHIEF JUSTICE MR. BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA
			
		
		 
			 
				 

 

				
			
			 
				 

and
			
		
		 
			 
				 

 

				
			
			 
				 

HONOURABLE
				MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
			
		
	

 


 

 


Date : 19/06/2013
 


 

 


ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA) By this application for direction, an unsuccessful appellant in a Letters Patent Appeal, has prayed for the following reliefs :

7
(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to give necessary/ appropriate directions to the respondent no.1 to consider the case of the applicant for granting provisional recognition on suitable conditions within such time-limit as may be determined by this Hon ble Court;
(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to give necessary/ appropriate directions to the respondent no.3 University to grant provisional affiliation to the applicant and to permit the applicant to appoint a duly qualified Principal after following the procedure prescribed by the respondent no.3 University;
(C) Your Lordships may be pleased to grant any other and further relief(s) as may be deemed just and proper in the interest of justice and fitness of things.

Mr.Navin Pahwa, the learned advocate, at the very outset submits that his client having accepted the judgment of this Court dated 11th October 2012, there is no scope of making prayer in terms of prayer 7(A), but he submits that we should pass appropriate direction upon the respondent no.3 University to grant provisional affiliation to the applicant and to permit the applicant to appoint a duly qualified Principal after following procedure prescribed by the respondent no.3 University.

It may not be out of place to mention here that the Letters Patent Appeal which we dismissed was at the instance of the present applicant and was directed against an order dated 16th June 2012 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, by which His Lordship dismissed the Special Civil Application No.7855 of 2012, wherein the appellant challenged the decision of the University in refusing to restore the affiliation and in refusing to accord approval to the appointment of the person on the post of Principal as the same was in clear violation of the provisions contained in Ordinances 72(ii)(3) and 72(ii)(6) of the University Ordinance.

As pointed out earlier, we have approved the said order. Thus, after accepting such order, there is no scope of passing the direction sought for by the appellant in a subsequent application for direction once the Letters Patent Appeal has already been disposed of. The prayer made herein does not come within the purview of review and thus this application is devoid of any substance and is consequently dismissed.

We make it clear that we have not gone in the question raised by the petitioner in this application as to whether he can now approach the authority.

(BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, CJ.) (J.B.PARDIWALA, J.) MOIN Page 4 of 4