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 1, Cited by 0]

Himachal Pradesh High Court

The Blooms Education Society vs State Of H.P. & Others on 28 September, 2023

Author: Ajay Mohan Goel

Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

                                                      CWP No.5746 of 2022
                                                      Decided on: 28.09.2023




                                                                           .
    .





    The Blooms Education Society                                      .... Petitioner.
                 Versus





    State of H.P. & others                                           .... Respondents.

    Coram




                                                 of
    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
    Whether approved for reporting?1                    No

    For the petitioners  rt          :       Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Senior
                                             Advocate, with Mr. Ajay Kumar
                                             Dhiman, Advocate.

    For the Respondents                  :   Mr. Rupinder Singh Thakur,
                                             Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional
                                             Advocate Generals, with Ms. Ranjna
                                             Patial, Sumit Sharma, Deputy
                                             Advocate Generals and Mr. Rajat



                                             Chauhan,    Law    Officer,  for
                                             respondent ­State.
                                             Ms. Archna Dutt, Advocate, for




                                             respondents No.2 and 4.
                                             Mr. Vinod Chauhan, Advocate, for





                                             respondent No.3.
                                             Mr. B.Nandan Vashishta, Advocate,
                                             for respondent No.5.





                                             Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior
                                             Advocate, with Mr. Rajesh Kumar,
                                             Advocate, for the applicant in CMP
                                             No.13261 of 2022.
                                             Ms. Manisha Thamta, Advocate, for
                                             the applicant in CMP No.17854 of
                                             2022.


    1
        Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?




                                                          ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2023 20:35:50 :::CIS
                                             2



    Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following relief:­ .

"a) Writ in the nature of mandamus may be issued and thereby directing the respondent to allot the seats to the Blooms Education Society for admission in the E.Ed and D.El.Ed Course for the current session."

of

2. There is a serious dispute intra the parties, as to whether the petitioner/Institute is possessing the requisite approved faculty to undertake the courses in issue for the rt academic session 2023­24 or not.

3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that to put an end to the controversy, the petition be disposed of with the direction that after proper verification of the faculty, a certification to this effect be given to the University by National Council for Teacher Education (hereinafter to be referred as 'NCTE') within some reasonable period and if the certification is in favour of the petitioner, then respondent­University/Board be directed to allot the seats for admission to B.Ed and D.El.Ed courses.

4. Learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 and 4 submits that it would be in the interest of justice in case the University is allowed to be associated with NCTE to ascertain as to whether the petitioner­College has the requite approved faculty to ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2023 20:35:50 :::CIS 3 run the said courses. Ordered accordingly. NCTE in association with the respondent­University shall verify by 06.10.2023, whether the petitioner­Institution has requisite approved faculty or not. It .

goes without saying that if as per NCTE, the institution has the requisite approved faculty, then consequences to ensue in terms of the prayer made in the Writ petition.

5. At this stage, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the of intervener has drawn the attention of this Court to the judgment passed by the High Court of Delhi in LPA No376 of 2021 & CM rt Appls.36044/2021 & 36046/2021, titled as National Council for Teacher Education and Anr. vs. Savita Devi Mahavidyalaya and anr. decided on 22.11.2022 and submitted that in view of the withdrawal order dated 14.08.2023 passed by the NCTE, in terms whereof, the recognition of the petitioner has been withdrawn for conducting B.Ed with annual intake of 100 students and D.El.Ed with an annual intake of 50 students on the grounds mentioned in the said withdrawal order for the academic session 2024­25, the petitioner­Institute cannot admit the students even for the current academic session, because withdrawal from the academic session 2024­25 is just to protect the children who are already undergoing courses from the said Institution.

6. To clarify the fact this Court on 26.09.2023 had passed the following order:­ ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2023 20:35:50 :::CIS 4 "Heard for some time.

Learned counsel for respondent No.5­NCTE has produced before the Court withdrawal order dated .

14.08.2023, in terms whereof, the Northern Regional Committee of National Council for Teacher Education has withdrawn the recognization of the petitioner for conducting B.Ed. with annual intake of hundred students and D.EI.Ed course with an annual intake of fifty students, on the grounds mentioned in the of withdrawal order dated 14.08.2023 for the academic session 2024­25.

rt The matter is ordered to be listed on 27.09.2023, with the direction to learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5­NCTE to have instructions as to whether the petitioner­University is permitted to admit students for the academic session 2023­24 or not.

Ms. Archna Dutt, learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 4 submits that reply on behalf of the University has been filed. Registry is directed to place the same on record, if in order. List on 27.09.2023."

7. In response thereto, learned counsel for the NCTE has handed over instructions, which are taken on record, which read as under:­ "As it is clearly mentioned in the withdrawal order dated 14 August 2023, the recognition granted to the institution has been withdrawn from the academic ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2023 20:35:50 :::CIS 5 session 2024­25. This clearly means that it can admit students for the session 2023­24, but it can't take students from the session 2024­25.

.

The students enrolled in the academic session 2023­24 will complete their courses and their degree will remain valid for all purposes."

8. The above clearly demonstrates that the NCTE has clarified that the withdrawal order does not comes in the way of the of petitioner­Institute to admit students as far as the current academic session is concerned.

rt

9. With the said directions and observations, the petition is disposed of. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge September 28, 2023 (Rishi) ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2023 20:35:50 :::CIS