Himachal Pradesh High Court
Unknown vs 6.2018 Present: Ms. Jyotsna Rewal Dua on 1 June, 2018
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Chander Bhusan Barowalia
CWP No.1311 of 2017 01.06.2018 Present: Ms. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Charu Bhatnagar, Advocate, as Amicus Curiae.
.
Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Dushyant Dadwal,Ms. Shikha Chauhan, Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Mr. B.B. Vaid, Mr. Anil Kumar God, Mr. K.B. Khajuria, Mr. Tenzen Negi, Mr. Vivek Shama, Ms. Kamlesh Kumari and Mr. N.S. Chandel, Advocates, for respondents No. 1, 3, 4, 9, 11, 20, 30 to 35, 37, 39, 41, 42, 51 to 55, 68, 72 & 73.
Mr. Ajay Kumar, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Dheeraj K.Vashisht, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
Mr.Ashok Kumar Verma, Advocate, for respondent No.5.
Mr. Tek Chand, Advocate, for respondents No. 7 and 8.
Mr.Mukesh Thakur, Advocate, for respondents No.10 and 76.
Mr.Surender Verma, Advocate, for respondent No.13.
Mr.Suneet Goel, Advocate, for respondent No.14.
Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.41.
Mr. Sushant Vir Singh, Advocate vice Mr. Vikrant Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.18.
Mr.Vijay Chaudhary, Advocate, for respondent No.22.
Mr. H.S.Rangra, Advocate, for respondent No.36.
Mr.Ajay Kumar Dhiman, Advocate, for respondent No.38.
Mr. Y.P. Sood, Advocate, for respondents No. 49 & 50.
Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma and Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocates, for respondents No.12,17, 19, 20, 21, 23 to 25, 29, 30, 40, 45 and 77. Ms.Abhilasha Kaundal, Advocate, for respondents No.6,9, 15,16, 21, 32, 36 and 39.
Mr. Vijay Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.43.
Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Basant Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.46.
Mr.Sudhir Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.48.
Mr. Vijay Arora, Advocate, for respondent No.57 Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, Central Government Counsel, for respondent No.61-Union of India.
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2018 23:01:46 :::HCHP- 2 -
Mr.Vinod Thakur,Mr.Sudhir Bhatnagar, Additional Advocate .
Generals with Mr. J. S. Guleria and Mr. Bhupinder Thakur, Deputy Advocate Generals, for respondent No.56.
Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.58.
Mr.Surender Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.60 and 62.
Mr.Deepak Kaushal, Advocate, for respondents No.66, 70 and 74.
Mr. B.Nandan Vasishta and Ms. Prachi Vajpayee, Advocates, for the applicants/respondents No.64 and 65.
Mr.Arush Matlotia, Advocate, for respondent No.67.
Mr.Sunil Mohan Goel, Advocate, for respondent No.80.
Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate, for respondent No.81.
Mr.Aman Sood, Advocate, for respondents No.82,83 and 84.
Mr. S.S.Sood, Advocate, for respondent No.85.
CMP No. 5208 of 2018The applicants/respondents No.64 and 65 i.e. NCTE(National Council for Teacher Education), has filed the instant application for grant of following reliefs:
"It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this application may kindly be allowed and applicants as mentioned in para-3 supra may kindly be granted permission for initiating appropriate action towards identified institutions in compliance of order of Hon'ble High Court dated 27.04.2017 and on the basis of SIT report as per the provision under Section 17 of the NCTE Act, 1993 and regulations framed thereunder vide notification dated 28.11.2014 in the interest of justice".
2. This application is clearly misconceived in view of the detailed order passed by this Court on 18.5.2018, which reads thus:
"It is represented by the learned counsel(s) for the AICTE, NCTE and the Ministry of Skill Development (Director General of Employment and Training) that even though they have constituted the inspection teams but these teams have yet not ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2018 23:01:46 :::HCHP
- 3 -
looked into the deficiencies/recommendations as have been pointed out by the SIT from time to time.
.
Therefore, all the aforesaid bodies are directed to depute inspection teams for the aforesaid purpose after giving an advance notice to the institute(s) by email, telephone etc. We make it clear that such inspection will be carried out after associating the representatives from the concerned institute and only thereafter would the recommendations be made, that too, after coming to an independent conclusion based upon the observations vis-a-vis the provisions of the relevant Act, Rules/Regulations, guidelines etc. It goes without saying that the deficiencies/recommendations, which are curable, should be pointed out so that the same can be removed by the institute expeditiously and preferably before the commencement of the next academic session.
We also clarify that so far as the colleges of B.Ed and D.EI. Ed., i.e. Sharan College of Education for Women and R.C. College of Education are concerned, there appears to be no criminal case(s) against them and an action against revenue officers has been proposed by SIT and in addition thereto the Institutes are required to remove the deficiencies, as pointed out.
The inspection teams shall be under the direct control and supervision of this Court and shall submit the report on or before 14.6.2018. The institute(s) shall render all necessary assistance to the inspection team. Copy Dasti."
3. In addition to the above, once this Court is already seized of the matter, then obviously it is for this Court to determine as to whether any action is required to be taken or not against any of the institutions of the respondents. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan), Judge.
1st June, 2018. (Chander Bhusan Barowalia) (GR) Judge.
::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2018 23:01:46 :::HCHP