Patna High Court
Lalit Narayan Mithila University vs National Council For Teacher Education on 18 February, 2021
Author: Ahsanuddin Amanullah
Bench: Ahsanuddin Amanullah
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 9421 of 2020
======================================================
1. Lalit Narayan Mithila University Kameshwaranagar, Darbhanga 846004
(Bihar) through its Registrar.
2. Directorate of Distance Education, Lalit Narayan Mithila University,
Darbhanga, Plot No. 7195-99, 7202-06, 7218, Vill.- West of Harahi Pokhar,
PO- Lalbagh, Tahsil- Sadar, Town- Darbhanga, District- Darbhanga, Bihar
846004 (ERCAPP 1075) through its Director.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. National Council For Teacher Education G-7, Sector-10, Dwarka, New
Delhi-110075 through its Chairperson.
2. Eastern Regional Committee, National Council for Teacher Education, 15,
Neelkantha Nagar, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, through its Regional
Director.
3. State Nodal Officer, CET-B.Ed.-2020, Lalit Narayan Mithila University,
Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Bihari Sinha, Advocate
For the NCTE : Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State Nodal Officer : Mr. Md. Nadeem Seraj, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN
AMANULLAH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 18-02-2021 Heard Mr. Ajay Bihari Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the National Council for Teacher Education (hereinafter referred to as the 'NCTE') and Mr. Md. Nadeem Seraj, learned counsel for the State Nodal Officer, CET-B.Ed.-2020.
2. At the outset, learned counsel for the NCTE submitted that he has filed counter affidavit showing compliance of the order of the Court dated 22.12.2020 and further that on 2 nd Patna High Court CWJC No.9421 of 2020 dt.18-02-2021 2/2 February, 2021, the respondent no. 2 has passed an order and the grievance of the petitioners has been redressed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners does not controvert the position.
4. Learned counsel for the Nodal Officer submitted that they have recommended for admission on the extra seats which have been allowed by the NCTE to the petitioner University.
5. In view thereof, nothing further remains in the present writ petition and accordingly, the same stands disposed off.
6. The Court would only observe that the petitioner University is required to adhere to all the norms and parameters for running the course in question required for the approved intake capacity, as per the statutory requirement.
(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.) P. Kumar AFR/NAFR U T