The High Court · 2025

Judgment

1. National Council For Teacher Education, Rep. by its Member Secretary Office Plot No. G-7, Sector-10, Near Sector-'!0 Metio station Dwaraka, New tielhi. ...PETITIONERS 2 3 4 The NCTE Appellate Authority -cum- Deputy Secretary (Appeal), Office Plot No. G-7, Sector-1 0, Near Sector-10 Metro station Dwaraka, .New Delhi. National Council for the Teacher Education, Southern Regional Committee F-ep ny its Regional Director, Office Plot No. G-7, Sector-10, (Near'sector-10 Metro station) Dwaraka, New Delhi. The Mahathma Gandhi University Anneparthy, Nalgonda District Rep. the Registrar ...RESPONDENTS

Petation under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of a WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the Decision/Order passed by the 2nd Respondent dated 16.12.2024 in the Appeal filed by the Petitioners against the Rejection Order passed by the 3rd Respondent No.F.No.SRO/NCTE/ SRCAPP201630193/M.P.Ed.lAPt 2017-181 93392, dated 30.05.2020 as iilegat, arbitrary, violation of Principles of Natural Justice, and contrary to the NCTE Act, 1993 and violation of the Articles 14 and 19 of the Con;titution of lndia and consequently Set Aside the Decision/Order passed by the 2 rd Respondent dated 16.12.2024 in the Appeal filed by the Petitioners aw well ;r ; the Rejection Order passed by the 3rd Respondent No.F.No.SRO/NCTt: SRCApp2o1630193/ M.P.Ed. I AP 12017 -1 8t93392, dated 30.05,2020 lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the c r ;umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cour may be pleased to direct the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to consider the case ,f the petitioners by granting Recognition to the 2nd Petitioner for offering M.P.t d. Courses as Long Standing Application pending disposal of the Main Writ Petit r n. lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cirr umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent herein to consider by processing an<l passing appropriate orders on the Representation dated 08.12.2025 sent by the I etitioner/society for Grant of Recognition for M.P.Ed. Course. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S. GIRIMOJI RAO Counsel for the Respondents No.l to 3: SRI NARAPARAJU , \VANEESH, S.C. FOTI NCTE Counsel for the Respondent No.4: - The Court made the following: ORDER a t'-) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.4217 ot 2025 DATE OF ORDER:- 15.12.2025 BETWEEN AHAD Educational and Charitable Society, Nalgonda District & another. AND National Council for Teacher Education, Rep. by its Member Secretary, Dwaraka, New Delhi & 3 others. . .. Petitioner Respondents ORDER:- 1. This Writ Petition is filed seeking to set-aside the order dated

16.12.2024 passed by the 2nd respondent in the Appeal filed by the petitioners as well as the Rejection order passed by the respondent No.3 vide F. No. SRO/NCTE/SRCAPP2O 1 6301 93/M. P. Ed.l AP I 2017 - 1 8/93392, dated 30.05.2020.

2. Heard Sri S.Girimoji Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri Naraparaju Avaneesh, learned Standing Counsel for NCTE representing respondent Nos.'l to 3. Perused the record. 2 NA(J wD 4211 m25

3. The case of the petitioners in nutshefl is that rre .rst petitioner,s society was formed with an object of promoting e,i rcation and has applied for grant of recognition to the 2nd petitioner s coflege through for offering M.p.Ed. courses for two years f rr the academic .online year 2017-18 on 30.06.2016. lt also submitted r:rd copy of the application on 12.07.2016. After receipt of the onlir: application on 27.08.2016, the respondent No.3 had sent a rertrr to the State Government followed by two reminders on I I 10.2016 and 11 -11-2016 respectivery. Since respondent No.3 ri d not received any recommendation from the State Governnt nt within the stipulated period of 90 days as per Regulations, he processed the application. Thereafter, the matter undenarent for se,r eral times and finally, the 3'd respondent, without considering the ma eriar avairabre on record, rejected the application of the pelitioner s tating that No objection certificate was not obtained fr.om the res;; ondent No.4- University. In fact, respondent No.4 has issued no objection certificate on 18.01 .2024. Aggrieved by the order datr: I 30.05.2020, the petitioners approached the 2nd respondent and I led statutory Appeal after the stipurated time and the said delay v,,r s condoned. Since the 2nd respondent failed to consider NOC whicr- was already issued on 18.01 .2024 and erroneously dismissec the Appeal directing the petitioners to file a fresh application, th: petitioners .) NBK.J w9 4211-m25 were put to suffer severe hardship and irreparable loss and hence filed the present Writ Petition seeking to set-aside the orders passed by the 2nd and 3'd respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended that the respondent No.2 had failed to consider the No Objection Certificate issued by respondent No,4 on 18.01 .2024 and had erroneously dismissed the Appeal filed by the petitioners and therefore requested to set-aside the same.

5. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3 filed a detailed counter stating that since the petitioners failed to furnish No Objection Certificate from the University within the stipulated time and also failed to give reply to the show-cause notice dated 13.04.2017 issued by respondent No.3, the application of the petitioner No.1 was dismissed by respondent No.3 on 30.05.2020. Aggrieved by the rejection order passed by respondent No.3, petitioner No.1 preferred an Appeal under Section 18 of NCTE Act, 1993 before the 2nd respondent after lapse of nearly 4 years. But the same was taken on file and numbered as F.No.89-40/E- 339434120241 Appeal/1 3th Meeting, 2024 APPISR C20241 4790 and the said Appeal was dismissed by respondent No.2 on 16.12.2024 on the ground as detailed under:- \ '..1 4 Ng(J wg a21f 2025 "After perusal of the Appeal report, documents on r cord and during the Appeal hearing, the Appeal Commiftee of ,t e Council concluded that the Southern Regional Committee 1t RC) was justified in rejecting the recognition and conclude: that the . institution may apply a fresh as and when the pcr al of the A/CIE rs open and application for the said programm? is invited by the NCTE and as such, the instant appeal deser es to be dlsmlssed and therefore, the rejection order dated :tt .OS.2O2O issued by SRC is confimed."

6. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. I & 3 further contended that since the application made by the peti .i )ner No.1 for grant of recognition to znd respondent -College for M.p.Ed programme was rejected in the year 2O2O for lack of lo Objection Certification from 4th respondent-University, which wz s issued on

18.01 .2024, it is opined that there might be a posstility that the requirements as per NCTE regulations may not be met Hence, the 2nd respondent had rightly dismissed the Appeal iled by the petitioners confirming the rejection order dated 30.05.21 Z0 issued by SRC. However, since the petitioner was granted libel 7 to make a fresh application seeking for grant of recognition of l nd petitioner College for M.P.Ed course as soon as opening of NC--: portal, the 4 NgKJ Wp_1217 _?o25 respondent authorities will consider the same upon receipt of such application and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

7. ln view of the rival submissions made by both parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners shall make a fresh application for grant of recognition to 2nd petitioner college for M.P.Ed course upon opening of NCTE portal and the respondents will consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

8. With the above observation, the Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

9. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPYII SD/- M.OSMAN AL ASSISTANT G TRAR SECTION OFFICER To

1. The Member Secretary, National Council For Te No. G-7, Sector-10, Near Sector-10 Metro station Education, Office Plot ka, New Delhi

2. The NqT_E Appeilate Authority-cum-Deputy Secretary (Appeal), Office plot - No. G-7, Sector-10, Near Sector-10 Metro siation Dwaiaka,' New'belhi. 3. The.Regional Dir.ector, National Council for the Teacher Education, Southern Regional Committee, OJfice Plot No. G-7, Sector-10, (Near Sectoi_10 Metro station) Dwaraka, New Delhi. -

4. The Registrar, Mahathma Gandhi University Anneparthy, Nalgonda Diskict. 5. One CC to SRI S. GIRIMOJI RAO, Advocate IOPUCI 6 One CC to SRI NARAPARAJU AVANEESH, S.C. for NCIE [OPUC] 7. Two CD Copies MP BS 1g' I I I I HIGH COURT DATIE D:15112\ZO2S C() E[l I $2i 2 ?r * + (::l L! -l'.; x -.i' .i/ ORDER WP.No. 1217 of ZO2S I DISPOSING OF THE WR.IT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS lN- d4 Iti'