1 APHC010097812025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 5354 OF 2025 Between: Sri Rama College of Education, Rep. By It's Secretary and Correspondent, Dega. Vara Kumar, Sreenivasapuram, Tiruchanoor Road 5177503, Chittoor (Erst while)District, Andhra Pradesh. Tirupathi - ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by It s Principal Secretary Higher Education Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, District. 2. The Andhia Pradesh State Council for Higher Education, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Niladri Towers, 6*^ Battalion Road, Mangalagiri Guntur. 3. The Andhra Pradesh Higher Education Regulatory and A/lonitoring Committee APHERMC, Rep. by its Member Secretary and CEO, 2 Floor, Sree Mahendra Enclave, NRI Block, C Block, NH16 Tadepalli, Guntur District- 522501. 4. The National Council for Teacher Education, Rep. By It's the Regional Director, The South Regional Committee, G-7, Sector 10, Near Metro Station, Dwarka, New Delhi. 5. The National Council for Teacher Education, Rep. by The Member Secretary, G-7, Sector TO, Dwarka, New Delhi. Amaravati Guntur nd r 6. The Sri Venkateswara University, Rep by its Registrar, Tirupati ...Respondents r'etition under Articie 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the tan i r r~j i W the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 4th ci 1 H Li C4 v' i L i iicU u Kzii bVVui i Respondent withdrawn Respondent the lecognition of petitioner's institution and confirmed by the 5'" for the Bachelor of Education (B. Ed.) course with an annual intake of 150 students as illegal, arbitrary, discrimination and violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the constitution of India and consequently direct the 4*^ and Respondents to restore the recognition for the Bachelor of Education course with an annual intake of 150 students to the petitioner's institution (B. Ed.) lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC in the affidavi praying that in the circumstances stated vit filed in support off li'ie wtit petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 4"’’ and 5'*" Respondents to restore the recognition for the Bachelor of Education (B. Ed.) course with an annual intake of 150 students to the petitioner’s institution pending disposal of the present writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI GUNDALA SIVA PRASADA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 ; GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : SR! VIVEKANANDA VIRUPAKSHA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 & 5 ; SRI VENNA HEMANTH KUMAR _ , ^ CENTRAL GOVT. COUNSEL Counsel for the Respondent No.6 : SRI B. VIJAYA KUMAR The Court made the following order; SC FOR SVU * APHC010097812025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Sf^S [3327] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 5354/2025 Between: 1.SRI RAMA COLLEGE OF EDUCATION, REP. BY IT'S SECRETARY DEGA. VARA KUMAR, TIRUPATHI - AND CORRESPONDENT, SREENIVASAPURAM, TIRUCHANOOR ROAD, 5177503, CHITTOOR (ERST WHILE)DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY IT S PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HIGHER EDUCATION AMARAVATI GUNTUR DISTRICT. DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, 2.THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE COUNCIL FOR HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, NILADRI TOWERS, 6TH BATTALION ROAD, MANGALAGIRI GUNTUR. 3.THE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGHER EDUCATION REGULATORY AND MONITORING COMMITTEEAPHERMC, REP. BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY AND CEO, 2ND FLOOR, SREE MAHENDRA ENCLAVE, NRI BLOCK, C BLOCK, NH16 TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT- 522501. 4.THE NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION, REP. BY IT'S THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, COMMITTEE, G-7, SECTORLO, NEAR METRO STATION, DWARKA, NEW DELHI. THE SOUTH REGIONAL f 5.THE NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION THE MEMBER SECRETARY, DELHI. , REP. BY G-7, SECTORLO, DWARKA, NEW « THF PP! './Pmkatccva;,'', !~! A i is.:!-, . . -AiA,“. ui\rv-cr%C5il r TIRUPATI. KtK BY I i S KEOiS i RAR ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 4 TH Respondent withdrawn the recognition of petitioner's institution and confirmed by the 5TH Respondent for the Bachelor of Education (B. Ed.) course with an annual intake of 150 students as illegal, arbitrary, discrimination and violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the constitution of India and consequently direct the 4TH and 5TH Respondents to restore the recognition for the Bachelor of Education (B. Ed.) course with an annual intake of 150 students to the petitioner's institution and pass lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the 4TH and 5TH Respondents to restore the recognition for the Bachelor of Education (B. Ed.) course with an annual intake of 150 students to the petitioner’s institution pending disposal of the present writ petition, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.GUNDALA SIVA PRASADA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION 2. VIVEKANANDA VIRUPAKSHA 3.VENNA HEMANTH KUMAR(CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL) The Court made the following: the i >■ THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5354 OF 2025 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed challenging the action of 4* respondent in withdrawing recognition of petitioner’s institution, which is confirmed by 5* respondent in appeal, for Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) course with an annual intake of 150 students, as being illegal and arbitrary, and consequently direct respondents 4 and 5 to restore the recognition. 2. Brief facts are that the petitioner institution was accorded permission on 28.4.2005 for conducting B.Ed. one year course with an intake of 40 students from the Academic Year 2004-2005, and subsequently, the annual intake was enhanced to 160 vide order dated 28.04.2005. Vide Order dated 06.05.2015, the petitioner institution was accorded permission to conduct B.Ed. two years course with annual intake of 150 students from Academic Year 2015-2016. After issuing show-cause notice dated 28.02.2019 and final show cause notice dated 20.11.2019 and after receipt of reply from the petitioner dated 09.12.2019, 4^^ respondent, vide Order No.F.SRO/NCTE/APS02935/B.Ed./(AP)/2020/120541-0548, f * 2 dated 06.11.2020, withdrew the recognition accorded to the petitioner institution from the next Academic Year, following deficienci (a) The survey numbers pertaining to the Institution land mentioned at the tim.e of obtaining recognition and the on the C' o. survey nuuibers of present, are different; (bj me instituLion submntted notarized copy of the site plan but not approved by competent authority : *site area was not mentioned; *Survey number was not mentioned. 4-Ule laud submitted at LI (c) The institution failed to submit the latest copy of the faculty list as per the NCTE Regulations 2014. 3. Against the said order dated 06.11.2020 passed by 4^h respondent, petitioner preferred W.P.No.23310 of 2024 before this Court, and the said Writ Petition was dismissed vide Thereafter, the petitioner filed appeal under Section 18 of the NCTE Act, 1993, before 5* respondent, and the said appeal came to be dismissed vide Aggrieved by the same, the present order dated 18.10.2024. an Order dated 16.12.2024. Writ Petition is filed. A counter affidavit, deposed b}^ 4^^ respondent, has been filed on behalf of 4. lespondents 4 and 5, contending rater 3 alia that after issuing show cause notices, in view of the deficiencies pointed out, the recognition granted to the petitioner is withdrawn, and there is no valid ground to challenge the Orders dated 06.11.2020 passed by 4* respondent and the Order dated 16.12.2024 passed by 5* respondent-appellate authority. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5. Perused the record. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned orders do not contain any reasons and they were passed in a routine and mechanical manner, and hence, they are liable to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5 sought to sustain the impugned orders stating that the said orders were passed pursuant to the deficiencies noticed by the Southern Regional Committee of NCTE in complying with the conditions of the revised recognition order, after issuing show cause notices and receiving reply from the petitioner, and there is no infirmity. 4 8. It is not in dispute that initially, the petitioner institution was accorded permission for conducting B.Ed. one year course with an intake ,, r /I o oi eu students from the Academic Year 2004-2005, and subsequently, the annual intake was enhanced to 160, and vide Order dated 06.05.2015 petitioner institution was accorded permission to conduct B.Ed. two years course with the intaKe of ibO students from It is also not in dispute that 4* respondent, after issuing show-cause notice dated 28.02.2019 annual Academic Year 2015-2016. and final show cause notice dated 20.11.2019 and after receipt of reply from the petitioner dated 09.12.2019, passed Order No.F.SRO/NCTE/APS02935/B.Ed./(AP)/2020/ 120541-0548, dated 06.11.2020, withdrawing the recognition accorded to the petitioner institution from the next Academic Year. 9. The Order withdrawing the recognition of the petitioner institution passed by 4th respondent 06.11.2020. Admittedly, against the said Order, an appeal lies to 5th respondent, as per Section 18 of the NOTE Act, 1993. was on The petitioner, instead of preferring the statutory appeal, against the said order, filed a Writ Petition before this Court, that too in the year 2024 i.e. WP No.22310 of 2024. It is not in 5 dispute that the said Writ Petition was dismissed by this Court After dismissal of the said Writ vide Order dated 18.10.2024. before Petition, petitioner preferred statutory appeal 5 th also dismissed vide Order dated respondent, which was 16.12.2024. A perusal of the Order dated 06.11.2020 passed by 4* respondent makes it clear that the Southern Regional Committee of NCTE issued show-cause notices to all the institutions, including the petitioner, which have not submitted pliance of the conditions of the revised recognition order, and after considering the reply of the petitioner institution, noticed the deficiencies as stated above, and in view of the ranted to 10. com it decided to withdraw the recognition Statutory appeal preferred as against same. petitioner institution, the said order was also dismissed by S^h respondent-appellate In view of the deficiency in compliance of the authority, conditions of the revised recognition order, the authorities rightly withdrew the recognition granted to the petitioner There is no infirmity to interfere with the orders institution. passed by respondents 4 and 5. 6 1 1 At 1 V ieai n-cd stage, counsel for rfne petitioner submits that the petitioner institution rectified all the deficiencies pointed out in the withdrawal order and seeks a 1 : ri 5 r el i Ci onaenls concerned ro consider th vP. L. the petitioner institution for recognition from the Academic Year rned counsel for respondents 4 and 5 submits that the admission process for the Academic Year 2025-26. The 1 2025-26 as already commenced, and hence, it is not feasible to consider the case of the petitioner for the Academic Year 2025-26. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is at liberty to make application afresh along with ail the relevant documents, for according recognition, and on making such application, the respondents concerned shall consider the same in accordance wdth law for the next academic year. 12. With the aforesaid direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs of the Writ Petition. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any the Writ Petition shall stand closed. , in Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //true COPY// !s Tn ■ ~ / SECTION urrlCtR 1. The Pnhcpal Secretary Higher Education Department. State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi Amaravati Guntur District. 2. The Secretary, Andhra Pradesh State Council for Higher Education, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Niladri Towers, 6^^ Battalion Road, Mangalagiri Guntur. 3. The Member Secretary and CEO, Andhra Pradesh Higher Education Regulatory and Monitoring Committ Mahendra Enclave, District- 522501. 4. The Regional Director, National Council for Teacher Education, The South Regional Committee, G-7, Sector 10, Near Metro Station, Dwarka, New Delhi. 5. The Member Secretary, National Council for Teacher Education, G-7, Sector 10, Dwarka, New Delhi. 6. The Registrar, Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupati. 7. One CC to Sri Gundala Siva Prasada Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 8. Two CCs to GP for Higher Education, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 9. One CC to Sri Vivekananda Virupaksha, Advocate [OPUC] 10.One CC to Sri Venna Hemanth Kumar(Central Government Counsel) [OPUC] ^1. One CC to Sri B. Vijaya Kumar, SC for SVU (OPUC) 12.Two CD Copies nd APHERMC, 2 NRI Block, C Block, NH16 Tadepalli Floor, Sree Guntur Cnr HIGH COURT ORDER WP NO. 5354 OF 2025 S 11 AUG 2025 «» O S^^urrentSectioiiX^^ DISPOSING OFTHE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS