The appeals were filed by various teacher training institutions, including Adarsh Shiksha Mahavidyalaya, against the interlocutory and final orders passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
No Acts & Articles mentioned in this case
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 104 OF 2012
(arising out of SLP (C) No.14020 of 2009)
Adarsh Shiksha Mahavidyalaya and others … Appellants
versus
Subhash Rahangdale and others … Respondents
with
Civil Appeal No. 105 of 2012 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 13801 of 2009)
Civil Appeal No. 107 of 2012 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 14019 of 2009)
Civil Appeal No. 106 of 2012 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 13913 of 2009)
Civil Appeal No. 108 of 2012 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 11739 of 2009)
Civil Appeal No.109 of 2012 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 13615 of 2009)
Civil Appeal No. 110 of 2012 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 5485 of 2009)
Civil Appeal No. 111 of 2012 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 5486 of 2009)
Civil Appeal No. 114 of 2012 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 18345 of 2009)
Civil Appeal No. 115 of 2012 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 21277 of 2009)
Civil Appeal No. 116 of 2012 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 21015 of 2009)
Civil Appeal No. 118 of 2012 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 21012 of 2009)
Civil Appeal No. 119 of 2012 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 18985 of 2009)
Civil Appeal No. 120 of 2012 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 26526 of 2009)
Civil Appeal No. 121 of 2012 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 24088 of 2009)
Civil Appeal No. 122 of 2012 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 19604 of 2009)
Civil Appeal No. 123 of 2012 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 20674 of 2009)
1
2
Civil Appeal No. 124 of 2012 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 35507 of 2009)
Civil Appeal No. 125 of 2012 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 35519 of 2009)
Civil Appeal No. 126 of 2012 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 23072 of 2009)
Civil Appeal No. 127 of 2012 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 23073 of 2009)
Civil Appeal No. 128 of 2012 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 23074 of 2009)
Civil Appeal No. 131 of 2012 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 23075 of 2009)
Civil Appeal No. 132 of 2012 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 23076 of 2009)
Civil Appeal No. 133 of 2012 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 23079 of 2009)
Civil Appeal No. 134 of 2012 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 23080 of 2009)
Civil Appeal No. 135 of 2012 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 23081 of 2009)
Civil Appeal No. 136 of 2012 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 23084 of 2009)
Civil Appeal No. 137 of 2012 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 23083 of 2009)
Civil Appeal No. 139 of 2012 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 18984 of 2009)
Civil Appeal No. 140 of 2012 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 21288 of 2009)
Civil Appeal No. 141 of 2012 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 27318 of 2009)
Civil Appeal No. 142 of 2012 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 27320 of 2009)
Civil Appeal No. 143 of 2012 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 28625 of 2009)
Civil Appeal No. 144 of 2012 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 31086 of 2009)
Civil Appeal No. 145 of 2012 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 20994 of 2009)
Civil Appeal No. 146 of 2012 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 24779 of 2009)
Civil Appeal No. 147 of 2012 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 9468 of 2010)
J U D G M E N T
G. S. Singhvi, J.
2
3
1.Leave granted.
2.The importance of teachers and their training has been
highlighted time and again by eminent educationists and
leaders of society. The Courts have also laid considerable
emphasis on the dire need of having qualified teachers in
schools and colleges.
2.1In Ahmedabad St. Xavier’s College Society v. State of Gujarat
(1974) 1 SCC 717, A.N. Ray, C.J., observed:
“Educational institutions are temples of learning.
The virtues of human intelligence are mastered
and harmonised by education. Where there is
complete harmony between the teacher and the
taught, where the teacher imparts and the
student receives, where there is complete
dedication of the teacher and the taught in
learning, where there is discipline between the
teacher and the taught, where both are
worshippers of learning, no discord or challenge
will arise. An educational institution runs
smoothly when the teacher and the taught are
engaged in the common ideal of pursuit of
knowledge. It is, therefore, manifest that the
appointment of teachers is an important part in
educational institutions. The qualifications and
the character of the teachers are really
important. The minority institutions have the
right to administer institutions. This right implies
the obligation and duty of the minority
institutions to render the very best to the
students. In the right of administration, checks
and balances in the shape of regulatory
measures are required to ensure the
3
4
appointment of good teachers and their
conditions of service. The right to administer is to
be tempered with regulatory measures to
facilitate smooth administration. The best
administration will reveal no trace or colour of
minority. A minority institution should shine in
exemplary eclectism in the administration of the
institution. The best compliment that can be paid
to a minority institution is that it does not rest
on or proclaim its minority character.
Regulations which will serve the interests of the
students, regulations which will serve the
interests of the teachers are of paramount
importance in good administration. Regulations
in the interest of efficiency of teachers, discipline
and fairness in administration are necessary for
preserving harmony among affiliated institutions.
Education should be a great cohesive force in
developing integrity of the nation. Education
develops the ethos of the nation. Regulations are,
therefore, necessary to see that there are no
divisive or disintegrating forces in
administration.”
2.2In Andhra Kesari Education Society v. Director of School
Education (1989) 1 SCC 392, this Court observed:
“Though teaching is the last choice in the job
market, the role of teachers is central to all
processes of formal education. The teacher alone
could bring out the skills and intellectual
capabilities of students. He is the ‘engine’ of the
educational system. He is a principal instrument
in awakening the child to cultural values. He
needs to be endowed and energised with needed
potential to deliver enlightened service expected
of him. His quality should be such as would
4
5
inspire and motivate into action the benefiter. He
must keep himself abreast of ever-changing
conditions. He is not to perform in a wooden and
unimaginative way. He must eliminate
fissiparous tendencies and attitudes and infuse
nobler and national ideas in younger minds. His
involvement in national integration is more
important, indeed indispensable. It is, therefore,
needless to state that teachers should be
subjected to rigorous training with rigid scrutiny
of efficiency. It has greater relevance to the needs
of the day. The ill-trained or sub-standard
teachers would be detrimental to our educational
system; if not a punishment on our children. The
government and the University must, therefore,
take care to see that inadequacy in the training
of teachers is not compounded by any
extraneous consideration.”
2.3In State of Maharashtra v. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale (1992) 4
SCC 435, the Court said:
“The teacher plays pivotal role in moulding the
career, character and moral fibres and aptitude
for educational excellence in impressive young
children. Formal education needs proper
equipping of the teachers to meet the challenges
of the day to impart lessons with latest
techniques to the students on secular, scientific
and rational outlook. A well-equipped teacher
could bring the needed skills and intellectual
capabilities to the students in their pursuits. The
teacher is adorned as Gurudevobhava, next after
parents, as he is a principal instrument to
awakening the child to the cultural ethos,
intellectual excellence and discipline. The
teachers, therefore, must keep abreast of ever-
changing techniques, the needs of the society
and to cope up with the psychological approach
to the aptitudes of the children to perform that
pivotal role. In short teachers need to be
5
6
endowed and energised with needed potential to
serve the needs of the society. The qualitative
training in the training colleges or schools would
inspire and motivate them into action to the
benefit of the students. For equipping such
trainee students in a school or a college, all
facilities and equipments are absolutely
necessary and institutions bereft thereof have no
place to exist nor entitled to recognition. In that
behalf compliance of the statutory requirements
is insisted upon. Slackening the standard and
judicial fiat to control the mode of education and
examining system are detrimental to the efficient
management of the education.”
2.4In St. Johns’ Teachers Training Institute (for Women),
Madurai v. State of Tamil Nadu (1993) 3 SCC 595, the Court
observed:
“The teacher-education programme has to be
redesigned to bring in a system of education
which can prepare the student-teacher to
shoulder the responsibility of imparting
education with a living dynamism. Education
being closely interrelated to life the well trained
teacher can instil an aesthetic excellence in the
life of his pupil. The traditional, stereotyped,
lifeless and dull pattern of “chalk, talk and teach”
method has to be replaced by a more vibrant
system with improved methods of teaching, to
achieve qualitative excellence in teacher-
education.”
2.5In N.M. Nageshwaramma v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1986
(Supp.) SCC 166, the Court observed:
“The Teachers Training Institutes are meant to
teach children of impressionable age and we
6
7
cannot let loose on the innocent and unwary
children, teachers who have not received proper
and adequate training. True they will be required
to pass the examination but that may not be
enough. Training for a certain minimum period
in a properly organised and equipped Training
Institute is probably essential before a teacher
may be duly launched.”
3.We have prefaced disposal of these appeals, which are directed
against interlocutory order dated 17.12.2008 and final order
dated 13.03.2009 passed by the Division Bench of the Madhya
Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No. 6146 of 2008 and
connected matters by highlighting the need for well-equipped
and trained teachers because in the last three decades private
institutions engaged in conducting teacher training courses /
programmes have indulged in brazen and bizarre exploitation of
the aspirants for admission to teacher training courses and
ranked commercialisation and the regulatory bodies constituted
under the laws enacted by Parliament and State Legislatures
have failed to stem the rot. The cases filed by these institutions,
many of whom have not been granted recognition due to non-
fulfilment of the conditions specified in the National Council for
Teacher Education Act, 1993 (for short, ‘the 1993 Act’) and the
Regulations framed thereunder and by the students who have
taken admission in such institutions with the hope that at the
7
8
end of the day they will be able to get favourable order by
invoking sympathy of the Court, have choked the dockets of
various High Courts and even this Court. The enormity of
litigation in this field gives an impression that implementation
of the provisions contained in the 1993 Act and the Regulations
framed thereunder has been acutely deficient and the objects
sought to be achieved by enacting the special legislation,
namely, planned and coordinated development of the teacher
education system throughout the country, the regulation and
proper maintenance of norms and standards in the teacher
education system have not been fulfilled so far.
4.Before adverting to the appellants’ grievance against the orders
passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No.
6146 of 2008 Subhash Rahangdale and connected cases, we
consider it necessary to notice the scheme of the 1993 Act and
the Regulations framed thereunder.
THE SCHEME OF THE 1993 ACT AND THE REGULATIONS
5.1With a view to achieve the object of planned and coordinated
development for the teacher education system throughout
the country and for regulation and proper maintenance of
8
9
norms and standards in the teacher education system and
for matters connected therewith, Parliament enacted the
1993 Act. The 1993 Act provides for the establishment of a
Council to be called the National Council for Teacher
Education (for short “the NCTE”) with multifarious functions,
powers and duties. Section 2(c) of the Act defines the term
“council” to mean a council established under sub-section (1)
of Section 3. Section 2(i) defines the term “recognised
institution” to mean an institution recognised under Section
14. Section 2(j) defines the term “Regional Committee” to
mean a committee established under Section 20. Section 3
provides for establishment of the Council which comprises of
a Chairperson, a Vice-Chairperson, a Member-Secretary,
various functionaries of the Government, thirteen persons
possessing experience and knowledge in the field of
education or teaching, nine members representing the States
and the Union Territories administration, three members of
Parliament, three members to be appointed from amongst
teachers of primary and secondary education and teachers of
recognised institutions. Section 12 of the Act enumerates
functions of the Council. Section 14 provides for recognition
9
10
of institutions offering course or training in teacher
education. Section 15 lays down the procedure for obtaining
permission by an existing institution for starting a new
course or training. Section 16 contains a non obstante clause
and lays down that an examining body shall not grant
affiliation to any institution or hold examination for a course
or training conducted by a recognised institution unless it
has obtained recognition from the Regional Committee
concerned under Section 14 or permission for starting a new
course or training under Section 15. The mechanism for
dealing with the cases involving violation of the provisions of
the Act or the Rules, Regulations, Orders made or issued
thereunder or the conditions of recognition by a recognised
institution finds place in Section 17. By an amendment made
in July 2006, Section 17-A was added to the Act. It lays down
that no institution shall admit any student to a course or
training in teacher education unless it has obtained
recognition under Section 14 or permission under Section
15. Section 31(1) empowers the Central Government to make
rules for carrying out the provisions of the Act. Section 31(2)
specifies the matters in respect of which the Central
1
11
Government can make rules. Under Section 32(1) the Council
can make regulations for implementation of the provisions of
the Act subject to the rider that the regulations shall not be
inconsistent with the provisions of the Act and the Rules
made thereunder. Section 32(2) specifies the matters on
which the Council can frame regulations. In terms of Section
33, the Rules framed under Section 31 and the Regulations
framed under Section 32 are required to be laid before
Parliament. By virtue of Section 34(1), the Central
Government has been clothed with the power to issue an
order to remove any difficulty arising in the implementation
of the provisions of the Act.
5.2The relevant portions of Sections 12, 14 to 16, 17, 17-A, 18,
20, 29 and 32 of the Act which have bearing on the decision of
these appeals are reproduced below:
“12. Functions of the Council.—It shall be the
duty of the Council to take all such steps as it may
think fit for ensuring planned and coordinated
development of teacher education and for the
determination and maintenance of standards for
teacher education and for the purposes of
performing its functions under this Act, the
Council may—
1
12
(a) undertake surveys and studies relating to
various aspects of teacher education and publish
the result thereof;
(b) make recommendations to the Central and
State Governments, Universities, University Grants
Commission and recognised institutions in the
matter of preparation of suitable plans and
programmes in the field of teacher education;
(c) coordinate and monitor teacher education and
its development in the country;
(d) lay down guidelines in respect of minimum
qualifications for a person to be employed as a
teacher in schools or in recognised institutions;
(e) lay down norms for any specified category of
courses or trainings in teacher education,
including the minimum eligibility criteria for
admission thereof, and the method of selection of
candidates, duration of the course, course
contents and mode of curriculum;
(f) lay down guidelines for compliance by
recognised institutions, for starting new courses or
training, and for providing physical and
instructional facilities, staffing pattern and staff
qualifications;
(g)-(i) * * *
(j) examine and review periodically the
implementation of the norms, guidelines and
standards laid down by the Council, and to
suitably advise the recognised institutions;
(k)-(m) * * *
(n) perform such other functions as may be
entrusted to it by the Central Government.
1
13
14. Recognition of institutions offering course
or training in teacher education .—(1) Every
institution offering or intending to offer a course or
training in teacher education on or after the
appointed day, may, for grant of recognition under
this Act, make an application to the Regional
Committee concerned in such form and in such
manner as may be determined by regulations:
Provided that an institution offering a course or
training in teacher education immediately before
the appointed day, shall be entitled to continue
such course or training for a period of six months,
if it has made an application for recognition within
the said period and until the disposal of the
application by the Regional Committee.
(2) The fee to be paid along with the application
under sub-section (1) shall be such as may be
prescribed.
(3) On receipt of an application by the Regional
Committee from any institution under sub-section
(1), and after obtaining from the institution
concerned such other particulars as it may
consider necessary, it shall—
(a) if it is satisfied that such institution has
adequate financial resources, accommodation,
library, qualified staff, laboratory and that it fulfils
such other conditions required for proper
functioning of the institution for a course or
training in teacher education, as may be
determined by regulations, pass an order granting
recognition to such institution, subject to such
conditions as may be determined by regulations;
or
(b) if it is of the opinion that such institution does
not fulfil the requirements laid down in sub-clause
(a), pass an order refusing recognition to such
institution for reasons to be recorded in writing:
1
14
Provided that before passing an order under sub-
clause (b), the Regional Committee shall provide a
reasonable opportunity to the concerned
institution for making a written representation.
(4) * * *
(5) Every institution, in respect of which
recognition has been refused shall discontinue the
course or training in teacher education from the
end of the academic session next following the
date of receipt of the order refusing recognition
passed under clause (b) of sub-section (3).
(6) Every examining body shall, on receipt of the
order under sub-section (4)—
(a) grant affiliation to the institution, where
recognition has been granted; or
(b) cancel the affiliation of the institution, where
recognition has been refused.
15. Permission for a new course or training by
recognised institution. — (1) Where any
recognised institution intends to start any new
course or training in teacher education, it may
make an application to seek permission therefor to
the Regional Committee concerned in such form
and in such manner as may be determined by
regulations.
(2) The fees to be paid along with the application
under sub-section (1) shall be such as may be
prescribed.
(3) On receipt of an application from an institution
under sub-section (1), and after obtaining from the
recognised institution such other particulars as
may be considered necessary, the Regional
Committee shall—
(a) if it is satisfied that such recognised institution
has adequate financial resources, accommodation,
1
15
library, qualified staff, laboratory, and that it fulfils
such other conditions required for proper conduct
of the new course or training in teacher education,
as may be determined by regulations, pass an
order granting permission, subject to such
conditions as may be determined by regulation; or
(b) if it is of the opinion that such institution does
not fulfil the requirements laid down in sub-clause
(a), pass an order refusing permission to such
institution, for reasons to be recorded in writing:
Provided that before passing an order refusing
permission under sub-clause (b), the Regional
Committee shall provide a reasonable opportunity
to the institution concerned for making a written
representation.
(4) * * *
16. Affiliating body to grant affiliation after
recognition or permission by the Council .—
Notwithstanding anything contained in any other
law for the time being in force, no examining body
shall, on or after the appointed day—
(a) grant affiliation, whether provisional or
otherwise, to any institution; or
(b) hold examination, whether provisional or
otherwise, for a course or training conducted by a
recognised institution,
unless the institution concerned has obtained
recognition from the Regional Committee
concerned, under Section 14 or permission for a
course or training under Section 15.
* * *
17 - Contravention of provisions of the Act and
consequences thereof
1
16
(1) Where the Regional Committee is, on its own
motion or on any representation received from any
person, satisfied that a recognised institution has
contravened any of the provisions of this Act, or
the rules, regulations, orders made or issued
thereunder, or any condition subject to which
recognition under sub-section (3) of section 14 or
permission under sub-section (3) of section 15 was
granted, it may withdraw recognition of such
recognised institution, for reasons to be recorded
in writing;
Provided that no such order against the recognised
institution shall be passed unless a reasonable
opportunity of making representation against the
proposed order has been given to such recognised
institution:
Provided further that the order withdrawing or
refusing recognition passed by the Regional
Committee shall come into force only with effect
from the end of the academic session next
following the date of communication of such order.
(2) A copy of every order passed by the Regional
Committee under sub-section (1),-
(a) shall be communicated to the recognised
institution concerned and a copy thereof shall also
be forwarded simultaneously to the University or
the examining body to which such institution was
affiliated for cancelling affiliation; and
(b) shall be published in the Official Gazette for
general information.
(3) Once the recognition of a recognised institution
is withdrawn under sub-section (1), such
institution shall discontinue the course or training
in teacher education, and the concerned University
or the examining body shall cancel affiliation of the
institution in accordance with the order passed
under sub-section (1), with effect from the end of
1
17
the academic session next following the date of
communication of the said order.
(4) If an institution offers any course or training in
teacher education after the coming into force of the
order withdrawing recognition under sub-section
(1), or where an institution offering a course or
training in teacher education immediately before
the appointed day fails or neglects to obtain
recognition or permission under this Act, the
qualification in teacher education obtained
pursuant to such course or training or after
undertaking a course or training in such
institution, shall not be treated as a valid
qualification for purposes of employment under
the Central Government, any State Government or
University, or in any school, college or other
educational body aided by the Central Government
or any State Government.
17-A. No admission without recognition .—No
institution shall admit any student to a course or
training in teacher education, unless the
institution concerned has obtained recognition
under Section 14 or permission under Section 15,
as the case may be.
18 – Appeals
(1) Any person aggrieved by an order made under
section 14 or section 15 or section 17 of the Act
may prefer an appeal to the Council within such
period as may be prescribed.
(2) No appeal shall be admitted if it is preferred
after the expiry of the period prescribed therefore:
Provided that an appeal may be admitted after the
expiry of the period prescribed therefor, if the
appellant satisfied the Council that he had
sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal
within the prescribed period.
(3) Every appeal made under this section shall be
made in such form and shall be accompanied by a
1
18
copy of the order appealed against and by such
fees as may be prescribed.
(4) The procedure for disposing of an appeal shall
be such as may be prescribed:
Provided that before disallowing an appeal, the
appellant shall be given a reasonable opportunity
to represent its case.
(5) The Council may confirm or reverse the order
appealed against.
20 - Regional Committees
(1) The Council shall, by notification in the Official
Gazette, establish the following Regional
Committees, namely:--
(i) the Eastern Regional Committee;
(ii) the Western Regional Committee;
(iii) the Northern Regional Committee; and
(iv) the Southern Regional Committee.
(2) The Council may, if it considers necessary,
establish with the approval of the Central
Government, such other Regional Committees as it
may deem fit.
(3) ***
(4) ***
(5) ***
(6) The Regional Committee shall in addition to its
functions under Sections 14, 15 and 17, perform
such other functions, as may be assigned to it by
the Council or as may be determined by
regulations.
(7) The functions of, the procedure to be followed
by, the territorial jurisdiction of and the manner of
filling casual vacancies among members of, a
1
19
Regional Committee shall be such as may be
determined by regulations.
29 - Directions by the Central Government
(1) The Council shall, in the discharge of its
functions and duties under this Act be bound by
such directions on questions of policy as the
Central Government may give in writing to it from
time to time.
(2) The decision of the Central Government as to
whether a question is one of policy or not shall be
final.
32 - Power to make regulations
(1) The Council may, by notification in the Official
Gazette, make regulations not inconsistent with
the provisions of this Act and the rules made
thereunder, generally to carry out the provisions of
this Act.
(2) In particular and without prejudice to the
generality of the foregoing power, such regulations
may provide for all or any of the following matters,
namely:-
(a) the time and the place of the meetings of the
Council and the procedure for conducting
business thereat under sub-section (1) of section
7;
(b) the manner in which and the purposes for
which persons may be co-opted by the Council
under sub-section (1) of section 9;
(c) the appointment and terms and conditions of
service of officers and other employees of the
Council under sub-sections (1) and (2) respectively
of section 19;
(d) the norms, guidelines and standards in respect
of-
1
20
(i) the minimum qualifications for a person to be
employed as a teacher under clause (d) of section
12;
(ii) the specified category of courses or training in
teacher education under clause(e) of section 12;
(iii) starting of new courses or training in
recognised institutions under clause (f) of section
12;
(iv) standards in respect of examinations leading to
teacher education qualifications referred to in
clause (g) of section 12;
(v) the tuition fees and other fees chargeable by
institutions under clause (h) of section 12;
(vi) the schemes for various levels of teachers
education, and identification of institutions for
offering teacher development programmes under
clause (l) of section 12;
(e) the form and the manner in which an
application for recognition is to be submitted
under sub-section (1) of section 14;
(f) conditions required for the proper functioning of
the institution and conditions for granting
recognition under clause (a) of sub-section (3) of
section 14;
(g) the form and the manner in which an
application for permission is to be made under
sub-section (1) of section 15;
(h) conditions required for the proper conduct of a
new course or training and conditions for granting
permission under clause (a) of sub-section (3) of
section 15;
(i) the functions which may be assigned by the
Council to the Executive Committee under sub-
section (1) of section 19;
2
21
(j) the procedure and the quorum necessary for
transaction of business at the meetings of the
Executive Committee under sub-section (5) of
section 19;
(k) the manner in which and the purposes for
which the Executive Committee may co-opt
persons under sub-section (6) of section 19;
(l) the number of persons under clause (c) of sub-
section (3) of section 20;
(m) the term of office and allowances payable to
members under sub-section (5) of section 20;
(n) additional functions to be performed by the
Regional Committee under sub-section (6) of
section 20;
(o) the functions of the procedure to be followed by
the territorial jurisdiction of, and the manner, of
filling casual vacancies among members of a
Regional Committee under sub-section (7) of
section 20;
(p) any other matter in respect of which provision
is to be, or may be, made by regulations.”
6.In exercise of the power vested in it under Section 32, the
National Council for Teacher Education (for short, ‘the NCTE’)
has, from time to time, framed the regulations. Initially, the
NCTE framed “the National Council for Teacher Education
(Application for Recognition, the Manner for Submission,
Determination of Conditions for Recognition of Institutions and
Permissions to Start New Course or Training) Regulations,
1995”. In 2002, the NCTE framed “the National Council for
2
22
Teacher Education (Form of Application for Recognition, the
Time-Limit of Submission of Application, Determination of
Norms and Standards for Recognition of Teacher Education
Programmes and Permission to Start New Course or Training)
Regulations, 2002”. Between 2003 and 2005, 6 amendments
were made in the 2002 Regulations, which were finally repealed
with the enactment of “the National Council for Teacher
Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations,
2005 (for short, ‘the 2005 Regulations’). The relevant provisions
of the 2005 Regulations are reproduced below:
“3. Applicability: These regulations shall be
applicable to all matters relating to teacher
education programmes covering norms and
standards and procedures for recognition of
institutions, commencement of new programmes
and addition to sanctioned intake in existing
programmes and other matters incidental thereto.
5. Manner of making application
(1) An institution eligible under Regulation 4,
desirous of running a teacher education
programme may apply to the concerned Regional
Committee of NCTE in the prescribed form in
triplicate along with processing fee and requisite
documents, for recognition.
(2) The form can be downloaded from the Council’s
website www.ncte-in.org, free of cost. The said
form can also be obtained from the office of the
Regional Committee concerned by payment of Rs.
1,000 by way of a demand draft of a Nationalised
Bank drawn in favour of the Member Secretary,
2
23
NCTE payable at the city where the office of the
Regional Committee is located.
(3) An application can be submitted conventionally
or electronically on-line. In the latter case, the
requisite documents in triplicate along with the
processing fee shall be submitted separately to the
office of the Regional Committee concerned. Those
who apply on-line shall have the benefit of not to
pay for the form.
7. Processing of applications
(1) Applications which are complete in all respects
shall be processed by the office of the Regional
Committee concerned within 30 days of receipt of
the such applications.
(2) The applications shall be processed as under: -
(i) The particulars of the institutions shall be
hosted on the official website of the Regional
Committee concerned of the National Council for
Teacher Education.
(ii) This will serve as an electronic communication
to the applicant and also the State
Government/UT Administration concerned for
necessary follow up action on their part.
(iii) A written communication in addition shall also
follow to the applicant.
(iv) A written communication alongwith a copy of
the application form submitted by the
institution(s) of the concerned State/U.T. shall be
sent to the State Government/U.T. Administration
concerned.
(3) On receipt of the communication, the State
Government/UT Administration concerned shall
furnish its recommendations on the applications
to the office of the Regional Committee concerned
of the National Council for Teacher Education
within 60 days from receipt. If the
recommendation is negative, the State
Government/UT Administration shall provide
2
24
detailed reasons/grounds thereof, which could be
taken into consideration by the Regional
Committee concerned while deciding the
application. If no communication is received from
the State Government/UT Administration within
the stipulated 60 days, it shall be presumed that
the State Government/UT Administration
concerned has no recommendation to make.
(4) Though normally the applicant institutions will
ensure submission of applications complete in all
respects, in order to cover the inadvertent
omission of deficiencies in documents, the office of
the Regional Committee shall point out the
deficiencies within 30 days of receipt of the
applications, which the applicants shall remove
within 90 days. The date of receipt of the
application after completion of deficiencies shall be
treated as the date of receipt of the application
complete in all respects within the meaning of
Regulation 7(1).
(5) Ordinarily, the inspection of infrastructure,
equipment, instructional facilities, etc., of an
institution shall be conducted within 30 days of
completion of processing of its application by the
office of the Regional Committee with a view to
assessing the level of preparedness of the
institution to commence the course. Such
inspection shall be in the chronological order of
the date of receipt of the completed application in
the office of the Regional Committee concerned.
Among the applications received on the same day,
alphabetical order shall be followed.
(6) All the applicant institutions are expected to
launch their own website simultaneously with the
submission of their applications covering, inter
alia, the details of the institutions, its location,
name of the course applied for with intake,
availability of physical infrastructure (land,
building, office, classrooms, and other
2
25
facilities/amenities), instructional facilities
(laboratories, library, etc.) and the particulars of
their proposed teaching and non-teaching staff,
etc. with photographs for information of all
concerned.
(7) At the time of visit of the team of experts to an
institution, the institution concerned shall arrange
for the inspection to be videographed in a manner
that all important facilities are videographed along
with interaction with the management and the
staff (if available). The visiting teams shall finalize
and courier their reports alongwith the video tapes
on the same day.
(8) The application and the report alongwith the
video tapes of the Visiting Team shall be placed
before the Regional Committee concerned for
consideration of grant of recognition or permission
to an institution in its next meeting.
(9) The Regional Committee shall decide grant of
recognition or permission to an institution only
after satisfying itself that the institution fulfills all
the conditions prescribed by the NCTE under the
NCTE Act, Rules or Regulations, including, inter
alia, the norms and standards laid down for the
relevant teacher education programme/course.
(10) In the matter of grant of recognition, the
Regional Committees shall strictly act within the
ambit of the National Council for Teacher
Education, Act, 1993, the National Council for
Teacher Education Rules, 1997 as amended from
time to time and the regulations including the
norms and standards for various teacher
education programmes and shall not make any
relaxation thereto. The Regional Directors shall be
responsible for ensuring that the decisions of the
Regional Committees are not in contravention of
the NCTE Act, NCTE Rules and regulations
including the norms and standards.
2
26
(11) The institution concerned shall be informed of
the decision for grant of recognition or permission
subject to appointment of qualified faculty
members before the commencement of the
academic session.
(12) The institution, concerned, after appointing
the requisite faculty/staff, shall put the
information on its official website and also formally
inform the Regional Committee concerned. The
Regional Committee concerned shall then issue a
formal unconditional recognition order.
(13)-(14) * * *
8. Conditions for grant of recognition:
(1) An institution must fulfill all the prescribed
conditions related to norms and standards as
prescribed by the NCTE for conducting the course
or training in teacher education. These norms,
inter alia, cover conditions relating to financial
resources, accommodation, library, laboratory,
other physical infrastructure, qualified staff
including teaching and non-teaching personnel,
etc.
(2) In the first instance, an institution shall be
considered for grant of recognition for the basic
unit as prescribed in the norms & standards for
the particular teacher education programme.
(3) An institution shall be permitted to apply for
enhancement of intake in a teacher education
course already approved after completion of three
academic sessions of running the course.
(4) An institution shall be permitted to apply for
enhancement of intake in Secondary Teacher
Education Programme – B.Ed. & B.P.Ed.
2
27
Programme, if it has accredited itself with the
National Assessment and Accreditation Council
(NAAC) with a grade of B+ on a nine point scale
developed by NAAC.
(5) No institution shall be granted recognition
under these regulations unless it is in possession
of required land on the date of application. The
land free from all encumbrances could be either on
ownership basis or on lease for a period of not less
than 30 years. In cases where under relevant
State/UT laws the maximum permissible lease
period is less than 30 years, the State
Government/UT Administration law shall prevail.
(6)-(9) * * *
(10) An institution shall make admission only after
it obtains unconditional letter of recognition from
the Regional Committee concerned, and affiliation
from the examining body.
(11) Whenever there are changes in the norms and
standards for the course or training in teacher
education, the institution shall comply with the
requirements laid down in the revised norms and
standards immediately but not later than the date
of commencement of the next academic session,
subject to conditions prescribed in the revised
norms.
(12)-(14) * * *”
7.Appendix-1 of the Norms and Standards for Secondary Teacher
Education Programme leading to Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.)
Degree, which was notified with the 2002 Regulations and was
retained in the 2005 Regulations was amended vide notification
2
28
dated 12.7.2006, paragraphs 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 of
which are extracted below:
“1.0Preamble
Teacher preparation course for secondary
education, generally known as B.Ed., is a
professional course that prepares teachers for
upper primary/middle level (classes VI-VIII),
secondary (classes IX-X) and senior secondary
(classes XI-XII) levels.
2.0 Duration and working days
2.1 Duration
B.Ed. programme shall be of a duration of at least
one academic year.
2.2 Working Days
There shall be at least 200 working days exclusive
of period of examination and admission etc., out of
which at least 40 days shall be for practice-
teaching in about ten schools at upper primary /
secondary / senior secondary level. A working day
shall be of a minimum of 6 hours in a six-day
week, during which physical presence in the
institution of teachers and student-teachers is
necessary to ensure their availability for individual
advice, guidance, dialogues and consultation as
and when needed.
3.0 Intake, Eligibility and Admission Procedure
3.1 Intake
There shall be a unit of 100 students divided into
two sections of 50 each for general sessions and
not more than 25 students per teacher for a school
subject for methods courses and other practical
activities of the programme to facilitate
participatory teaching and learning.
3.2 Eligibility
2
29
3.2.1 Candidates with at least 50% marks either in
the Bachelor’s Degree and/or in the Master’s
degree or any other qualification equivalent
thereto, are eligible for admission to the
programme.
3.2.2 There shall be relaxation of
marks/reservation of seats for candidates
belonging to SC/ST/OBC communities and other
categories as per the Rules of the Central/State
Government/UT Administration concerned.
3.3 Admission Procedure
Admission shall be made on merit on the basis of
marks obtained in the qualifying examination
and/or in the entrance examination or any other
selection process as per the policy of the State
Government/U.T. Administration and the
University.”
8.The 2005 Regulations were repealed by the National Council for
Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure)
Regulations, 2007, the relevant provisions of which read as
under:
“4. Eligibility.—The following categories of
institutions are eligible for consideration of their
applications under these Regulations:
(1) Institutions established by or under the
authority of the Central/State Government/UT
administration;
(2) Institutions financed by the Central/State
Government/UT administration;
(3) All universities, including institutions deemed
to be universities, so recognised under the UGC
Act, 1956.
2
30
(4) Self-financed educational institutions
established and operated by ‘not for profit’,
Societies and Trusts registered under the
appropriate law.
5. Manner of making application and time-
limit.—(1) An institution eligible under Regulation
4, desirous of running a teacher education
programme may apply to the concerned Regional
Committee of NCTE for recognition in the
prescribed form in triplicate along with processing
fee and requisite documents.
(2) The form can be downloaded from the Council's
website www.ncte-in.org, free of cost. The said
form can also be obtained from the office of the
Regional Committee concerned by payment of Rs.
1000 (Rupees one thousand only) by way of a
demand draft of a nationalised bank drawn in
favour of the Member-Secretary, NCTE payable at
the city where the office of the Regional Committee
is located.
(3) An application can be submitted conventionally
or electronically online. In the latter case, the
requisite documents in triplicate along with the
processing fee shall be submitted separately to the
office of the Regional Committee concerned. Those
who apply online shall have the benefit of not to
pay for the form.
(4) The cut-off date for submission of application to
the Regional Committee concerned shall be 31st
October of the preceding year to the academic
session for which recognition has been sought.
(5) All complete applications received on or before
31st October of the year shall be processed for the
next academic session and final decision, either
recognition granted or refused, shall be
communicated by 15th May of the succeeding
year.
3
31
* * *
7. Processing of applications.—(1) The applicant
institutions shall ensure submission of
applications complete in all respects. However, in
order to cover the inadvertent omissions or
deficiencies in documents, the office of the
Regional Committee shall point out the
deficiencies within 30 days of receipt of the
applications, which the applicants shall remove
within 90 days. No application shall be processed
if the processing fees of Rs. 40,000 is not
submitted and such applications would be
returned to the applicant institutions.
(2) Simultaneously, on receipt of application, a
written communication along with a copy of the
application form submitted by the institution(s)
shall be sent by the office of the Regional
Committees to the State Government/UT
administration concerned.
(3) On receipt of the communication, the State
Government/UT administration concerned shall
furnish its recommendations on the applications
to the office of the Regional Committee concerned
of the National Council for Teacher Education
within 60 days from receipt. If the
recommendation is negative, the State
Government/UT administration shall provide
detailed reasons/grounds thereof with necessary
statistics, which shall be taken into consideration
by the Regional Committee concerned while
deciding the application. If no communication is
received from the State Government/UT
administration within the stipulated 60 days, it
shall be presumed that the State Government/UT
administration concerned has no recommendation
to make.
(4) After removal of all the deficiencies and to the
satisfaction of the Regional Committee concerned,
the inspection of infrastructure, equipments,
instructional facilities, etc. of an institution shall
3
32
be conducted by a team of experts called Visiting
Team (VT) with a view to assessing the level of
preparedness of the institution to commence the
course. Inspection would be subject to the consent
of the institution and submission of the self-
attested copy of the completion certificate of the
building. Such inspection, as far as
administratively and logistically possible, shall be
in the chronological order of the date of receipt of
the consent of the institution. In case the consent
from more than one institution is received on the
same day, alphabetical order may be followed. The
inspection shall be conducted within 30 days of
receipt of the consent of the institution.
(5)-(8) * * *
(9) The institution concerned shall be informed,
through a letter, of the decision for grant of
recognition or permission subject to appointment
of qualified faculty members before the
commencement of the academic session. The letter
issued under this clause shall not be notified in
the Gazette. The faculty shall be appointed on the
recommendations of the Selection Committee duly
constituted as per the policy of the State
Government/Central Government/University/UGC
or the affiliating body concerned, as the case may
be. The applicant institution shall submit an
affidavit in the prescribed form that the Selection
Committee has been constituted as stated above. A
separate staff list with the details would be
submitted in the prescribed form. The Regional
Committee would rely on the above affidavit and
the staff list before processing the case for grant of
formal recognition.
(10) All the applicant institutions shall launch
their own website soon after the receipt of the
letter from the Regional Committee under
Regulation 7(9) covering, inter alia, the details of
the institution, its location, name of the course
applied for with intake, availability of physical
3
33
infrastructure (land, building, office, classrooms,
and other facilities/amenities), instructional
facilities (laboratory, library, etc.) and the
particulars of their proposed teaching and non-
teaching staff, etc. with photographs, for
information of all concerned.
(11) The institution concerned, after appointing the
requisite faculty/staff as per Regulation 7(9) above
and fulfilling the conditions under Regulation
7(10) above shall formally inform the Regional
Committee concerned along with the requisite
affidavit and staff list. The Regional Committee
concerned shall then issue a formal recognition
order that shall be notified as per provision of the
NCTE Act.
(12)-(13) * * *
8. Conditions for grant of recognition.—(1) An
institution must fulfil all the prescribed conditions
related to norms and standards as prescribed by
NCTE for conducting the course or training in
teacher education. These norms, inter alia, cover
conditions relating to financial resources,
accommodation, library, laboratory, other physical
infrastructure, qualified staff including teaching
and non-teaching personnel, etc.
(2) In the first instance, an institution shall be
considered for grant of recognition for only one
course for the basic unit as prescribed in the
norms and standards for the particular teacher
education programme. An institution can apply for
one basic unit of an additional course from the
subsequent academic session. However,
application for not more than one additional
course can be made in a year.
(3) An institution shall be permitted to apply for
enhancement of course wise intake in teacher
education courses already approved, after
3
34
completion of three academic sessions of running
the respective courses.
(4) An institution shall be permitted to apply for
enhancement of intake in Secondary Teacher
Education Programme — BEd & BPEd programme,
if it has accredited itself with the National
Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) with
a Letter Grade B developed by NAAC.
(5) An institution that has been granted additional
intake in BEd and BPEd teacher training courses
after promulgation of the 2005 Regulations i.e. 13-
1-2006 shall have to be accredited itself with the
National Assessment and Accreditation Council
(NAAC) with a Letter Grade B under the new
grading system developed by NAAC before 1-4-
2010 failing which the additional intake granted
shall stand withdrawn w.e.f. the academic session
2010-2011.
(6) * * *
(7) No institution shall be granted recognition
under these regulations unless it is in possession
of required land on the date of application. The
land free from all encumbrances could be either on
ownership basis or on lease from
Government/government institutions for a period
of not less than 30 years. In cases where under
relevant State/UT laws the maximum permissible
lease period is less than 30 years, the State
Government/UT administration law shall prevail.
However, no building could be taken on lease for
running any teacher training course.
(8)-(9) * * *
(10) At the time of inspection, the building of the
institution shall be complete in the form of a
permanent structure on the land possessed by the
institution in terms of Regulation 8(7), equipped
with all necessary amenities and fulfilling all such
requirements as prescribed in the norms and
3
35
standards. The applicant institution shall produce
the original completion certificate, approved
building plan in proof of the completion of building
and built-up area and other documents to the
visiting team for verification. No temporary
structure/asbestos roofing shall be allowed.
(11) * * *
(12) An institution shall make admission only after
it obtains order of recognition from the Regional
Committee concerned under Regulation 7(11), and
affiliation from the examining body.
(13)-(16) * * *”
The details of the petitions filed in 2007 and 2008 and the
orders passed by the High Court
9.1 One of the four Committees constituted by the Council
under Section 20(1) of the 1993 Act is the Western Regional
Committee, which is required to perform functions under Sections
14, 15 and 17 in relation to the States of Gujarat, Goa, Madhya
Pradesh and Maharashtra. In the last about 15 years, the Western
Regional Committee entertained thousands of applications made
by private institutions for starting teacher training courses albeit
without ensuring compliance of the mandatory provisions
contained in the 1993 Act and the relevant regulations. Some of
these institutions were started in commercial premises like
marriage halls and shops, and in the existing school premises
without the required infrastructure and staff. They admitted
3
36
students from different parts of the country, majority of whom did
not even know the place from where the institutions were
operating. This must have become possible because of the active
or tacit connivance of those who were entrusted with the task of
ensuring effective implementation of the provisions of the 1993
Act. When the Central Government was apprised of the
irregularities committed by the Western Regional Committee in the
matter of grant of recognition to the so-called teacher training
institutions, it was decided to take necessary corrective measures.
Therefore, the Central Government invoked the power vested in it
under Section 29(1) of the 1993 Act and directed that henceforth
no recognition be granted to any teacher training
institution/courses/additional intake by the Western Regional
Committee. The decision of the Central Government was
communicated to the Chairperson of NCTE vide letter dated
20.8.2007, the relevant portions of which are extracted below:
“New Delhi
20th August, 2007
Government of India,
Ministry of Human Resources Development
Department of School Education & Literacy
The Chairperson,
National Council for Teacher Education,
3
37
I, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi 110002
Subject: Directions under Section 29 of the NCTE Act,
1993 to withhold the grant of recognition in institutions
Courses /Additional intake falling under Jurisdiction of
Western Regional Committee of National Council for
Teacher Education (NCTE).
Sir,
It has come to notice of the department of school
education & Literacy that there has been uneven and
disproportionate growth in the number of recognitions
granted to various courses and institutions in the states
falling under the Western Regional Committee of NCTE
and that while granting recognition, the actual demand
of teachers in particular states has been totally ignored.
2.In these circumstances, it is felt appropriate to
undertake a comprehensive review of the situation for
taking necessary corrective measures. Therefore, as
directed by the competent authority, NCTE is hereby
directed under section 29 of the NCTE Act, 1993 that
recognition may henceforth not be granted to any
teacher training institutions/courses/ Additional intake
falling within the Jurisdiction of the Western Regional of
NCTE till a comprehensive review is made or till further
orders, whichever is earlier.
3.Necessary instruction to this order may
accordingly be conveyed to the Western Regional
Committee of NCTE. A compliance report may be sent to
this Department at the earliest.
Your sincerely
(Simmi Choudhary)
Deputy Secretary to Government
Govt. of India”
3
38
9.2 The NCTE sent letter dated 22.8.2007 to the Regional
Director, Western Regional Committee incorporating therein the
direction issued by the Central Government. That letter reads as
under:
“August 22, 2007
To,
Dr. OVS Sikarwar,
Regional Director
Western Regional Committees
Manas Bhawar (Near Air)
Shyamala Hills,
Bhopal : 162002
Subject: Directions under Section 29 of the NCTE Act,
1993 to withhold the grant of Recognition to institutions
Courses /Additional intake falling under the
Jurisdiction of Western Regional Committee of NCTE.
Sir,
I am directed to say that directions have been received
from the competent authority under Section 29 of the
NCTE Act, 1993 on August 21, 2007 that recognition
may henceforth not be granted to any teacher training
institutions Courses/Additional intake falling within the
Jurisdiction of the Western Regional Committee of
NCTE till a comprehensive service to be undertaken or
till further orders, whichever is earlier.
2. In view of the above, you are directed to ensure that
the above directions are complied with and immediate
steps are taken to ensure that no action taken for grant
of recognition and also no meeting of the Western
Regional Committee is held. The Chairperson and
members of the Western Regional Committee may
immediately be suitably informed in this regard.
3
39
Yours Faithfully,
Sd/-
(V.C. Tewari)
Members Secretary”
9.3 The directions issued by the Central Government were
challenged by Amrit Vidyapeeth B.Ed. College, Siddhi in Writ
Petition No. 14227 of 2007 filed before the Madhya Pradesh High
Court. A large number of other private collages and institutions
(198) which were desirous of starting teacher training courses.
They pleaded that even though the applications filed by them for
recognition were complete in all respects and they had already got
‘No Objection Certificates’ from the State Government and
affiliation from the examining bodies, the Western Regional
Committee was not entertaining their applications because of the
restriction imposed by the Central Government. All the writ
petitions were dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court
vide its order dated 29.11.2007. The Division Bench adverted to
the scheme of the 1993 Act, referred to the judgments of this
Court in Food Corporation of India v. Bhanu Lodh (2005) 3 SCC
618 and State of Maharashtra v. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan
Shastra Mahavidyalaya (2006) 9 SCC 1 and held that the Central
3
40
Government has the power to issue the directions impugned in the
writ petitions. The reasons assigned by the Division Bench for
arriving at this conclusion are contained in paragraph 32 of order
dated 29.11.2007, which is extracted below:
“32.Regard being had to the aforesaid pronouncements
of law, if we look at the language employed under
section 29 of the Act we have no scintilla of doubt that
the Central Government could have issued such a
direction as has been issued inasmuch as sub-section
(1) of Section 29 makes it crystal clear that the Council
is bound by such directions on questions of policy as
the Central Government may give in writing from time
to time and further sub-section (2) of section 29 lays a
postulate that the decisions of the Central Government
as to whether the question is one of the policy or shall
be final. Be it noted in the letter dated 20.8.2007 there
is mention of the fact that it has come to the notice of
school education and Literacy that there has been
uneven and disproportionate growth in the number of
recognition granted to various courses of the
institutions in the State falling under the Western
Regional Committee of NCTE and while granting
recognition the actual demand of teaches in the
particular State has been totally ignored. It is also
perceivable from the letter that the Department has
felt is appropriate to make comprehensive review
of the situation for taking necessary corrective
measures. The tenor of the letter and the grounds
mentioned therein and keeping in view the language
employed in section 29 of the Act there can be no trace
of doubt that the Central Government has taken a
decision which by no stretch of imagination can not be
said to be a policy decision under the scheme of the Act.
It is because the purpose of the Act is to provide for
establishment of a National Council for Teacher
Education with a view to achieve planned and co-
ordinated development of the teacher education system
throughout the country. That apart, Regulation 4 deals
4
41
with eligibility and Regulation 8 deals with the
conditions for grant of recognition. We have already
referred to Section 12 of the Act. In view of the object
and reasons and the role assigned to the Council and
the power conferred on the Central Government we
come to the irresistible conclusion that the direction
issued by the Central Government is within the ambit
and sweep of its powers and not de hors the statutory
exercise of power.”
The plea that the students who had taken admission should be
permitted to appear in the examination was rejected by the
Division Bench by making the following observations:
“36. Presently to the legitimate expectation and interest,
it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners
that the institutions have given admission and if
eventually the institutions are granted recognition the
students should be permitted to appear in the
examination. Learned Single Judge of this Court while
passing the interim order had clearly stated that
institutions may admit students provisionally at their
own risk without accepting fees from them and if they
accept fees from the students they would be ready to
face the consequences if the petition is decided against
them in view of the aforesaid order no equity can ever
flow in favour of the institutions. We would like to place
it on record that an institution which is desirous of
imparting B.Ed. and M.Ed. education or introducing a
course meant for teachers is under obligation to be
aware of the provisions contained under the 1993 Act.
The said Act has been engrafted with a sacrosanct
purpose. Grant of recognition is the condition precedent
before any institution proceeds in any other matter like
affiliation from the examination body. Whether the
affiliation has to be granted automatically or not we
have already refrained from dwelling upon the said
issue, but an onerous one, it is inconceivable how an
4
42
institution without recognition can nurture the idea to
admit students. A day dreamer can build a castle in the
air or for that matter castle in Spain, but it is absolutely
inapposite on the part of aspirants registered bodies or
institutions to admit students and pyramid the
foundation relying on the bedrock of legitimate
expectation that the students would be treated as
students who have been admitted in such institutions
in such course which are valid in law. An educational
institution has to conduct itself in an apple pie order. It
has to maintain the sacredness of the concept behind
imparting education. They are under obligation to keep
in mind that commercialization of course under 1993
Act is impermissible. Quite apart from the above it is
totally imprudent and in a way quite audacious to
build a superstructure without an infrastructure. If
we allow ourselves to say so, perception has been
blinded and in the ultimate eventuate a cataclysm has
been unwarrantedly invited. We may say without
any fear of contradiction that it is a perceptible
deception and fraud on law Ergo. The stance that they
have to be given the benefit of legitimate expectation
and their interest should be protected, is devoid of any
substance and we unhesitatingly repel the same.”
9.4 Another batch of 18 writ petitions with the lead case
Pitambra Peeth Shiksha Prasarani Samiti v. State of M.P. and
others W.P. (C) No. 15276 of 2007, filed for quashing the decision
of the State Government to hold common entrance examination for
admission to B.Ed. courses was disposed of by the Division Bench
of the High Court vide order dated 14.12.2007. The Division
Bench referred to the provisions of the 1993 Act as well as the
M.P. B.Ed. Examination Rules, 2007, order dated 29.11.2007
4
43
passed in Writ Petition No.14227 of 2007 and batch, took
cognizance of the fact that some of the students had taken
admissions in the unrecognized institutions and proceeded to
observe:
“….Regard being had to the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case and the nature of
litigation which had cropped up and the time
consumed we think it appropriate to direct the
students who have taken admission in the non-
recognised colleges/institutions, if so desired,
can take admission in the recognised
institutions/colleges. The State Government and
the University shall not cause any impediment in
the same and make an endeavour to facilitate the
same by allotting them to colleges which have
recognition, if the students approach the Central
Agency, the respondent No.3. The State
Government is directed to publish the
notification within a period of seven days fixing a
date seven days thereafter so that they can be
allotted colleges.
As far as the counseling of the candidates who
have passed the entrance examination is
concerned, a date should be notified within a
period of seven days and counselling be done
within a period of seven days thereafter and the
candidates appearing in the counseling shall also
be allotted recognised colleges/institutions.”
The Division Bench rejected the petitioners’ plea for permission to
hold college level counseling and observed:
“The next facet that requires to be dealt with
whether there should be permission for grant of
4
44
college level counselling. Submission of the
learned counsel for the petitioners is that the
seats should not lie vacant and college level
counselling should be allowed. It is urged that
the State Government has illegally introduced the
centralized counselling. In this context we may
refer to clause 3.2 of NCTE Norms which reads
as under:
“3.2 Eligibility
3.2.1 Candidates with at least 50% marks
either in the Bachelor's Degree and/or in the
Master's Degree or any other qualification
equivalent thereto, are eligible for admission
to the programme.
3.2.2 There shall be relaxation of
marks/reservation of seats for candidates
belonging to SC/ST/OBC communities and other
categories as per the Rules of the Central/State
Government/UT Administration concerned.
3.3 Admission Procedure
Admission shall be made on merit on the basis of
marks obtained in the qualifying examination
and/or in the entrance examination or any other
selection process as per the policy of the State
Government/U.T. Administration and the
University."
As is demonstrable from clause 3.2 it deals with
the eligibility of a candidate and clause 3.3 deals
with the admission procedure. The State
Government has taken mode of common
entrance examination. This is a policy decision
taken by the State Government. As is manifest,
the NCTE has deliberately introduced norms and
left it to the discretion of the State Government
and hence, holding of the entrance test cannot be
found fault with. Once the said mode has been
taken recourse to the college level counselling
4
45
should not be allowed. Therefore, the aforesaid
submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioners leaves us unimpressed and we repel
the same.”
The conclusions recorded by the Division Bench of the High Court
in the aforesaid batch of cases are extracted below:
“(a) The candidates who have taken admission
in the non-recognised institutions should be
called by the Central Agency as well as the State
Government by notifying a date within a period of
seven days fixing a date after 7 days so that the
candidates can be allotted to the recognised
colleges/institutions as per norms.
(b)The students who have qualified in the
entrance examination but could not appear in
the counselling should be called for counselling
by a date which would be notified within a period
of seven days and the said date would be after
seven days as a result of which the counselling
would become convenient.
(c) The allotment of seats should be made
strictly on the basis of norms keeping in view the
concept of proportionality so that the grievance is
put to rest.
(d) The college level counselling is not
permissible as the State Government has taken
recourse to the mode of common entrance
examination.”
9.5 The State of Madhya Pradesh challenged the aforesaid
order in SLP(C) No. 3269 of 2008, etc., which were disposed of by
this Court on 18.2.2008 in the following terms:
4
46
“It has been stated that for taking admission in
B.Ed. course within the State of Madhya Pradesh
after exhausting the State quota, 8411 seats are
lying vacant. According to the State, pursuant to
the direction of the High Court in Paragraph 19
of the impugned order, 5142 seats would be
required to be filled up by admitting the students
but 3269 seats in B.Ed. course would be still
lying vacant. The State Government is directed to
take steps for fresh centralized counselling for
filling up all the unfilled seats in the recognized
colleges for which steps must be taken within
fifteen days from today.”
9.6 One more batch of 55 writ petitions with the lead case
Jan Seva Shiksha Samiti v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No. 12133 of 2007 was filed questioning the alleged
interference of the State Government in the matter of grant of
recognition for establishing teacher training colleges. In those
petitions, it was pleaded that the 1993 Act and the Regulations
framed thereunder do not envisage any role for the State
Government and, therefore, the grant of recognition cannot be
made conditional on the production of ‘No Objection Certificate’
from the State Government. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf
of the State Government, it was averred that in terms of
Regulation 7(2)(iv) of the 2005 Regulations, it had a significant role
in the matter of setting up of teachers training institutions and as
4
47
such the institutions seeking recognition were bound to obtain ‘No
Objection Certificate’. The NCTE supported the stand taken by
the petitioners and pleaded that the State Government cannot
interfere in the matter of recognition, which is the exclusive
preserve of the Regional Committee. The High Court referred to
the provisions of Sections 14 to 16, 20, 21, 29 and 32 of the 1993
Act and Regulations 3, 5, 6 and 7 of the 1995 Regulations,
different types of orders passed by Western Regional Committee
under Section 14(1) and (3) and 15(1) of the 1993 Act for grant of
recognition to different institutions as also the directions given by
the Central Government under Section 29 of the 1993 Act, report
submitted by the Committee headed by Mrs. Anita Kaul and
issued the following directions:
“(a) Though the letters of recognition issued by
the NCTE are couched in different phraseology in
various cases, yet the same lead to one
inescapable conclusion that they are conditional
recognitions.
(b) The conditional recognitions could have
been ripened after satisfying certain statutory
requirements like appointment of teaching and
non-teaching staff and other conditions
enumerated/provided in regulations 7 & 8 of the
Regulations as they are conditions precedent and
relate to fundamental realm of recognition.
(c)Certain conditions are relatable to the
institutions after they become functional but on
4
48
that foundation it cannot be construed that the
orders of recognition are totally unconditional.
(d)The State Government cannot refuse ‘No
Objection Certificate’ relying on the M.P.
Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyum, 1973 in view of the
decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case
of Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra
Mahavidyalaya (Supra).
(e)The institutions are bound to follow the
regulations of the NCTE and the Universities are
required to respect regulations as they have
overriding effect on the University statues.
(f)As the Union of India has interfered with
the pending applications and the present cases
do constitute a hybrid category, it is apposite
that the Apex body of the NCTE shall look into
the matter from all spectrums including calling
for recommendation from the State Government
within a specified span of time.
(g)If the Apex Body of NCTE grants
unconditional recognition the University shall
extend the benefit of affiliation and in case
conditional recognition is granted by the NCTE
the University shall grant affiliation on
satisfaction of the conditions enumerated in the
order itself and shall not entrench or encroach
upon the filed by taking recourse to its Act or its
statues.
(h)The University shall be totally bound by the
conditions imposed in the order and shall not
travel beyond them.
(i)The institutions who have admitted
students de hors the Act and the regulations and
admitted students without proper recognition
and affiliation cannot be extended the benefit of
equity and the students who have been admitted
4
49
can be imparted education afresh after
recognition and affiliation are granted.
(j) If the institutions are eventually granted
recognition and affiliation fees collected from the
students shall be adjust for fresh course which
would commence after recognition and affiliation.
(k) If the students do not intend to prosecute
studies in the institution they would entitled to
claim refund of their fees and the institution
shall be bound to refund the fees to the said
students on receipt of proper application, as the
institutions have admitted the students at their
own risk.”
9.7 S.R. College of Education filed Writ Petition No. 4016 of
2008 for quashing the decision of the university not to grant
affiliation on the ground that it did not have NOC from the Higher
Education Department of the State Government. The University
took up the stand that the college cannot participate in the
counseling because it did not have recognition or affiliation. The
Division Bench of the High Court noticed the judgment in Jan
Seva Shiksha Samiti’s case and held:
“In view of the aforesaid the college could not
have admitted the students without affiliation
and recognition. The Apex Court by order dated
18.02.2008 directed the State Government to
take steps for centralized counseling for filling up
unfilled seats in the recognized colleges. By that
day the petitioner college was not recognized.
Quite apart from the above, the petitioner college
4
50
has not yet been affiliated. There can be no
scintilla of doubt, as has been held by this Court,
a college which does not have recognition and
affiliation cannot admit the students. An attempt
has been made to give admission to the students
in respect of the academic session 2007-08. Their
Lordships have stated to hold centralized
counseling for recognized colleges. As the present
institution had neither got recognition till
21.02.2008 nor does it have the affiliation at
present, it cannot claim as a matter of right to
admit the students and participate in the
centralized counseling. The recognition granted
has to be prospective. If affiliation is granted by
the University as per the conditions enumerated
in the order of recognition and the role ascribed
to the Universities by the NCTE Regulations,
2005, then only the college can participate in the
centralized counseling. The institution cannot
claim that it can admit students by participating
in centralized counseling for the academic
session 2007-08. It can do so after obtaining
affiliation for the academic session 2008-09.
9.8 Akhil Bhartiya Shiksha Avam Prashikshan
Mahavidhyalaya filed Writ Petition No. 4847 of 2008 questioning
the direction given by the State Government to Barkatullah
University that it shall seek guidance by sending details and
documents in respect of those institutions which had obtained
recognition from NCTE but did not have NOC. During the course
of hearing, learned counsel appearing for the State conceded that
in view of the order passed in Jan Seva Shiksha Samiti’s case, the
State was not entitled to insist upon production of the NOC from
5
51
the State Government. After taking note of his statement, the High
Court held:
“16. We understand the anxiety of the petitioner
that the State Government has issued a letter
circular insisting upon the NOC. That part has
already been dealt with in earlier decisions. The
competent authority of the State Government
should not have behaved in a callous, reckless
and high-handed manner by incorporating the
same. The University also could have been well
advised to bring it to the notice of the State
Government about the law in the field specially
when both of them were parties to the earlier
litigation instead of following the decision of the
State Government in a mechanical manner. It is
understandable had the institutions obtained
recognition from the NCTE and faced difficulty in
getting affiliation from the University because of
insistence of the State Government for NOC in its
whim and fancy, the matter would have been
different. We reiterate the legal position that the
State Government cannot insist for NOC as has
been held in the earlier judgment, and we
command the State Government to modify the
letter circular in consonance with the judgments
delivered by us in Jan Seva Shiksha Samiti
(supra), S.R. College of Science and Technology
(supra) and other connected matters.
17. Though we have so directed, the petitioner
remains in the state where it was when it last
approached this Court in the earlier writ petition.
We are really shocked how a prayer could have
been made to allow the petitioner to participate
in the re-counseling of B.Ed., without insisting
for NOC by the State Government. The said stage
has not yet come into existence. A litigant is
supposed to know whether he has a real
grievance or he has made an effort to build a
5
52
castle in the air. An educational institution which
is supposed to impart, education in B.Ed., course
has to have legal opinion in the field but as it
seems all norms are thrown to the winds and the
writ petition is filed by picking a straw either
from here to there. This does not help. When the
petitioner had approached this court and no
relief was granted and it was clearly held that all
the institutions would be governed by the
directions contained in paragraph 42 of Jan Seva
Shiksha Samiti (supra), it is really shocking that
such an ambitious petition, is filed. It would not
be out of place to say that the State Government
has acted contrary to the judgments but the
institutions which, could have been aggrieved by
such action could have filed the writ petitions
and that would have been a sanguine grievance.
But the petitioner institutions do not fall in the
said category. Under the circumstances, we are
disposed to think an ingenious effort is made to
build up an edifice to have the relief which has
already been etherized. Almost six decades back,
it was said by Agnes E. Benedict, ‘the only thing
better than education is more education,’ but the
present case demonstrates a situation where one
can say with certitude that it smells of foul play
and drafts out a mephitic ambition. The
institutions which are concerned with education
should have ethicality, probity, propriety, parity,
righteousness, ability, honesty, rectitude
acclaimed virtues and not unnecessary and
unwarranted excitement, glee to achieve glory in
any mariner, elation at the cost of legality,
jubilation at the murder of all norms and rapture
by chartering away all normative guidelines.
18. In view of our aforesaid analysis, while
holding that the State Government could not
have insisted for NOC as per the law laid down in
the case of Jan Seva Shiksha Samiti (supra), we
conclude and hold that the petitioner institutions
in each case are not entitled to any relief and the
5
53
petitions are dismissed. We may further state
here that we would have imposed exemplary
costs as it was within the special knowledge of
the petitioners that they could not have got the
relief without further action being taken by the
Apex Body of the NCTE and without the
affiliation, yet we restrain from, doing so for the
present as we treat this spate of litigations as a
manifestation of unwarranted and uncalled for
anxiety on the part of the persons who are in the
management of the said institutions.”
9.9 In Rajendra Katare Shiksha Mahavidyalaya v. State of
M.P. and others W.P. No. 3679 of 2008 the High Court held that
the petitioner cannot make admission without obtaining
recognition from the competent authority and affiliation from the
concerned University. The High Court also observed that
recognition and affiliation will be prospective and any authority
making an effort to take steps contrary to the directions given by it
would be liable for contempt.
9.10 In Siddhi Vinayak College, Bhind v. State of M.P. and
others W.P. No. 1558 of 2008, the Division Bench of the High
Court referred to the interim directions issued by the learned
Single Judge and observed:
“11. The submissions of Mr. Dinesh Upadhyay,
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner are
basically based on the order passed by the
5
54
learned Single Judge. It is vehemently contended
by him that because of the interim order of this
Court, the institution has admitted the students.
The Division Bench of this Court had already
dealt with the said facet. When in the final order
the relief was denied the petitioner cannot claim
any benefit on the basis of the interim order and
more so, when this Court has expressed, the
opinion that it was inconceivable how an
institution without recognition can nurture the
idea to admit students. The imperative guidelines
for imparting of training for 180 days are not
disputed before us. The examination is
scheduled, to be held in May-June, 2008.
Recognition has been granted on 28-12-
2007/11-01-2008. By the principle of sheer
arithmetics 180 days training is not possible and
hence, the order passed by the respondent no. 2
cannot be faulted.”
9.11 In Sheetla Shiksha Mahavidyalaya, Gwalior v. State of
M.P. and others Writ Petition No. 6716 of 2008 the petitioner
challenged the decision of the Board of Secondary Education not
to grant affiliation. The Court noticed the affidavit filed on behalf
of the NCTE and held that the recognition granted under the 1993
Act is prospective and no institution can admit students without
having recognition from the competent authority.
9.12 Vikramaditya Mahavidhyalaya, Jabalpur filed Writ
Petition No. 6113 of 2008 impleading the Union of India, the
NCTE, Western Regional Committee of NCTE, the State of M.P.
5
55
and six universities of Madhya Pradesh as party respondents and
prayed for issue of direction to the universities to withdraw the
affiliation granted to non-deserving colleges and to restrain them
from declaring the result of the students admitted in such
colleges. It was further prayed that the universities be directed
not to conduct the examination for the students of non-deserving
colleges. That petition was disposed of by the Division Bench of
the High Court vide order dated 31.7.2008. While disapproving
the actions of the universities to grant affiliation by overlooking
the fact that the institutions had not complied with the mandate of
Regulation 7(9), (11) and (12), the Division Bench gave several
directions, some of which are reproduced below:
“(a) The State Government cannot refuse ‘No
Objection Certificate’ relying on the M.P.
Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 in view of the
decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case
of Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastro
Mahavidyalaya (supra).
(b) The institutions are bound to follow the
Regulations of the NCTE and the Universities are
required to respect the Regulations and act
accordingly.
(c) The Institutions/Colleges can give admissions
only after they obtain the order of recognition
from the Regional Committee concerned under
Regulation 7(I) and affiliation from the concerned
examining body.
5
56
(d) The order of recognition is always prospective.
(e) On the basis of the order of recognition, the
institution is entitled to obtain affiliation from the
examining body after fulfilling the criteria
mentioned in the NCTE Act and Regulations and
thereafter admit the students.
(f) The NCTE cannot pass an order of recognition
retrospectively.
(g) The order of recognition itself does not enable
the institution to treat the recognition as a
blanket order and violate other requirements that
may be prescribed by the affiliating examining
body which is in accord with the 1993 Act and
Regulations.
(i) The State Government shall positively reply to
the Apex Body of the NCTE within a week hence,
failing which it would be presumed that it has no
recommendation to make.
(j) The universities shall forward the documents
received by them to the NCTE for verification with
regard to the status of recognition and their
queries within a week hence by special
messengers.
(k) The Apex Body shall scrutinize the recognition
order and the documents brought on file and
take a decision whether those institutions are
recognized or not. The said decision shall be
taken within a period of seven days therefrom,
i.e., seven days from the receipt of the documents
from the universities. The Apex Body shall also
scrutinize the recognitions which were not the
subject matter of the litigation before this Court
to find out whether the said recognitions were
valid as per the NCTE Act and the Regulations
framed thereunder.
(l) The Apex Body shall communicate to the
universities and the State Government about the
5
57
recognition facet positively within a week
therefrom.
(m) The universities shall scrutinize the norms
for the purpose of grant of affiliation in terms of
the order of recognition and the provisions
contained in the Regulations, regard being had to
the decisions of this Court within seven days and
issue letters of affiliation wherever justified.
(p) If any admission has already been given, the
same shall be kept in abeyance.
(q) The case of the petitioner-college shall also be
scrutinized by the Apex Body of the NCTE as well
as by the concerned university.”
The details of the orders passed in Writ Petition No. 6146 of
2008 and connected cases
10.1 Subhash Rahangdale filed Writ Petition No.6146 of
2008 by way of Public Interest Litigation and prayed for issue of
direction to the NCTE, State of M.P., Barkatullah University and
others for ensuring proper maintenance of norms and standards
in the teacher education system in various colleges run by
different educational societies / entities or the institutions
financed by Central / State Government or Union Territory
Administration or the universities including the deemed
universities and self-financed educational institutions established
and operated by non-profit making societies and trusts registered
within the State. He prayed for appointment of an expert team of
5
58
NCTE for conducting inspection of all the recognized institutions
under Section 13 and 17 of the 1993 Act and also for issue of a
direction to Western Regional Committee to take action in light of
the report of the expert team. Another prayer made by him was for
directing the universities and examining bodies not to take
examination of the students who did not satisfy the conditions of
eligibility.
10.2 The Division Bench of the High Court passed interim
orders dated 14.10.2008; 23.10.2008 and 15.12.2008 and
directed the NCTE to prepare exhaustive lists of recognized
colleges and re-scrutinize those lists and verify whether norms
and procedures were followed at the time of appointment of faculty
members and whether they were still continuing in the colleges.
On 17.12.2008 the High Court passed a detailed order, paragraph
54 of which is extracted below:
“54. Regard being had to the aforesaid factual
scenario we proceed to enumerate our directions
in seriatim:
a) The students who have prosecuted studies in
the colleges which have been cleared by the
NCTE are entitled to appear in the examination
for the academic session 2007-08.
5
59
b) The University Teaching Department and the
Colleges which have been cleared and have held
the examinations, the results shall be published.
c) The Colleges which have been cleared and
where we have stated that affiliation should not
have been discontinued and where a fresh
affiliation is necessary because all formalities
were completed if any other formalities remain to
be complied with as required by the University,
the same shall be complied with within a period
of 15 days from the date of intimation by the
concerned University.
d) As far as other colleges in respect of which
inspection have carried out by the NCTE and
have not been cleared, the inspection shall be
completed on University-wise basis by
20.01.2009.
e) The NCTE shall make a college-wise report and
behave like a statutory body with responsibility
by enclosing the documents so that it will be
properly appreciated.
f) The students who have prosecuted studies in
the colleges which have been cleared must have
completed the period of study as per the norms
of Regulations, 2007, i.e., 180 days. If the period
of study is found to be inadequate, the students
would not be allowed to appear in the
examination.
g) The students who have prosecuted their
studies in UDT and Government colleges would
be entitled to appear subject to compliance of
norms of Regulation 2007.
h) The examination in respect of aforesaid
students shall be held in the last week of
February, 2009.
5
60
10.3 Swavittiya Ashaskiya Mahavidyalaya Vikas Sangh
challenged the order dated 17.12.2008 in SLP (C) No. 5485 of
2009. Vidyavati College and others also challenged that order in
SLP(C) Nos. 5486 of 2009. Initially, this Court passed an order of
stay on 14.01.2009 but the same was modified on 19.01.2009 in
the following terms:
“Adjourned by two weeks.
Interim order dated 14.01.2009 is vacated.
As regards the direction for conducting of
examination is stayed until the High Court
consider the matter and pass further orders.”
10.4 Thereafter, the High Court considered report dated
27.1.2009 prepared by the Committee of the NCTE which had
undertaken detailed scrutiny of the status of various institutions
engaged in conducting teacher training courses. The Committee
divided the institutions in the following four categories:
Category 01
Clearly recognized institutions who are recognized
and their recognition is to continue (This includes
some cases where inspection of the new building
constructed is pending despite application/
depositing of fee to WRC).
Category 02
Cases recognized upto 2007-08 and they are
subjected to proceedings to withdraw the
recognition from 2008-09 onwards.
6
61
Category 03
Cases which are to be recognized from 2008-09
onwards and Universities are required to affiliate,
if not already done.
Category 04
Institutions which are not recognized during 2007-
08 due to not having staff during sessions or due
to decisions of Hon’ble Court in Amrit Vidyapeeth
Case.
10.5 After noticing the categorization done by the Committee,
the High Court issued the following directions:
“(i) The colleges which have been cleared by the NCTE
as they have recognition and affiliation, the students
of said colleges are entitled to undertake the
examination for the academic session 2007-08.
(ii) The colleges which have been granted recognition
and affiliation after the said academic session they
shall be prospective and would not have any
retrospective applicability.
(iii) The colleges which were the parties in Amrit Vidya
Peeth (supra) and claimed to impart B.Ed, education
will be entitled to be considered for participating in the
examination for the academic session 2007-08.
(iv)The colleges/ institutions which were eligible for
imparting B.Ed. Course but not M.Ed. Course and
were parties in Amrit Vidya Peeth (supra) and are not
presently cleared by the NCTE for the said reason
shall be scrutinized by the NCTE for B.Ed. course and
a report in that regard be submitted on the next date
of hearing.
(v)Submission of Mr. Naman Nagrath, learned
counsel for interveners, to the effect that the students
6
62
who had prosecuted their studies in the colleges on
the basis of certain orders issued by the NCTE would
also be entitled to appear in the examination sans
substance inasmuch as the cases of said colleges were
rejected in Amrit Vidya Peeth (supra) as there was
actually no recognition.
(vi)The colleges which have been cleared after
scrutiny as per the direction in Jan Seva Shiksha
Samiti (supra) and in this case are eligible to
undertake the examination.
(vii)The NCTE shall not extend the benefit to any
college by granting recognition in a retrospective
manner.
(viii)The institutions which have intervened and have
not been visited with the order of rejection may make
representation to the NCTE for inspection or scrutiny
within a period of one week and the same shall be
done as undertaken by Mr. BD Silve, learned senior
counsel.
(ix)The colleges whose cases have been rejected for
recognition may prefer an appeal under Section 18 of
the Act within a period of three weeks. Their appeals
shall be disposed of on merits ascribing cogent and
germane reasons.
(x)The rest of the colleges in respect of which the
inspection is in progress shall be completed as
undertaken by Mr. BD Silva in quite promptitude. The
inspection shall be carried out university-wise and the
report be submitted to this Court so that this Court
can be apprised of the colleges which have been
recognized and affiliated.
(xi) While carrying out the inspection it
needs no special emphasis to state the NCTE shall
keep in view the norms and standards as also the
provisions enshrined under the Act and Regulations. It
6
63
should be kept in mind that education cannot be
crucified, or guillotined at the alter of fancy, whim or
the propensity of a demagogue.”
10.6 Clause (3) of the above noted directions was substituted
on 30.1.2009 with the following:
“The colleges which were parties in Amrit Vidya Peet
(supra) and claimed to impart B.Ed. education shall
not be entitled to be considered for participation in the
examination for the academic session 2007-08.”
10.7 In furtherance of the directions given by the High Court,
the Committee of the NCTE conducted inspection of majority of
the 364 institutions of which the details were furnished by 7
universities of the State and found that the students of 221
institutions were eligible to take the examinations for academic
session 2007-08 and more than 55 institutions were covered by
the directions given in Amrit Vidyapeeth and Jan Seva Shikshan
Samiti cases. The High Court also noted that the Committee had
prepared a separate list of 17 colleges in respect of which some
doubts were expressed and another list of 22 colleges which were
not scrutinized earlier and proceeded to observe:
“In the ordinary course of things, the clearance given
by the NCTE after due inspection should have put the
controversy to rest, but unfortunately it is not so
6
64
inasmuch as the NCTE while submitting the list has
not taken care of the earlier decisions rendered by this
Court, despite categorical conclusions and the said
position was conceded to by Mr. Brian Da’ Silva,
learned senior counsel on earlier date of hearing. We
think it apt to clarify the position. In the case of Amrit
Vidya Peeth (supra), the institutions did not have
recognition and affiliation. The Institution availed an
interim order to admit students but the Division
Bench while dealing with it had not accepted the plea
of legitimate expectation. A submission was put forth
while hearing the present writ petitions that in Amrit
Vidya Peeth (supra), certain Institutions had
recognition for B.Ed. and affiliation for the said course
by the University but had no recognition and affiliation
for M.Ed. Course. In view of the same, a recognition
and affiliation in respect of B.Ed. course should be
cleared and the Institutions which do not have
recognition and affiliation should not be extended the
benefit at all. The NCTE, as it appears, has scrutinized
the same taking into consideration the parameters on
that score in respect of Institutions.
We have already referred to in detail the facts of Jan
Seva Shiksha Samiti (supra). The institutions had
admitted the students though they had not been given
affiliation by the University. Affiliation had not been
given because they did not have unconditional
recognition and they not appointed the faculty
members. Keeping that in view, this Court had issued
directions which we have reproduced hereinbefore.
On a plain reading of the same, it will be clear as a
noon day that the grant of recognition and affiliation
would be prospective. Thus, the cases which are
covered under the Jan Seva Shiksha Samiti (supra)
and similar cases cannot be conceived of having
recognition and affiliation. In Jan Seva Shiksha Samiti
(supra), this Court had clearly held that an Institution
which does not have unconditional recognition, which
includes the faculty members and does not have
6
65
affiliation, could not have admitted the students. As it
appears, the NCTE has cleared certain Colleges for the
academic session 2007-08 by mis-interpreting Jan
Seva Shiksha Samiti (supra). An institution or a
college which is covered by Jan Seva Shiksha Samiti
(supra), in our considered opinion, cannot be treated
to be recognized and affiliated institution for the
academic session 2007-08.”
10.8 The Division Bench of the High Court observed that the
recognition granted after scrutiny by the NCTE and the
universities in the light of the directions given in the earlier cases
including Vikramaditya Mahavidhyalaya’s case should be treated
as prospective, i.e., for the year 2008-2009. The High Court then
referred to the schemes of Sections 14, 15 and 17 of the 1993 Act,
Regulations 7(9), (11) and (12), 8(1), (5), (8), (10) and (11) of the
1995 Regulations, Regulations 7(7), (9) and (11) and 8 of the 2007
Regulations and recorded its conclusions and directions in para
60, which are extracted hereunder:
“(a)Section 14 (3) of the Act lays down postulates
with regard to certain parameters for grant of
recognition and stipulates certain conditions
which are pre-conditions and since qua non for
grant of recognition and also deal with certain
conditions which are futuristic in nature.
(b)Unless the requirement as provided under
Section 14 (3) of the Act are fulfilled the Western
Regional Committee cannot confer the benefit of
recognition.
6
66
(c)There cannot be any kind of compromise or
relaxation with regard to imperative conditions as
prescribed under sub-section 14 (3) of the Act.
(d)No examining body can grant affiliation
unless there is recognition by the NCTE as
contemplated under Section 16 of the Act.
(e)If an educational institution is aggrieved by
the order of refusal of recognition by the Regional
Committee it can submit a representation to the
said Committee.
(f)If a decision is taken against the affected
institution by the Committee, an appeal can be
preferred under Section 18 of the Act to the
Council, and said remedies are alternative and
efficacious.
(g)The grant of recognition and benefit of
extension of affiliation are always prospective.
Neither the NCTE nor the University can make it
retrospective in nature.
(h)Section 14 (5) is relatable only to the
institutions which were offering a course or
training in teacher education at the
commencement of the Act.
(i)Section 17 (1) of the Act basically and
fundamentally deals with the withdrawal of
recognition of such recognized institutions.
(j)As far as the withdrawal is concerned the
same shall come into force only with effect from
the end of the academic session inasmuch as the
withdrawal relates to an already recognized
institutions and hence, statutory protection has
been granted.
6
67
(k)The terms “refusing recognition” used in
second proviso to Section 17 (1) can alone relate to
sub-section (1) and (5) of Section 14 to give a
purposeful meaning to the same and regard being
had to the scheme of provisions occurring the said
chapter.
(l)The contention that students could have been
admitted without proper recognition and affiliation
by the educational institution is sans substratum.
(m)The list of colleges which have been cleared
by the NCTE are treated as recognized institutions
under the Act but the institution which are
covered on the principle of Jan Seva Shika Samit
(supra) cannot be allowed to undertake the
examination for the academic session 2007-08
since at the time of admitting the students they
did not have recognition in terms of Section 14 (3)
of the Act and affiliation from the concerned
Universities.
(n)The students who had admitted in the said
colleges, if the said Colleges have been cleared by
the NCTE in its list, can prosecute the studies as
per the norms of the NCTE and thereafter appear
in the examination.
(o)The claim put forth by the students that they
should be equitably dealt with and be permitted to
appear in the examination keeping in view the
prosecution of their studies in such colleges is
negative since their studying in the unrecognized
colleges/institutions cannot be regarded as
prosecution of studies as per the norms laid down
by the NCTE and such an order would tantamount
to grant of premium to the educational institutors.
(p)If any student has felt betrayed or deceived
by educational institution it is open to him to take
appropriate steps claiming compensation.
6
68
(q)The institutions which had collected fees
from the students for the academic Session 2007-
08 and the students are not in a position to avail
the benefit of such studies, the Colleges are under
an obligation to refund the fees and the amount
which had been collected from the students, if the
students so desired. This is without prejudice to
the claim of the students who put forth their stand
and stance for claiming compensation.
(r)The NCTE shall bifurcate the recognized
colleges on the parameter of Jan Sevan Shiksa
Samit (supra) which are fit to undertake 2007-08
examination on the basis of education imparted
and other colleges which are to be recognized for
the subsequent academic session.
(s)The institution which are aggrieved by the
action of refusal or recognition or withdrawal of
recognition shall be communicated by the order by
the competent authority of the NCTE, if not done
so far, within three weeks and it would be open to
said institutions to take statutory remedy as
contemplated under Sections 14 and 18 of the Act.
(t)It would be open to the institutions to put
forth their stand from all spectrums and the
authorities concerned would be under an
obligation to pass cogent and speaking order.
(u)The educational institutions in respect of
which withdrawal of recognition is sought for, the
same has to be in accord with Section 17 (1) of the
Act and that would be as per the second proviso to
the said section.
(v)The Colleges in respect of which results have
been published shall reap the benefit of such
declaration.”
The grounds of challenge
6
69
11.The appellants have challenged the impugned orders on the
following grounds:
(i) The High Court committed grave error by
entertaining Writ Petition No. 6146 of 2008 filed in the
name of public interest litigation without making an
inquiry into the background of the petitioner and his
special interest in the field of teacher education.
(ii) The directions given by the
High Court are vitiated due to violation of the rules of
natural justice because none of the appellants was
impleaded as party to Writ Petition No. 6146 of 2008
and they did not get opportunity to show that they were
duly recognized by the Western Regional Committee
and they had also obtained affiliation from the
examining body or that they were eligible and entitled to
get recognition and affiliation.
(iii) The High Court has usurped the powers vested in the
NCTE under the 1993 Act and the Regulations framed
thereunder and has issued directions in disregard of
the observations made by this Court in State of
6
70
Maharashtra v. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra
Mahavidyalaya (supra) that the NCTE is the sole
guardian and custodian of maintaining and sustaining
the standard of teacher education.
(iv)That the High Court misinterpreted the provisions of
Sections 14 and 17 of the 1993 Act and the Regulations
framed thereunder and erroneously assumed that an
order refusing recognition would operate with
retrospective effect. The withdrawal of recognition by
the Regional Committee in the light of the directions
given by the High Court in Jan Seva Shiksha Samiti v.
State of Madhya Pradesh (supra) should be treated as
prospective and the students admitted before
withdrawal of recognition should be held entitled to
appear in the examination conducted by the examining
body.
(v) Since the Government failed
to fill up the vacant seats through the centralised
counselling, the appellants did not commit any illegality
7
71
by admitting the students on the basis of institutional
counselling.
(vi)The 2007 Regulations are not retrospective and the
same cannot be relied upon for refusing recognition to
the institutions which had applied prior to the coming
into force of those regulations.
(vii)The students who had been admitted prior to the
decisions of the cases referred to in the impugned order
cannot be denied the right to appear in the examination
to be conducted by the competent body and the
respondents are duty bound to declare the result of
those who have already appeared in the examination.
12.In furtherance of the liberty given by the Court the counsel
for the appellants filed written submissions on behalf of self-
financed private B.Ed. institutions, the salient features of the
written submissions are:
(i.)The State Government had failed to fill up the vacant seats
and only very few students had been admitted through
centralized counselling. It had also not prescribed a cut off
mark for the pre-B.Ed. examination for 2007-08. Even the
7
72
students who secured zero marks were allotted to the
colleges through centralised counselling. In view of this,
the appellants made provisional admissions for the
approved intake and in light of the minimum eligibility
prescribed by the NCTE norms. It was very difficult for
private unaided institutions to maintain the
infrastructure, staff and other requirement as stated by
the NCTE without the students.
(ii.)The State Government failed to fill up vacant seats for
2007-08 even though it was directed to do so by the
Supreme Court vide order dated 18.2.2008 in SLP (C) No.
3269/2008 “State of MP v. PP Prasarsarni Samiti & rs.”
and order dated 7.3.2008 passed in IA No. 5 in SLP (C)
No. 17093 of 2007.
(iii.)The respondents should be directed to declare the result of
the students who were provisionally admitted and were
allowed to take part in the examination pursuant to the
interim orders passed by the High Court and the Supreme
Court.
7
73
(iv.)In its affidavit dated 24.7.2010 the NCTE has treated as
valid the recognition granted to various institutions for the
session 2007-08 and has also stated that the withdrawal
of recognition under Section 17 of the 1993 Act would
operate prospectively and would not affect the students
already admitted.
(v.)Some of the petitioners have not been granted affiliations
by their respective Universities for academic session 2007-
08, although requisite fee has been accepted for this
academic session. The practice in some of the Universities
have been that once the affiliation order is granted for a
particular session, then the requisite fee has been asked to
pay but without issuing any affiliation order. In fact, this
situation is beyond the control of the institutions seeking
affiliations.
13.In paragraph 8 of the written submissions, it has been stated
that the self-financed private B.Ed. colleges undertake not to
admit any student in future except through centralised
counselling for any of the academic session.
7
74
14.In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Madhya
Pradesh in SLP(C) No. 14020/2009 and other SLPs, the
following significant averments have been made:
(i.)The controversy before the High Court was only in relation
to the academic session 2007-2008 and not for the
academic sessions 2005-2006, 2006-2007 or 2008-2009
and all the universities had already conducted
examinations for the academic sessions 2005-2006 and
2006-2007.
(ii.)The appellants have deliberately flouted all the rules and
regulations and admitted students for the academic
session 2007-2008 at their own level and not through the
centralized counseling and even those students who did
not pass Pre-B.Ed. Examination 2007 were admitted by
the institutions on their own by taking advantage of the
conditional interim order dated 13.9.2007 passed in Writ
Petition No. 12889 of 2007.
(iii.)The appellants cannot seek a direction in the matter of
students admitted for the Sessions 2005-06, 2006-07 and
2008-09 and no direction may be issued for declaring the
7
75
result of the students admitted for the Sessions 2005-06
and 2006-07. More so because the admissions were made
by the private institutions for the Session 2008-09 in total
disregard of the orders passed by the High Court.
15.In the counter affidavits filed by Rani Durgawati University,
Jabalpur, Barkatullah University, Bhopal and Dr. Hari Singh
Gour University, Sagar in SLP(C) No. 35300/2009, it has been
pleaded that the appellants deliberately flouted the rules
relating to admission and admitted the students de hors the
procedure contained in Annexure 1 appended to the
Regulations and the interim order passed by the High Court on
13.9.2007. A large number of students were admitted without
passing the entrance examination conducted in 2007 and
without appearing for centralized counselling. Barkatullah
University had allotted 25256 students to different institutions
through centralized counseling held for the Session 2007-08
but 28106 appeared in the examinations in furtherance of the
interim orders passed by the Courts.
CONSIDERATION
16.In the light of the above, we shall first consider whether the
High Court committed an error by entertaining the writ petition
7
76
filed by Subhash Rahangdale as public interest litigation. This
Court has, time and again, laid down guiding principles for
entertaining petitions filed in public interest. However, for the
purpose of deciding the appellants’ objection it is not necessary
to advert to the plethora of precedents on the subject because
in State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal (2010) 3 SCC
402, a two-Judge Bench discussed the development of law
relating to public interest litigation and reiterated that before
entertaining such petitions, the Court must feel satisfied that
the petitioner has genuinely come forward to espouse public
cause and his litigious venture is not guided by any ulterior
motive or is not a publicity gimmick. In paragraphs 96 to 104,
the Bench discussed Phase-III of the public interest litigation in
the context of transparency and probity in governance, referred
to the judgments in Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1998) 1
SCC 226, Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India
(2003) 7 SCC 532, Rajiv Ranjan Singh “Lalan” (VIII) v. Union of
India (2006) 6 SCC 613, M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (2007) 1
SCC 110, M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (2008) 1 SCC 407 and
observed:
7
77
“These are some of the cases where the Supreme Court
and the High Courts broadened the scope of public
interest litigation and also entertained petitions to
ensure that in governance of the State, there is
transparency and no extraneous considerations are
taken into consideration except the public interest.
These cases regarding probity in governance or
corruption in public life dealt with by the courts can
be placed in the third phase of public interest
litigation.”
17.Reference also deserves to be made to the judgment of the
three-Judge Bench in Shivajirao Nilangekar Patil v. Dr. Mahesh
Madhav Gosavi (1987) 1 SCC 227 in which a new dimension
was given to the power of the Superior Courts to make
investigation into the issues of public importance even though
the petitioner may have moved the Court for vindication of a
private interest. In that case the High Court had entertained a
writ petition filed by Assistant Medical Officer of K.E.M.
Hospital, Bombay questioning the assessment of answer sheets
of the Post Graduate Medical Examinations held by the Bombay
University in October 1985. He alleged malpractices in the
evaluation of the answer sheets of the daughter of the appellant
who, at the relevant time, was Chief Minister of the State. The
learned Single Judge held that altering and tampering of the
grade sheets was done by Dr. Rawal at the behest of the Chief
7
78
Minister. The Division Bench affirmed the order of the learned
Single Judge with some modification. While rejecting the
objection raised on behalf of the appellant that the writ petition
filed by the respondent cannot be treated as a petition filed in
public interest, this Court observed:
“The allegations made in the petition disclose a
lamentable state of affairs in one of the premier
universities of India. The petitioner might have moved
in his private interest but enquiry into the conduct of
the examiners of the Bombay University in one of the
highest medical degrees was a matter of public
interest. Such state of affairs having been brought to
the notice of the Court, it was the duty of the Court to
the public that the truth and the validity of the
allegations made be inquired into. It was in
furtherance of public interest that an enquiry into the
state of affairs of public institution becomes necessary
and private litigation assumes the character of public
interest litigation and such an enquiry cannot be
avoided if it is necessary and essential for the
administration of justice.”
(emphasis supplied)
18.What the respondent had done by filing the writ petition was to
highlight grave irregularities committed by the Western
Regional Committee of NCTE in granting recognition to private
institutions who did not fulfill the mandatory conditions
relating to financial resources, accommodation, library,
laboratory and other physical infrastructure and qualified staff
7
79
and admitted students who had either not passed the entrance
test or had not appeared for the centralised counselling
conducted under the directions issued by the State
Government. The respondent derived support from the orders
passed by the High Court in various cases. The statement made
by Shri Hasib Ahmad, Member Secretary, NCTE, who appeared
before this Court on 21.7.2010, that effective steps have been
taken after discovery of irregularities in the grant of recognition
to various private colleges in the State of Madhya Pradesh and
other States falling within the Western Region also gives
credence to the respondents’ assertion that all was not well with
the Western Regional Committee. In the pleadings filed before
this Court, the appellants have not suggested that the
respondents had filed the writ petition to settle score with any
institution or with some ulterior motive. Learned counsel for
the appellants also did not make any such argument.
Therefore, it cannot be said that the High Court committed
error by entertaining the writ petition and ordering an inquiry
into the allegations of irregularities committed in the matter of
recognition and affiliation of self-financed private institutions
and admission of the students by such institutions. If the High
7
80
Court had not ordered re-scrutiny of the recognition/affiliation
granted to the private institutions, the irregularities committed
by Western Regional Committee may never have seen the light
of the day and we do not see any reason to nullify the exercise
undertaken by the High Court to ensure that the provisions of
the 1993 Act and the Regulations thereunder are strictly
followed by the authorities entrusted with the task of granting
recognition and affiliation to the institutions and colleges
engaged in conducting teacher training courses.
19.The next question, which merits consideration is whether the
impugned order is contrary to the rules of natural justice, i.e.,
audi alteram partem. In this context, it is apposite to note that
in the impugned order, the High Court has not discussed
eligibility or entitlement of any particular institution to get
recognition or affiliation. What High Court has done is to
interpret the relevant statutory provisions in light of the
judgments of this Court and orders passed by it in other writ
petitions. After examining the provisions of the 1993 Act and
the Regulations, the High Court held that sub-section (3) of
Section 14 and clauses of Regulations 7 and 8 of the
Regulations are mandatory and that recognition can be granted
8
81
to an institution intending to undertake teacher training course
only if the mandatory conditions are fulfilled. The High Court
also held that the examining body cannot grant affiliation to
any institution unless it is recognized by the NCTE. The High
Court highlighted the distinction between refusal to grant
recognition under Section 14(3)(b) and withdrawal of the
recognition under Section 17 and held that any person
aggrieved by the decision of the competent authority refusing to
grant recognition or to withdraw the recognition already granted
is entitled to avail remedy of appeal. In our view, the
conclusions recorded by the High Court and the directions
contained in the impugned order are of general application and
do not target any particular college or institution. Therefore,
the appellants cannot be heard to make a grievance that the
impugned order is violative of the rules of natural justice.
20.We shall now examine whether the State Government has
any say in the matter of grant of recognition to the private
institutions desirous of conducting teacher training courses. In
this context, it will be appropriate to notice Regulation 7(2) and
(3) of the 2005 and 2007 Regulations, which lay down that a
copy of the application form submitted by the institution(s)
8
82
shall be sent by the office of the Regional Committee to the
State Government/Union Territory Administration concerned
and the latter shall furnish its recommendations within 60 days
from receipt of the copy of the application. If the State
Government/Union Territory Administration does not make
favourable recommendations, then it is required to provide
detailed reasons/grounds with necessary statistics. While
deciding the application made for recognition, the Regional
Committee is duty bound to consider the recommendations of
the State Government / UT Administration. The last portion of
Regulation 7(3) contains a deeming provision and lays down
that if no communication is received from the State
Government/Union Territory Administration within 60 days,
then it shall be presumed that the concerned State
Government/Union Territory Administration has no
recommendation to make. The rationale of these provisions is
discernable from the guidelines issued by the NCTE vide letter
dated 2.2.1996, the relevant portions of which are extracted
below:
“1. The establishment of teachers’ training
institutions by Government, private managements or
any other agencies should largely be determined by
8
83
assessed need for trained teachers. This need should
take into consideration the supply of trained teachers
from existing institutions, the requirement of such
teachers in relation to enrolment projections at various
stages, the attrition rates among trained teachers due
to superannuation, change of occupation, death, etc.
and the number of trained teachers on the live register
of the employment exchanges seeking employment and
the possibility of their deployment. The States having
more than the required number of trained teachers
may not encourage opening of new institutions for
teacher education or to increase the intake.
2. The States having shortage of trained teachers may
encourage establishment of new institutions for
teacher education and to increase intake capacity for
various levels of teacher education institutions keeping
in view the requirements of teachers estimated for the
next 10-15 years.
3. Preference might be given to institutions which tend
to emphasise the preparation of teachers for subjects
(such as Science, Mathematics, English, etc.) for which
trained teachers have been in short supply in relation
to requirement of schools.
4. Apart from the usual courses for teacher
preparation, institutions which propose to concern
themselves with new emerging specialities (e.g.
computer education, use of electronic media, guidance
and counselling, etc.) should receive priority.
Provisions for these should, however, be made only
after ensuring that requisite manpower, equipment
and infrastructure are available. These considerations
will also be kept in view by the institution intending to
provide for optional subjects to be chosen by students
such as guidance and counselling, special education,
etc.
5. With a view to ensuring supply of qualified and
trained teachers for such specialities such as
8
84
education of the disabled, non-formal education,
education of adults, pre-school education, vocational
education, etc. special efforts and incentives may be
provided to motivate private managements/voluntary
organisations for establishment of institutions, which
lay emphasis on these areas.
6. With a view to promoting professional commitment
among prospective teachers, institutions which can
ensure adequate residential facilities for the Principal
and staff of the institutions as well as hostel facilities
for a substantial proportion of its enrolment should be
encouraged.
7. Considering that certain areas (tribal, hilly regions,
etc.) have found it difficult to attain qualified and
trained teachers, it would be desirable to encourage
establishment of training institutions in those areas.
8. Institutions should be allowed to come into
existence only if the sponsors are able to ensure that
they have adequate material and manpower resources
in terms, for instance, of qualified teachers and other
staff, adequate buildings and other infrastructure
(laboratory, library, etc.), a reserve fund and operating
funds to meet the day-to-day requirements of the
institutions, including payment of salaries, provision
of equipment, etc. Laboratories, teaching science
methodologies and practicals should have adequate
gas plants, proper fittings and regular supply of water,
electricity, etc. They should also have adequate
arrangements. Capabilities of the institution for
fulfilling norms prepared by NCTE may be kept in
view.
9. In the establishment of an institution preference
needs to be given to locations which have a large
catchment area in terms of schools of different levels
where student teachers can be exposed to
demonstration lessons and undertake practice
teaching. A training institution which has a
8
85
demonstration school where innovative and
experimental approaches can be demonstrated could
be given preference.”
21.The question whether the State Government has any role in
the matter of grant of recognition to the private institutions who
want to conduct teacher training course was considered in St.
Johns Teachers Training Institute v. Regional Director, NCTE
(2003) 3 SCC 321. The Court noticed Section 14(3) of the 1993
Act and Regulation 5(e) and (f) of the 2002 Regulations and
observed:
“Sub-section (3) of Section 14 casts a duty upon the
Regional Committee to be satisfied with regard to a
large number of matters before passing an order
granting recognition to an institution which has moved
an application for the said purpose. The factors
mentioned in sub-section (3) are that the institution
has adequate financial resources, accommodation,
library, qualified staff, laboratory and that it fulfils
such other conditions required for proper functioning
of the institution for a course or training in teacher
education as may be laid down in the Regulations. As
mentioned earlier, there are only four Regional
Committees in the whole country and, therefore, each
Regional Committee has to deal with applications for
grant of recognition from several States. It is therefore
obvious that it will not only be difficult but almost
impossible for the Regional Committee to itself obtain
complete particulars and details of financial resources,
accommodation, library, qualified staff, laboratory and
other conditions of the institution which has moved an
application for grant of recognition. The institution
may be located in the interior of the district in a
8
86
faraway State. The Regional Committee cannot
perform such Herculean task and it has to necessarily
depend upon some other agency or body for obtaining
necessary information. It is for this reason that the
assistance of the State Government or Union Territory
in which that institution is located is taken by the
Regional Committee and this is achieved by making a
provision in Regulations 5( e ) and ( f ) that the
application made by the institution for grant of
recognition has to be accompanied with an NOC from
the State or Union Territory concerned. The impugned
Regulations in fact facilitate the job of the Regional
Committees in discharging their responsibilities.”
(emphasis supplied)
While rejecting the plea that no guidelines had been laid down for
the State Government to make recommendations in terms of the
relevant Regulations, the Court referred to guidelines dated
2.2.1996 issued by the NCTE to the State Governments and
observed:
“A perusal of the guidelines would show that while
considering an application for grant of an NOC the
State Government or the Union Territory has to
confine itself to the matters enumerated therein like
assessed need for trained teachers, preference to such
institutions which lay emphasis on preparation of
teachers for subjects like Science, Mathematics,
English etc. for which trained teachers are in short
supply and institutions which propose to concern
themselves with new and emerging specialities like
computer education, use of electronic media etc. and
also for speciality education for the disabled and
vocational education etc. It also lays emphasis on
establishment of institutions in tribal and hilly regions
8
87
which find it difficult to get qualified and trained
teachers and locations which have catchment area in
terms of schools of different levels where student
teachers can be exposed to demonstration lessons and
can undertake practice teaching. Para 8 of the
guidelines deals with financial resources,
accommodation, library and other infrastructure of the
institution which is desirous of starting a course of
training and teacher education. The guidelines clearly
pertain to the matters enumerated in sub-section (3) of
Section 14 of the Act which have to be taken into
consideration by the Regional Committee while
considering the application for granting recognition to
an institution which wants to start a course for
training in teacher education. The guidelines have also
direct nexus to the object of the Act, namely, planned
and coordinated development of teacher education
system and proper maintenance of norms and
standards. It cannot, therefore, be urged that the
power conferred on the State Government or Union
Territory, while considering an application for grant of
an NOC, is an arbitrary or unchannelled power. The
State Government or the Union Territory has to
necessarily confine itself to the guidelines issued by
the Council while considering the application for grant
of an NOC. In case the State Government does not
take into consideration the relevant factors
enumerated in sub-section (3) of Section 14 of the Act
and the guidelines issued by the Council or takes into
consideration factors which are not relevant and
rejects the application for grant of an NOC, it will be
open to the institution concerned to challenge the
same in accordance with law. But, that by itself,
cannot be a ground to hold that the Regulations which
require an NOC from the State Government or the
Union Territory are ultra vires or invalid.”
22.In Government of Andhra Pradesh v. J.B. Educational Society
(2005) 3 SCC 212, this Court considered the question whether
8
88
the provision contained in Section 20(3)(a)(i) of the Andhra
Pradesh Education Act, 1982 under which obtaining of
permission of the State Government was made sine qua non for
establishing an institution for technical education was ultra
vires the provisions of the All India Council for Technical
Education Act, 1987 and the Regulations framed thereunder.
While rejecting the challenge, this Court referred to Articles
245, 246 and 254(2) and Entries 66 of List I and 25 of List III of
the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution and observed:
“The provisions of the AICTE Act are intended to
improve technical education and the various
authorities under the Act have been given exclusive
responsibility to coordinate and determine the
standards of higher education. It is a general power
given to evaluate, harmonise and secure proper
relationship to any project of national importance.
Such a coordinate action in higher education with
proper standard is of paramount importance to
national progress. Section 20 of the A.P. Act does not
in any way encroach upon the powers of the
authorities under the Central Act. Section 20 says
that the competent authority shall, from time to time,
conduct a survey to identify the educational needs of
the locality under its jurisdiction notified through the
local newspapers calling for applications from the
educational agencies. Section 20(3)(a)(i) says that
before permission is granted, the authority concerned
must be satisfied that there is need for providing
educational facilities to the people in the locality. The
State authorities alone can decide about the
educational facilities and needs of the locality. If
there are more colleges in a particular area, the State
8
89
would not be justified in granting permission to one
more college in that locality. Entry 25 of the
Concurrent List gives power to the State Legislature
to make laws regarding education, including
technical education. Of course, this is subject to the
provisions of Entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List I.
Entry 66 of List I to which the legislative source is
traced for the AICTE Act, deals with the general
power of Parliament for coordination, determination
of standards in institutions for higher education or
research and scientific and technical educational
institutions and Entry 65 deals with the union
agencies and institutions for professional, vocational
and technical training, including the training of
police officers, etc. The State has certainly the
legislative competence to pass the legislation in
respect of education including technical education
and Section 20 of the Act is intended for general
welfare of the citizens of the State and also in
discharge of the constitutional duty enumerated
under Article 41 of the Constitution.
The general survey in various fields of technical
education contemplated under Section 10(1)(a) of the
AICTE Act is not pertaining to the educational needs
of any particular area in a State. It is a general
supervisory survey to be conducted by the AICTE
Council, for example, if any IIT is to be established in
a particular region, a general survey could be
conducted and the Council can very much conduct a
survey regarding the location of that institution and
collect data of all related matters. But as regards
whether a particular educational institution is to be
established in a particular area in a State, the State
alone would be competent to say as to where that
institution should be established. Section 20 of the
A.P. Act and Section 10 of the Central Act operate in
different fields and we do not see any repugnancy
between the two provisions.”
8
90
23.In State of Maharashtra v. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan
Shastra Mahavidyalaya (supra), this Court considered the
provisions of the 1993 Act and the 2002 Regulations and held:
“In the instant case, admittedly, Parliament has
enacted the 1993 Act, which is in force. The preamble
of the Act provides for establishment of National
Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) with a view to
achieving planned and coordinated development of the
teacher-education system throughout the country, the
regulation and proper maintenance of norms and
standards in the teacher-education system and for
matters connected therewith. With a view to achieving
that object, the National Council for Teacher
Education has been established at four places by the
Central Government. It is thus clear that the field is
fully and completely occupied by an Act of Parliament
and covered by Entry 66 of List I of Schedule VII. It is,
therefore, not open to the State Legislature to
encroach upon the said field. Parliament alone could
have exercised the power by making appropriate law.
In the circumstances, it is not open to the State
Government to refuse permission relying on a State
Act or on “policy consideration”.”
The Court also observed that it is for the NCTE to deal with
applications for establishing new B.Ed. colleges or allowing any
increase in intake capacity keeping in view the 1993 Act and it is
neither open to the State Government nor to a university to
consider the local conditions or apply State policy for refusing
such permission. The Court also referred to the earlier judgment
in St. Johns Teachers Training Institute v. Regional Director,
9
91
NCTE (supra) and observed that once the decision is taken by
NCTE, it has to be implemented by all authorities in the light of
the provisions of the 1993 Act and the law declared by this Court.
24.Recently, the same question was considered in National
Council for Teacher Education v. Shri Shyam Shiksha
Prashikshan Sansthan (2011) 3 SCC 238. After noticing the
guidelines issued by the NCTE on 2.2.2006 and various
judgments including those referred to hereinabove, this Court
observed:
“The consultation with the State Government/Union
Territory Administration and consideration of the
recommendations/suggestions made by them are of
considerable importance. The Court can take judicial
notice of the fact that majority of the candidates who
complete BEd and similar courses aspire for
appointment as teachers in the government and
government-aided educational institutions. Some of
them do get appointment against the available vacant
posts, but a large number of them do not succeed in
this venture because of non-availability of posts. The
State Government/Union Territory Administration
sanctions the posts keeping in view the requirement of
trained teachers and budgetary provisions made for
that purpose. They cannot appoint all those who
successfully pass BEd and like courses every year.
Therefore, by incorporating the provision for sending
the applications to the State Government/Union
Territory Administration and consideration of the
recommendations/suggestions, if any made by them,
the Council has made an attempt to ensure that as a
result of grant of recognition to unlimited number of
9
92
institutions to start BEd and like courses, candidates
far in excess of the requirement of trained teachers do
not become available and they cannot be appointed as
teachers. If, in a given year, it is found that adequate
numbers of suitable candidates possessing the
requisite qualifications are already available to meet
the requirement of trained teachers, the State
Government/Union Territory Administration can
suggest to the Regional Committee concerned not to
grant recognition to new institutions or increase intake
in the existing institutions. If the Regional Committee
finds that the recommendation made by the State
Government/Union Territory Administration is based
on valid grounds, it can refuse to grant recognition to
any new institution or entertain an application made
by an existing institution for increase of intake and it
cannot be said that such decision is ultra vires the
provisions of the Act or the Rules.”
25.The above survey of precedents makes it clear that under
Regulation 7(2) and (3), the State Government/Union Territory
Administration is entitled to make recommendations on the
application made for grant of recognition and the same are
required to be considered by the concerned Regional Committee
before taking a final decision on the application.
26.Learned counsel for the appellants did not seriously contest
the position that the provisions contained in Sections 14(3) and
15(3) read with Regulation 7(2), (3),(4), (5) and (9) are
mandatory and the Regional Committee cannot grant
recognition unless it is satisfied that the applicant has fulfilled
9
93
the mandatory conditions prescribed in the 1993 Act and the
Regulations. They also did not dispute that in view of Section
16, examining body cannot grant affiliation, whether provisional
or permanent to any institution or hold examination for the
courses of training conducted by a recognized institution unless
the institution concerned has obtained recognition under
Section 14 or permission for a course or training under Section
15. What needs to be emphasised is that no
recognition/permission can be granted to any institution
desirous of conducting teacher training course unless the
mandatory conditions enshrined in Sections 14(3) or 15(3) read
with the relevant clauses of Regulations 7 and 8 are fulfilled
and that in view of the negative mandate contained in Section
17A read with Regulation 8(10), no institution can admit any
student unless it has obtained unconditional recognition from
the Regional Committee and affiliation from the examining
body.
27.The next issue which requires examination is, whether the
private institutions could have made admissions de hors the
entrance examination conducted by the State Government. The
High Court has answered this question in the negative by
9
94
relying upon the admission procedure contained in para 3.3 of
Appendix-I, which contains the Norms and Standards for
Secondary Teachers Education Programme. The appellants have
not questioned the vires of the admission procedure. Therefore,
they cannot contend that they were entitled to admit students
de hors the list prepared on the basis of entrance examination
conducted under the directions of the State Government.
28.The question which remains to be considered is, whether the
students who had taken admission in unrecognized institutions
or the institutions which had not been granted affiliation by the
examining body have the right to appear in the examination and
whether the Court can issue a mandamus for declaration of the
result of such students simply because they were allowed to
provisionally appear in the examination in compliance of the
interim orders passed by the High Court and/or this Court. An
ancillary question, which would require consideration is,
whether the students who had not completed the requirement
of minimum teaching days were entitled to appear in the
examination and a direction can be given for declaration of their
result.
9
95
29.A somewhat similar question was considered in A.P. Christians
Medical Educational Society v. Government of Andhra Pradesh
(1986) 2 SCC 667. In that case, one Professor C.A. Adams, who
was signatory to the Memorandum of Association of the
appellant-society created fake documents for starting a medical
college for Christian students at Vikarabad in Rangareddy
district of Andhra Pradesh. When the appellant sought
affiliation with Osmania University, the latter made some
queries and asked for certain documents. The appellant did not
furnish the requisite information and documents. In the
meanwhile, 60 students were admitted in the first year MBBS
course. In July 1985, the Government of Andhra Pradesh
informed the appellant that permission to start a private
medical college was not granted in view of the policy of the
Government of India and Medical Council of India. The
appellant then filed a writ petition before the High Court, which
was dismissed in limine by a speaking order. Before this Court,
it was contended that the appellant was a minority institution
and, as such, it was not required to take permission for starting
a medical college. This Court negatived the appellant’s plea and
confirmed the order passed by the High Court. While dealing
9
96
with the question, whether the students who had already been
admitted by the appellant should be allowed to participate in
the examination conducted by the University, this Court
observed:
“We do not think that we can possibly accede to the
request made by Shri Venugopal on behalf of the
students. Any direction of the nature sought by Shri
Venugopal would be in clear transgression of the
provisions of the University Act and the regulations of
the University. We cannot by our fiat direct the
University to disobey the statute to which it owes its
existence and the regulations made by the University
itself. We cannot imagine anything more destructive
of the rule of law than a direction by the court to
disobey the laws.”
(emphasis supplied)
30.In N.M. Nageshwaramma v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1986)
Supp. SCC 166, this Court considered the question whether the
students admitted by the private teacher training institutes
which had not been granted permission and recognition under
the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 were entitled to
appear in the examination and answered the same in the
following words:
“One of the writ petitions before us (Writ Petition
12697 of 1985) was filed by a student claiming to
have undergone training in one of the privately
9
97
managed institutes. It was argued that the students
of the institute in which she had undergone training
were permitted in previous years to appear at the
Government examination and as in previous years
she may be allowed to appear at the examination this
year. A similar request was made by Shri Garg that
the students who have undergone training for the
one year course in these private institutions may be
allowed to appear at the examination
notwithstanding the fact that permission might not
be accorded to them. We are unable to accede to
these requests. These institutions were established
and the students were admitted into these institutes
despite a series of press notes issued by the
Government. If by a fiat of the court we direct the
Government to permit them to appear at the
examination we will practically be encouraging and
condoning the establishment of unauthorised
institutions. It is not appropriate that the jurisdiction
of the court either under Article 32 of the
Constitution or Article 226 should be frittered away
for such a purpose.”
(emphasis supplied)
31.In State of Maharashtra v. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale (supra),
this Court noted that there was mushroom growth of ill-
equipped, under-staffed and unrecognised educational
institutions in Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Tamil Nadu and
Maharashtra and that an interim order was passed by the High
Court for allowing the students to appear in the examination
and proceeded to observe:
“Slackening the standard and judicial fiat to
control the mode of education and examining
9
98
system are detrimental to the efficient
management of the education. The directions to
the appellants to disobey the law is subversive of
the rule of law, a breeding ground for corruption
and feeding source for indiscipline. The High
Court, therefore, committed manifest error in
law, in exercising its prerogative power conferred
under Article 226 of the Constitution, directing
the appellants to permit the students to appear
for the examination etc.
32.In St. Johns’ Teachers Training Institute (for Women), Madurai
v. State of Tamil Nadu (supra), this Court adversely commented
upon the practice of passing interim orders like the one passed
by the learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court
in some of these cases, referred to the judgment in Christians
Medical Educational Society v. Government of Andhra Pradesh
(supra) and observed:
“In view of the aforesaid pronouncement of this
Court, the High Court should not have passed,
interim order directing the respondents to allow
the teachers of unrecognised institutions to
appear at the examinations in question. Such
teachers cannot derive any benefit on basis of
such interim orders, when ultimately the main
writ applications have been dismissed by the
High Court, which order is being affirmed by this
Court. The same view has been expressed by this
Court, in connection with the minority
unrecognised Teachers Training Institutions in
the State of Tamil Nadu itself, in the case of State
of T.N. v. St. Joseph Teachers Training Institute
9
99
(1991) 3 SCC 87. As such no equity or legal right
can be pleaded on behalf of the teachers admitted
for training by such minority institutions, for
publication of their results, because they were
allowed to appear at the examinations concerned,
during the pendency of the writ applications
before the High Court, on the basis of interim
orders passed by the High Court; which were in
conflict with the view expressed by this Court in
the aforesaid cases.”
33.As a sequel to the above discussion, we hold that the
impugned orders do not suffer from any legal infirmity
warranting interference by this Court. We also reiterate that:
(i)The Regional Committees established under Section 20 of the
1993 Act are duty bound to ensure that no private
institution offering or intending to offer a course or
training in teacher education is granted recognition
unless it satisfies the conditions specified in Section
14(3)(a) of the 1993 Act and Regulations 7 and 8 of the
Regulations. Likewise, no recognised institution
intending to start any new course or training in teacher
education shall be granted permission unless it satisfies
the conditions specified in Section 15(3)(a) of the 1993
Act and the relevant Regulations.
(ii)The State Government / UT Administration, to whom a
copy of the application made by an institution for grant
of recognition is sent in terms of Regulation 7(2) of the
Regulations, is under an obligation to make its
9
100
recommendations within the time specified in
Regulation 7(3) of the Regulations.
(iii)While granting recognition, the Regional Committees are
required to give due weightage to the recommendations
made by the State Government/UT Administration and
keep in view the observations made by this Court in St.
Johns Teachers Training Institute v. Regional Director,
NCTE (2003) 3 SCC 321 and National Council for
Teacher Education v. Shri Shyam Shiksha Prashikshan
Sansthan, which have been extracted in the earlier part
of this judgment.
(iv)The recognition granted by the Regional Committees
under Section 14(3)(a) of the 1993 Act read with
Regulations 7 and 8 of the Regulations and permission
granted under Section 15(3)(a) read with the relevant
Regulations shall operate prospectively, i.e., from the
date of communication of the order of recognition or
permission, as the case may be.
(v)The recognition can be refused by the Regional Committee
under Section 14(3)(b), in the first instance, when an
application for recognition is made by an institution.
Likewise, permission can be refused under Section 15(3)
(b).
(vi)If the recognition is refused under Section 14(3)(b) after
affording reasonable opportunity to the applicant to
make a written representation, the concerned
1
101
institution is required to discontinue the course or
training from the end of the academic session next
following the date of receipt of the order.
(vii)Once the recognition is granted, the same can be
withdrawn only under Section 17(1) if there is a
contravention of the provisions of the Act or the Rules,
or the Regulations, or orders made therein, or any
condition subject to which recognition was granted
under Section 14(3)(a) or permission was granted under
Section 15(3)(a).
(viii)The withdrawal of recognition becomes effective from
the end of the academic session next following the date
of communication of the order of withdrawal.
(ix)Once the recognition is withdrawn under Section 17(1),
the concerned institution is required to discontinue the
course or training in teacher education and the
examining body is obliged to cancel the affiliation. The
effect of withdrawal of the recognition is that the
qualification in teacher education obtained pursuant to
the course or training undertaken at such institution is
not to be treated as valid qualification for the purpose of
employment under the Central Government, any State
Government or University or in any educational body
aided by the Central or the State Government.
(x)In view of the mandate of Section 16, no examining body, as
defined in Section 2(d) of the 1993 Act, shall grant
1
102
affiliation unless the applicant has obtained recognition
from the Regional Committee under Section 14 or
permission for starting a new course or training under
Section 15.
(xi)While granting affiliation, the examining body shall be
free to demand rigorous compliance of the conditions
contained in the statute like the University Act or the
State Education Board Act under which it was
established or the guidelines / norms which may have
been laid down by the concerned examining body.
(xii)No institution shall admit any student to a teacher
training course or programme unless it has obtained
recognition under Section 14 or permission under
Section 15, as the case may be.
(xiii)While making admissions, every recognised institution
is duty bound to strictly adhere to para 3.1 to 3.3 of the
Norms and Standards for Secondary/Pre-School
Teacher Education Programme contained in Appendix-1
to the Regulations.
(xiv)If any institution admits any student in violation of the
Norms and Standards laid down by the NCTE, then the
Regional Committee shall initiate action for withdrawal
of the recognition of such institution and pass
appropriate order after complying with the rules of
natural justice.
1
103
(xv)The students admitted by unrecognised institution and
institutions which are not affiliated to any examining
body are not entitled to appear in the examination
conducted by the examining body or any other
authorised agency.
(xvi)The students admitted by the recognised institutions
otherwise than through the entrance/eligibility test
conducted in accordance with the admission procedure
contained in para 3.3 of Appendix-1 of the Regulations
are also not entitled to appear in the examination
conducted by the examining body or any other
authorised agency.
(xvii)The NCTE shall issue direction for mandatory
inspection of recognised institutions on periodical basis
and all the Regional Committees are duty bound to take
action in accordance with those directions.
(xviii)In future, the High Courts shall not entertain prayer for
interim relief by unrecognised institutions and the
institutions which have not been granted affiliation by
the examining body and/or the students admitted by
such institutions for permission to appear in the
examination or for declaration of the result of
examination. This would also apply to the recognised
institutions if they admit students otherwise than in
accordance with the procedure contained in Appendix-1
of the Regulations.
1
104
34.So far as these appeals are concerned, we deem it proper to give
the following directions:
(i)Within one month from today, the concerned examining body
shall declare the result of the students who were
admitted for the session 2007-2008 keeping in view the
directions contained in the impugned orders. This
would mean that result of the students admitted for the
session 2007-2008 by the institutions whose cases were
scrutinised by the NCTE pursuant to the directions
given by the High Court and who were found to have
been validly recognised after compliance with the
mandatory conditions specified in Section 14(3)(a) of
1993 Act and Regulations 7 and 8 of the Regulations
shall be declared.
(ii)The result of the students admitted by an unrecognized
institution or by an institution which had not been
granted affiliation by the examining body shall not be
declared. The result of the students who were admitted
without qualifying the entrance examination shall also
not be declared. In other words, the students admitted
by the private institutions on their own shall not be
entitled to declaration of their result. If any private
institution had not complied with the requirements of
completing the prescribed training, then the result of
students of such institution shall also not be declared.
1
105
(iii)The directions contained in the preceding clause shall
not be used for dealing with the admissions made for
the sessions 2005-2006, 2006-2007 or 2008-2009. The
admissions made for those years shall be dealt with by
the Western Regional Committee and the concerned
examining body in accordance with the relevant
statutory provisions.
(iv)Any institution aggrieved by the decision of the Western
Regional Committee to reject the application for
recognition or for permission to start a new course or
training or withdrawal of recognition under Section 17
shall be free to avail remedy of appeal under Section 18
of the 1993 Act. If any such appeal is filed by the
aggrieved party within 30 days from today, then the
Appellate Authority shall entertain and decide the same
on merits.
(v)If the Western Regional Committee has taken any action in
furtherance of the directions given by the High Court,
then the aggrieved person shall be entitled to challenge
the same by availing remedy of appeal under Section 18
of the 1993 Act.
35.Subject to the above observations and directions, the appeals
are dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
...……..….………………….…J.
[G.S. Singhvi]
1
106
………..….………………….…J.
[Asok Kumar Ganguly]
New Delhi,
January 6, 2012.
1
Legal Notes
Add a Note....