Page 1 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1894 OF 2016

(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) 5995 OF 2016)

(CC NO. 1652 OF 2016)

Committee of Management Anuragi Devi ...Appellants

Degree College & Anr.

Versus

State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Dipak Misra, J.

The first respondents vide its letter no.

Aff.333/Seventy-6-2012-2 (356)/2012 dated 12.09.2012,

granted prior permission for provisional affiliation to the

appellant for a period of 3 years w.e.f. 01.07.2012 i.e. for the

period 01.07.2012 to 30.06.2015 for imparting Education in

the Arts Faculty for the subjects Hindi, Political Science,

Sociology, Medieval History, Education Sanskrit and Home

Science. In pursuance of the aforesaid Government order

Page 2 No. 333 dated 12.09.2012, the Deen Dayal Upadhyay

Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur vide its letter no. 7539/

Affi.2012 dated 27.11.2012 permitted the appellant to admit

the students in the various subjects of the Arts Faculty.

2.The appellant applied on 10.03.2015, to the University

for constituting an Inspection Panel for granting permanent

affiliation to the University. Upon perusal of the application

dated 10.03.2015 submitted by the aforesaid appellants, the

University vide its letter No. DDUGU/Aff.2015/5096 dated

20.03.2015 constituted an Inspection Panel to submit

status report of the appellant as far as the Infrastructural

Facilities existing in the appellant’s college were concerned.

The Regional Higher Education Officer Gorakhpur

submitted its inspection report on 06.11.2015 to the

University.

3.As per Time Schedule prescribed by the State

Government, the Inspection Report was not received within

the prescribed date. In the absence of the required

Inspection Report, the University did not grant permanent

affiliation to the appellant for the Academic Session

2015-16. No appeal was preferred before the State

Government.

2

Page 3 4.As the permanent affiliation was not granted the

appellant college preferred a writ petition-C No. 42336 of

2015 and the learned Single Judge of the High Court taking

note of the fact that writ petitions seeking similar reliefs had

been dismissed, vide its order dated 20.08.2015 declined to

interfere. However, it observed that “the petitioner would be

entitled for consideration of his claim for the next session”.

Being dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned

Single Judge, the appellant preferred Special Appeal No.

610 of 2015 before the Division Bench.

5.The Division Bench, as the factual scenario would

unveil, took note of the prayer of the college that it was in

effect seeking issuance of writ of mandamus requiring the

University to extend temporary affiliation for the courses of

Hindi, Political Science, Sociology, Medieval History,

Education, Sanskrit and Human Science at the graduate

level for the academic session 2015-2016 and accordingly

adverted to the reasonings of the learned Single Judge and

concurred with him.

6.It was urged before the Division Bench that application

for grant of permanent affiliation in respect of subjects was

made well within time, that is,12.12.2014; that the

3

Page 4 three-member committee that was constituted by the

University on 20.3.2015 had visited the institution on

14.4.2015 and submitted the report; and that the inspection

team had recommended extension of temporary affiliation in

respect of subjects in question for the academic session

2015-2016 but there had been failure on the part of the

University which had caused grave prejudice to the college.

The Division Bench noted the stand of the University,

referred to the authority in Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila

Mahavidyalaya v. State of U.P. and others

1

, reproduced

the time schedule fixed in the said judgment and observed

that pursuant to the directions so issued the State

Government formulated a time-frame for consideration of

applications for affiliation the particulars of which stood

embodied in the Government Order dated 14 November,

2014 and in terms of the government order the last date for

the grant of affiliation by a University is fixed as 30 May and

a person aggrieved by the decision taken by the University

was entitled to prefer an appeal against the same by 15

June and the State Government was liable to decide the

appeal so preferred latest by 15 July. The appellate-Bench

1

(2013) 2 SCC 617

4

Page 5 stated that in the facts of the case the affiliation was neither

granted by the time fixed under the Government Order

dated 14 November, 2014 nor was any appeal preferred

before the State Government and, therefore, bearing in mind

the directions issued in Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila

Mahavidyalaya (supra), it was not open to either the

second respondent or the State Government to pass orders

of affiliation after 30 May, 2015. Being of this view, it

dismissed the intra-court appeal. Hence, the present appeal

by special leave.

7.We have heard Mr. R.P. Bhatt, learned senior counsel

for the appellant, Mr. Kavin Gulati, learned counsel for the

respondent-university and Mr. Gaurav Bhatia, learned

Additional Advocate General for the State of U.P.

8.At the very beginning, we may note that in College of

Professional Education and others v. State of Uttar

Pradesh and others

2

, the Court recorded that for the

academic year 2012-13 and subsequent academic years,

institution and the State Government had arrived at a broad

consensus regarding the procedure and terms and

conditions of admission, recognition and affiliation. The

2

(2013) 2 SCC 721

5

Page 6 terms and conditions which had been accepted by all

concerned were reproduced in the said judgment. In the

said judgment, as is evident, the Court has referred to the

order dated 11.3.2011, and also provided for the time by

which the affiliation could be granted to the colleges.

Paragraph (vi) (b) clearly stipulated that after the counseling

is over, the university concerned will continue to allot the

candidates from the relevant waiting list against the vacant

seats till all the seats in the colleges were filled up and the

organizing university would provide students only to the

existing B.Ed college and all those B.Ed colleges which

would get affiliation up to 7.7.2011 would not be considered

for counseling to the year 2011-2012 and for the next

consecutive years and onward the colleges which will get

affiliated on or before 10

th

of May of that year, would be

considered for counseling. Certain affiliations were granted

to the colleges which were interefered with by the High

Court primarily on the ground that the court had no

jurisdiction to extend the cut-off date.

9.In Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya

(supra), the Court dealing with various aspects, taking into

consideration the provisions of the NCTE Act, 1993 and the

6

Page 7 NCTE Rules 1997, opined that:-

“The above enunciated principles clearly show

that the Council is the authority constituted un-

der the Central Act with the responsibility of

maintaining education of standards and judging

upon the infrastructure and facilities available for

imparting such professional education. Its opin-

ion is of utmost importance and shall take prece-

dence over the views of the State as well as that

of the university. The Department of the State

concerned and the affiliating university have a

role to play but it is limited in its application.

They cannot lay down any guideline or policy

which would be in conflict with the Central

statute or the standards laid down by the Central

body. The State can frame its policy for admis-

sion to such professional courses but such policy

again has to be in conformity with the directives

issued by the Central body. In the present cases,

there is not much conflict on this issue, but it

needs to be clarified that while the State grants

its approval, and the university its affiliation, for

increased intake of seats or commencement of a

new course/college, its directions should not of-

fend and be repugnant to what has been laid

down in the conditions for approval granted by

the Central authority or Council. What is most

important is that all these authorities have to

work ad idem as they all have a common object

to achieve i.e. of imparting of education properly

and ensuring maintenance of proper standards of

education, examination and infrastructure for

betterment of the educational system. Only if all

these authorities work in a coordinated manner

and with cooperation, will they be able to achieve

the very object for which all these entities exist”.

10.And again:-

7

Page 8 “67. In the present case, we are concerned with

the provisions of the NCTE Act which is a Central

legislation referable to Schedule VII List I Entry

66. Thus, no law enacted by the State, which is

in conflict with the Central law, can be permitted

to be operative.

68. Now, let us examine the conflict that arises in

the present cases. In terms of the provisions of

the Act, the Regional Committee is required to

entertain the application, consider State opinion,

cause inspection to be conducted by an expert

team and then to grant or refuse recognition in

terms of the provisions of the Act. Once a recog-

nition is granted and before an institution can be

permitted to commence the course, it is required

to take affiliation from the affiliating body, which

is the university.

69. Thus, grant of recognition or affiliation to an

institute is a condition precedent to running of

the courses by the institute. If either of them is

not granted to the institute, it would not be in a

position to commence the relevant academic

courses. There is a possibility of some conflict be-

tween a University Act or Ordinance relating to

affiliation with the provisions of the Central Act.

In such cases, the matter is squarely answered in

Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Ma -

havidyalaya

3

where the Court stated that after

coming into operation of the Central Act, the op-

eration of the University Act would be deemed to

have become unenforceable in case of technical

colleges. It also observed that provision of the

Universities Act regarding affiliation of technical

colleges and conditions for grant of continuation

of such affiliation by the university would remain

operative but the conditions that are prescribed

by the university for grant and continuation of af-

filiation must be in conformity with the norms

and guidelines prescribed by NCTE”.

3

(2006) 9 SCC 1

8

Page 9 11.After so stating, the Court further proceeded to state:-

“76. In terms of Section 37(10), a college which

has been affiliated is entitled to continue the

course of study for which the admissions have al-

ready taken place. To give an example, under the

statute of Meerut University, affiliation of new

colleges is dealt with under Statutes 13.02 to

13.10 of Chapter XIII. This requires that every

application for affiliation of a college has to be

made so as to reach the Registrar in less than 12

months before the commencement of the course

and before an application is considered by the

Executive Council, the Vice-Chancellor must be

satisfied that there is due compliance with the

provisions of Statutes 13.05, 13.06 and 13.07.

Besides, it requires the conditions like adequate

financial resources, suitable and sufficient build-

ing, adequate library, two hectares of land, facili-

ties for recreation of students, etc. to be fulfilled.

The constitution of the management of every col-

lege has also been provided.

77. The fields which are sought to be covered un-

der the provisions of Section 37 of the Universi-

ties Act and the statutes of various universities

are clearly common to the aspects which are

squarely covered by the specific language under

the Act. That being so, all State laws in regard to

affiliation insofar as they are covered by the Act

must give way to the operation of the provisions

of the Act. To put it simply, the requirements

which have been examined and the conditions

which have been imposed by NCTE shall prevail

and cannot be altered, re-examined or infringed

under the garb of the State law. The

affiliating/examining body and the State Govern-

ment must abide by the proficiency and com -

mand of NCTE’s directions. To give an example,

existence of building, library, qualified staff, fi-

9

Page 10 nancial stability of the institution, accommoda-

tion, etc. are the subjects which are specifically

covered under Section 14(3)(b) of the Act. Thus,

they would not be open to re-examination by the

State and the university. If the recognition itself

was conditional and those conditions have not

been satisfied, in such circumstances, within the

ambit and scope of Sections 46 and 16 of the Act,

the affiliating body may not give affiliation and in-

form NCTE forthwith of the shortcomings and

non-compliance with the conditions. In such sit-

uation, both the Central and the State body

should act in tandem and, with due coordination,

come to a final conclusion as to the steps which

are required to be taken in regard to both recog-

nition and affiliation. But certainly, the State

Government and the university cannot act in

derogation to NCTE.

78. Now, we may deal with another aspect of this

very facet of the case. It is a very pertinent issue

as to what the role of the State should be after

the affiliation is granted by the affiliating body.

We have already discussed that the State opin-

ion, as contemplated under Section 37 of the

University Act, to the extent it admits to over-

reach, is reconcilable and its results are not in its

orientation to the directives of NCTE are void and

inoperative to the extent they can be resolved in

which case clear precedence is to be given to the

directives of NCTE during such resolution. The

opinion of the State, therefore, has to be read and

construed to mean that it would keep the factors

determined by NCTE intact and then examine the

matter for grant of affiliation. The role of the State

Government is minimised at this stage which, in

fact, is a second stage. It should primarily be for

the university to determine the grant or refusal of

affiliation and role of the State should be the bare

minimum, non-interfering and non-infringing.

10

Page 11 79. It is on record and the Regulations framed

under the Act clearly show that upon receiving an

application for recommendation, NCTE shall send

a copy of the application with its letter inviting

recommendations/comments of the State Gov -

ernment on all aspects within a period of 30

days. To such application, the State is expected

to respond with its complete comments within a

period of 60 days. In other words, the opinion of

the State on all matters that may concern it in

any of the specified fields is called for. This is the

stage where the State and its Department should

play a vital role. They must take all precautions

to offer proper comments supported by due rea-

soning. Once these comments are sent and the

State Government gives its opinion which is con-

sidered by NCTE and examined in conjunction

with the report of the experts, it may grant or

refuse recognition. Once it grants recognition,

then such grant attains supremacy vis-à-vis the

State Government as well as the affiliating body.

Normally, these questions cannot be reagitated at

the time of grant of affiliation. Once the univer-

sity conducts inspection in terms of its statutes

or Act, without offending the provisions of the Act

and conditions of recognition, then the opinion of

the State Government at the second stage is a

mere formality unless there was a drastic and

unacceptable mistake or the entire process was

vitiated by fraud or there was patently eminent

danger to the life of the students working in the

school because of non-compliance with a sub -

stantive condition imposed by either of the bod-

ies. In the normal circumstances, the role of the

State is a very formal one and the State is not ex-

pected to obstruct the commencement of admis -

sion process and academic courses once recogni-

tion is granted and affiliation is found to be ac-

ceptable.

80. In Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Ma -

havidyalaya the view of this Court was that the

State Government has no role whatsoever. How -

11

Page 12 ever, in Bhartia Education Society

4

it was stated

that the role of the State Government was limited

to the manner of admission, eligibility criteria,

etc. without interfering with the conditions of

recognition prescribed by NCTE. The exercise of

discretion by the State Government and affiliating

body has to be within the framework of the Act,

the Regulations and conditions of recognition.

Even in St. Johns Teachers Training Institute

5

the

Court stated that the State Government or the

Union Territory has to necessarily confine itself to

the guidelines issued by NCTE while considering

the application for grant of “no-objection certifi-

cate”. Minimisation of the role of the State at the

second stage can also be justified on the ground

that affiliation primarily is a subject-matter of the

university which is responsible for admission of

the students laying down the criteria thereof,

holding of examinations and implementation of

the prescribed courses while maintaining the

standards of education as prescribed”.

12.After laying down the principles of law, the Court

opined that adherence to the schedule is the essence of

granting admission in a fair and transparent manner as well

as to maintain the standard of education. The Court further

observed that:-

“….. None in the hierarchy of the State Govern-

ment, university, NCTE or any other authority or

body involved in this process can breach the

schedule for any direct or indirect reason. Any-

body who is found to be defaulting in this behalf

is bound to render himself or herself liable for ini-

tiation of proceedings under the provisions of the

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 as well as for a dis-

4

(2011) 4 SCC 527

5

(2003) 3 SCC 321

12

Page 13 ciplinary action in accordance with the orders of

the Court”.

13.In that context, the Court further proceeded to state:-

“83. Undoubtedly, adherence to the schedule

achieves the object of the Act and its various as-

pects. Disobedience results in unfair admissions,

not commencing the courses within the stipu -

lated time and causing serious prejudice to the

students of higher merit resulting in defeating the

rule of merit.

84. We may very clearly state here that we adopt

and reiterate the schedule stated by this Court in

College of Professional Education in relation to ad-

mission as well as recognition and affiliation.

This obviously includes the commencement of the

courses in time. However, in order to avoid the

possibility of any ambiguity, we propose to state

the schedule for recognition and affiliation in

terms of the NCTE Regulations, 2009 and the

judgment of this Court in College of Professional

Education.

86. There appear to be some overlapping periods

and even contradictions between the dates and

periods stated under the regulations inter se and

even with reference to the judgments of this

Court prescribing the schedule. For example, in

terms of the judgment of this Court in College of

Professional Education, the last date for grant of

affiliation is 10th May of the year concerned, but

as per Regulation 5(5) of the NCTE Regulations,

2009, the last date for grant of recognition is

15th May of the relevant year. Similarly, there is

an overlap between the period specified in Regu-

lation 7(1) and that under Regulation 7(2). Such

overlapping is likely to cause some confusion in

the mind of the implementing authority as well as

the applicant. Thus, it is necessary for this Court

13

Page 14 to put to rest these avoidable events and unnec-

essary controversies.

87. Compelled by these circumstances and to en-

sure that there exists no ambiguity, uncertainty

and confusion, we direct and prescribe the follow-

ing Schedule upon a cumulative reading of the

Regulations and judgments of this Court in rela-

tion to recognition and affiliation:

87.1. Schedule for Recognition and Affiliation

87.1.1.Submission of applications for

recognition in terms of Regula-

tion 5(4)

1st September to 1st Oc-

tober of the year immedi-

ately preceding the rele-

vant academic year

87.1.2 Communication of deficiencies,

shortcomings or any other dis-

crepancy in the application

submitted by the applicant to

the applicant in terms of Regu-

lation 7(1)

Within 45 days from the

date of receipt of the ap-

plications

87.1.3.Removal of such deficiencies by

the applicant

Within 60 days from the

date of receipt of commu-

nication

87.1.4.Forwarding of copy of the appli-

cation to the State Govern -

ment/UT Administration for its

recommendations/comments

in terms of Regulation 7(2)

Within 90 days from the

date of receipt of the ap-

plication

87.1.5 Recommendations/comments

of the State Government/UT

Administration to be submitted

to the Regional Committee un-

der Regulation 7(3)

Within 30 days from the

date of issue of letter to it

87.1.6.If recommendations/comments

are not received within 30

days, the Regional Committee

shall send to the State Govern-

ment/UT Administration a re-

minder letter for submission of

the recommendations/com -

ments

Within seven days from

the date of expiry of the

period of 30 days

87.1.7.State Government/UT Admin -

istration shall furnish the rec-

ommendations/comments

Within 15 days from the

date of receipt of such re-

minder letter

87.1.8.Intimation regarding inspection

by the Regional Committee to

the applicant under Regulation

7(4)

Within 10 days from final

scrutiny of the application

87.1.9.Report by the Inspection Com-

mittee under Regulation 7(5)

20 days thereafter

14

Page 15 87.1.10.Letter of intent to the institu-

tion with respect to grant or re-

fusal of recognition in terms of

Regulation 7(9)

10th of February of the

succeeding year/relevant

year

87.1.11.Time to comply with certain

specified conditions, in terms of

Regulations 7(10) and 7(11)

20 days from the date of

issuance of letter of intent

87.1.12.Issuance of formal order of

recognition

By 3rd March of each year

87.1.13.Last date for submitting pro-

posal for affiliation

By 10th March of each

year

87.1.14.Forwarding of proposal by the

University to the State Govern-

ment/UT Administration after

inspection by expert team

By 10th March of each

year

87.1.15Comments to be submitted by

the State Government/UT Ad -

ministration, if any

By 10th March of each

year

87.1.16.Final date for issuance/grant of

affiliation for the relevant aca-

demic year

By 10th March of each

year

87.2. All notices/orders/requirements/letters in

terms of the above schedule or under the provi-

sions of the Act or terms and conditions of al-

ready granted recognition/affiliation shall be sent

by the authority concerned by speed post/e-mail

on the address given in the application for corre-

spondence, etc. and shall be posted on the web-

site of the Authority/Committee/ Council/Gov -

ernment concerned.

87.3. The recognition and affiliation granted as

per the above Schedule shall be applicable for the

current academic year. For example, recognition

granted up to 3-3-2013 and affiliation granted up

to 10-5-2013 shall be effective for the academic

year 2013-2014 i.e. the courses starting from

1-4-2013. For the academic year 2013-2014, no

recognition shall be issued after 3-3-2013 and no

affiliation shall be granted after 10-5-2013. Any

affiliation or recognition granted after the above

cut-off dates shall only be valid for the academic

year 2014-2015.

87.4. We make it clear that no

Authority/person/Council/Committee shall be

entitled to vary the Schedule for any reason

15

Page 16 whatsoever. Any non-compliance shall amount to

violating the orders of the Court.”

14.We are obliged to state here that there is justification

for reproducing the above paragraphs from the aforesaid

decision. The Court has taken pains to explain the scheme

of the Act, role of the university and the purpose of fixing a

time schedule for each purpose. Certain action of the

authorities can be flawed and eventually fall in the sphere of

illegality. It has to be so declared by the Court. In the case

at hand, the benefit could not be extended as the appellants

have not maintained the time schedule fixed by the State

Government pursuant to judgments of this Court.

Therefore, the order passed by the learned single Judge as

well as the Division Bench cannot be found fault with.

15.The controversy does not end here. The stand of the

University is that the appellant College has admitted

students without having the necessary affiliation for the

academic session 2015-16. This kind of conduct has

become a disease, and when the conduct becomes a

disaster, it is a disastrous phenomenon. While dealing with

admissions without affiliation from CBSE, the Court in

Sunil Oraon (minor) through guardian and others v.

16

Page 17 CBSE and others

6

referred to earlier decisions and was

constrained to state thus:-

“Time and again, therefore, this Court had depre-

cated the practice of educational institutions ad-

mitting the students without requisite recognition

or affiliation. In all such cases the usual plea is

the career of innocent children who have fallen in

the hands of the mischievous designated school

authorities. As the factual scenario delineated

against goes to show that the school has shown

scant regards to the requirements for affiliation

and as rightly highlighted by learned counsel for

CBSE, the infraction was of very serious nature.

Though the ultimate victims are innocent stu -

dents that cannot be a ground for granting relief

to the appellant. …”

16.In Adarsh Shiksha Mahavidyalaya v. Subhash

Rahangdale and others

7

the Court has laid down that:-

“(xv) The students admitted by unrecognised in-

stitution 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.”

The Court further proceeded to direct:-

“88. (ii) The result of the students admitted by an

unrecognised institution or by an institution

which had not been granted affiliation by the ex-

amining body shall not be declared. The result of

the students who were admitted without qualify-

ing 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

6

(2006) 13 SCC 673

7

(2012) 2 SCC 425

17

Page 18 private institution had not complied with the re-

quirements of completing the prescribed training,

then the result of students of such institution

shall also not be declared.”

17. In National Council for Teacher Education and

another v. Venus Public Education Society and others

8

the two-Judge Bench ingeminating the anguish of the Court

was compelled to observe:-

“… It is urged by him that NCTE had procrasti-

nated its decision at every stage and such delay

was deliberate and, therefore, the Society was

compelled to admit the students and impart edu-

cation, regard being had to the fact that there

were really no deficiencies. As has been laid down

in many a pronouncement of this Court that

without recognition from NCTE and affiliation

from the university/examining body, the educa-

tional institution cannot admit the students. An

educational institution is expected to be aware of

the law. The students who take admission are not

young in age. They are graduates. They are ex-

pected to enquire whether the institution has

recognition and affiliation. If we allow ourselves

to say so, the institution had given admission in

a nonchalant manner. Possibly, its functionaries

harboured the idea that they had incomparable

fertile mind. The students who had taken admis-

sion possibly immersed with the idea that igno-

rance is a bliss. It is also necessary to state that

the institution had the anxious enthusiasm to

commercialise education and earn money forget-

ting the factum that such an attitude leads to a

disaster. The students exhibited tremendous anx-

iety to get a degree without bothering for a mo-

ment whether their effort, if any, had the sanctity

of law. ..”

8

(2013) 1 SCC 223

18

Page 19

18.Coming to the present case. As is evincible, the

University has not granted affiliation as the schedule for the

same was over. No appeal was preferred by the appellant

College. The High Court rightly held that it cannot issue a

writ contrary to the judgment of this Court. However, we

observe that the University shall consider the application for

affiliation, if not considered already, within a span of four

weeks and, if the affiliation is granted, the students who

had been granted admission shall be treated as students as

admitted for the academic session which would be covered

by the affiliation to be granted in future. We have so

directed so that the appellant College would not be in a

position to admit any other student after affiliation is

granted.

19.Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed. There

shall be no order as to costs.

.............................J.

[Dipak Misra]

..........................., J.

[Shiva Kirti Singh]

New Delhi;

June 29, 2016

19