Supreme Court of India
ADARSH SHIKSHA MAHAVIDYALAYA AND OTHERSversusSUBHASH RAHANGDALE AND OTHERS
- Citation
- 2012 INSC 7
- Decided
- 6 January 2012
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- G S SINGHVI
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the High Court did not err in entertaining the PIL, its directions were of general application and did not violate natural‑justice principles, and that recognition and permission under the NCTE Act must meet mandatory conditions, operate prospectively, and only recognised institutions admitting through the prescribed procedure may have their students sit for examinations.
Summary
The Supreme Court considered a civil appeal challenging the Madhya Pradesh High Court's order that arose from a public‑interest writ petition highlighting irregularities in the grant of recognition to private teacher‑training institutions by the Western Regional Committee of the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE). The appellants argued that the High Court erred in entertaining the petition without probing the petitioner’s interest, violated natural‑justice principles by not impleading them, and mis‑interpreted statutory provisions relating to recognition, admission procedures, and the role of the State Government. The Court held that the High Court correctly entertained the petition, its directions were of general application and did not breach audi alteram partem, and that recognition and permission must satisfy mandatory conditions, operate prospectively, and that only institutions meeting those conditions may admit students. It affirmed the State Government’s advisory role under Regulation 7, rejected the appellants’ claims of retrospective effect, and clarified that students of unrecognised institutions are not entitled to sit for examinations. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the High Court’s directions were upheld.
Issues considered
- The High Court's jurisdiction to entertain a public‑interest litigation without inquiring into the petitioner’s background.
- Whether the High Court's order violated the rules of natural justice (audi alteram partem) by not impleading the appellants.
- The extent of the State Government/UT Administration’s role in granting recognition to private teacher‑training institutions under Regulation 7.
- The legality of private institutions admitting students de hors the entrance examination conducted by the State Government.
- The entitlement of students admitted by unrecognised or unaffiliated institutions to appear for examinations.
- Whether the Court can issue mandamus directing declaration of results for such students.
- The prospective versus retrospective operation of recognition, permission, refusal, and withdrawal under Sections 14, 15, 17, 18 and Regulation 7/8 of the NCTE Act.
Legislation cited
- National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993s. 14(3), s. 15(3), s. 16, s. 17, s. 18, s. 20, s. 29, s. 31, s. 32
Subjects
teacher educationNCTE recognitionpublic interest litigationnatural justiceadmission regulationsprospective effectappeal under Section 18state government role
Judgment
(2012] 2 S.C.R. 1
ADARSH SHIKSHA MAHAVIDYALAYA AND OTHERS A
v.
SUBHASH RAHANGDALE AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 104 of 2012)
. JANUARY 06, 2012
B
[G.S. SINGHVI AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.)
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION
ACT, 1993:
Object of its enactment - Discussed.
Teachers - Role of, in Education system - Necessity of
adequate teacher training - Discussed.
Public Interest Litigation - Writ petition praying for issue D
of direction tO the NCTE for ensuring proper maintenance of
norms and standards in the teacher education system -
Whether High Court committed an error in entertaining writ
petition filed in the name of public interest litigation without
making enquiry into the background of petitioner and his E
special interest in the field of teacher education 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
- Held: Writ petitioner was seeking to highlight grave F
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 and admitted G
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 - Therefore,
it cannot be said that High Court committed error in
1 H
2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 2 S.C.R.
A entertaining the writ petition and in ordering the enquiry -
Directions passed - National Council for Teacher Education
(Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2005 and
2007 - Regulation~ 7(2) and (3).
ss.14(3), 15(3) - Conditions prescribed ulss.14(3), 15(3)
8
- Grant of recognition - Held: Regional, Committees
established u/s. 20 of the 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
C satisfies the conditions specified in s.14(3)(a) 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 s.15(3)(a) of the 1993 Act and the
relevant Regulations - National Council for Teacher
D Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations,
2005 and 2007 - Regulations 7, 8.
ss.14(3), 15(3) - Recognition - Date of effect - Held:
Recognition granted by the Regional Committees uls.14(3)(a}
E read with Regulations 7 and 8 of the Regulations and
permission granted u/s. 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 - Neither the NCTE nor the University can
F make it retrospective in nature - National Council for Teacher
Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations,
2005 and 2007 - Regulations 7, 8.
ss.14(3), 15(3) - Discontinuance of course or training
when recognition is refused/withdrawn - Held: . If the
G recognition is refused u/s.14(3)(b) after affording reasonable
opportunity to the applicant to make a written representation,
the concerned 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 - Similarly, withdrawal of
H recognition becomes effective from the end of the academic
ADARSH SHIKSHA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. SUBHASH 3
RAHANGDALE
session next following the date of communication of the order A
of withdrawal .
s.18 - Right of appeal - Held: Any institution aggrieved
by the decision of the Western Regional Committee to reject
the application for recognition or for permission to start a new
8
course or training or withdrawal of recognition uls. 17 shall be
free to avail remedy of appeal uls. 18 of the Act.
EDUCA TIONIEDUCA T/ONAL INSTITUTIONS:
Recognised/Unrecognised institutions - Entitlement of c
students to appear in the examination - Held: 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 - The students admitted by the 0
1
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 E
agency - National Council for Teacher Education
(Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2005 and
2007 - Regulations 7, 8.
NATURAL JUSTICE: Writ petition praying for issue of
direction to NCTE for ensuring proper maintenance of norms F
and standards in the teachers education system - High Courl
directed that recognition can be granted to an institution
intending to undertake teacher training course only if the
mandatory conditions are fulfilled and that the examining
body cannot grant affiliation to any institution unless it is G
recognized by the NCTE - Plea of the appellants that
directions given by High Court were vitiated due to violation
of rules of natural justice since none of them were impleaded
as patty to the writ petition and they did not get opportunity to
show that they were duly recognized by competent authority H
4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2012] 2 S.C.R.
A - Held: The conclusions recorded by High Court and the
directions contained in the impugned order were of general
application and did not target any particular college or
institution - Therefore, the appellants cannot be heard to make
a grievance that the impugned order was violative of the rules
B of natural justice.
NA T/ONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDU CA TJON
(RECOGNITION NORMS AND PROCEDURE)
._ REGULATIONS, 2005 AND 2007: Regulations 7(2) and (3)
. .,. Role of State Government in the matter of grant of .
C recognition to the private institutions who want to conduct
teacher training course - Held: Regulations 7(2) and (3) lay
down' that a copy of the application form submitted by the
institution(s) shall be sent by the office of the Regional
Committee to the State Government/Union Territory
D 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
E 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.
F Admission procedure - Held: Private institutions cannot
admit students de hors the entrance examination conducted
by the State Government.
One 'S' filed a writ petition by way of Public Interest
Litigation and prayed for issue of direction to the NCTE,
G State of M.P., Barkatullah University anCI 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
H Administration or the universities including the deemed
ADARSH SHIKSHA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. SUBHASH 5
RAHANGDALE
universities and self-financed educational institutions A
established and operated by non-profit making societies
and trusts registered within the State. Several other
institutions filed similar writ petitions.
By interlocutory order dated 17 .12.2008 and final
8
order dated 13.03.2009, the High Court highlighted the
need for well-equipped and trained teachers because in
the last three decades private institutions engaged in
conducting teacher training courses/programmes had
indulged in brazen and bizarre exploitation of the
aspirants for admission to teacher training courses and C
ranked commercialisation. The instant appeals were filed
challenging the interim order and the final order of the
High Court.
The questions which arose for consideration in the o
instant appeals were whether the High Court committed
an error by entertaining the writ petition filed by 'S' as
public interest litigation; whether the impugned order was
contrary to the rules of natural justice, i.e., audi alteram
partem; whether the State Government has any role in the E
matter of grant of recognition to the private institutions
who want to conduct teacher training course; whether
the private institutions could have made admissions de
hors the entrance examination conducted by the State
Government; whether the students who had taken F
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 G
compliance of the interim orders passed by the High
Court and/or this Court.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
H
6 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 2 S.C.R.
A H.ELD: 1.1. THE SCHEME OF. THE NATIONAL
COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION ACT, 1993 AND
THE REGULATIONS. With a view to achieve the object
of planned and coordinated development for the teacher
education system throughout th«;l country and for
B regulation and proper mai.ntenance of norms and
standards ill the teacher education syst~m and for
matters connected· therewith, Parliamen.t enacted the
National council for Teacher Education Act, 1993, The
1993 Act provides for the establishment of a Cou.ncil to ·
c be: cailed the National Council for Teacher Education
(NCTE) yvith multifarious functions, powers and· duties.
Section 2(c) of the Act defines the terQl "c.ouncil" tc;> mean
a council established under sub-section (1) of Section 3.
Section 2(i) defines the term "reco~nised institution" to
D me.an an institution recognised under Section 14. Section
2(j) .defines .the term "Regional Committee" to mean a
committee e.stablished under Section 20. section 3
provides for establishment of the Council which
comprises of a Chairperson, a Vice-Chairperso_n, a
Member-Secretary, various functionaries of·. the
E Government, thirteen pe.rsons possessing experience
and ·knowledge in the field of education or teaching, nine
members representing. the States .and the Union
Territories administration,· th.ree members of Parliament,
three. members ,to be .appoin,ted from amongst teachers
F 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 of institutions offering course or training in
teacher education. Section 15 lays down the procedure
G for obtaining permission by an existing institution for
starting a new .course or training. Section 16 cont.ains 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
H recognised institution unless it has obtained recognition
ADARSH SHIKSHA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. SUBHASH 7
RAHANGDALE
from the Regional Committee concerned under Section A
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 B
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 C
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 Government can make rules. Under
Section 32(1) the Council can make regulations for
implementation of the provisions of the Act subject to the D
rider that the regulations shall not be inconsistent with
the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder.
In exercise of the power vested in it under Section 32, the
NCTE has, from time to time, framed the regulations.
[Paras 5.1, 6] [23-B-H; 24-A-D; 34-D) E
Ahmedabad St. Xavier's College Society v. State of
Gujarat (1974) 1 SCC 717 : 1975 (1) SCR 173; Andhra
Kesari Education Society v. Director of School Education
(1989) 1 SCC 392 : 1988 (3) Suppl. SCR 893; State of F
Maharashtra v. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale (1992) 4 SCC 435
: 1992 (3) SCR 792; St. Johns' Teachers Training Institute
(for Women), Madurai v. State of Tamil Nadu (1993) 3 SCC
595 : 1993 (3) SCR 985 - relied on.
N. M. Nageshwaramma v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1986 G
(Supp.) SCC 166; Food Corporation of India v. Bhanu Lodh
· (2005) 3 SCC 618 : 2005 (2) SCR 350 - referred to.
2. By filing the writ petition, the respondent had
sought to highlight grave irregularities committed by the H
8 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 2 S.C.R.
A 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 and admitted students
B 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
C by the Member Secretary, NCTE, who appeared before
this Court on 21.7.2010, that effective steps have been
taken after discovery of irregularities in ~he 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'
0
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. Therefore, it cannot be said
E 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
F 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
G 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. [Para
H 18] [82-D-G; 83-A-C]
ADARSH SHIKSHA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. SUBHASH 9
RAHANGDALE
State of Uttarancha/ v. Ba/want Singh Chaufal (2010) 3 A
SCC 402: 2010 (1) SCR 678; Vineet Narain v. Union of India
(1998) 1 SCC 226 : 1997 (6) Suppl. SCR 595; Centre for
Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India (2003) 7 SCC 532
: 2003 (3) Suppl. SCR 746; Rajiv Ranjan Singh "Lalan" (VIII)
v. Union of India (2006) 6 SCC 613 : 2006 (4) Suppl. B
SCR 742; M. C. Mehta v. Union of India (2007) 1 SCC 110 :
2006 (9) Suppl. SCR 683; M.C. Mehta v. Union of India
(2008) 1 SCC 407 : 2007 (10) SCR 1060; Shivajirao
Nilangekar Patil v. Dr. Mahesh Madhav Gosavi (1987) 1 SCC
227 : 1987 (1) SCR 458 - relied on. c
3. 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 the light of the judgments of this Court and D
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 E
granted 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 F
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 G
granted is entitled to avail remedy of appeal. The
conclusions recorded by the High Court and the
directions contained in the impugned order were of
general application and did not target any particular
college or institution. Therefore, the appellants cannot be H
10 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 2 S.C.R.
A heard to make a grievance that the impugned order is
violative of the rules of natural just~e. [Para 19) [83-D-
H; 84-A-B]
4. Regulation 7(2) and (3) of the 2005 and 2007
Regulations lay down that a copy of the application form
8
submitted by the institution(s) 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
C 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
D consider the recommendations of the State Government
I 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
E be presumed that the concerned State Government/
Union Territory Administration has no recommendation
to make. [Para 20] (84-C-F]
5. No recognition/permission can be granted to any
F 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
G 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. [para 26] (94-B-C]
State of Maharashtra v. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan
H Shastra Mahavidyalaya (2006) 9 SCC 1 : 2006 (3)
ADARSH SHIKSHA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. SUBHASH 11
RAHANGDALE
SCR 638; Government of Andhra Pradesh v. J.B. A
Educational Society (2005) 3 SCC 212 : 2005 (2) SCR 302;
National Council for Teacher Education v. Shri Shyam
Shiksha Prashikshan Sansthan (2011) 3 SCC 238 : 2011 (2)
SCR 291; A.P. Christians Medical Educational Society v.
Government of Andhra Pradesh (1986) 2 SCC 667: 1986 (2) B
SCR 749; St. Johns Teachers Training Institute v. Regional
Director, NCTE (2003) 3 SCC 321 : 2003 (1) SCR 975 -
relied on
6. The High Court answered the question whether
the private institutions could have made admissions de C
hors the entrance examination cond1Jcted by the State
Government in the negative by relying upon the ·
admission procedure contained in para 3.3 of Appendix-
1, which contains the Norms and Standards for
Secondary' Teachers Education Programme. The D
appellants have not questioned the vires of the admission
procedure. Therefore, they cannot contend that they
were.e11titled to admit students de hors the list prepared
on the basis of entrance examination conducted under
the directions of the State Government. [para 27] [94-0- E
F]
7. The impugned orders do not suffer from any legal
infirmity warranting interference by this Court.
(i) The Regional Committees established under
F
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 G
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. H
12 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 2 S.C.R.
A (ii) The State Government I 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 recommendations within the
B 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 observatio.ns
c 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
D
(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
E the relevant Regulations shall operate prospectively,
i.e., frorn 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
F 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)
G after affording reasonable opportunity to the
applicant to make a wrUten representation, the
concerned institution is required to discontinue the
course or training frorn the end of the academic
session next following the date of receipt of the
H order.
ADARSH SHIKSHA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. SUBHASH 13
RAHANGDALE
(vii) Once the recognition is granted, the same can A
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 B
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.
c
(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 D
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 E ·
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 affiliation unless the applicant F
has obtained recognition from the Regional
Committee under Section 14 or permission for
starting a new c6urse or training under Section 15.
(xi) While granting affiliation, the examining body G
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 I norms which may
H
14 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 2 S.C.R.
A 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
B
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/
c 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,
D then the Regional Committee shall initiate action for
withdrawal of the recognition of such insti~ution and
pass appropriate order after complying with the rules
of natural justice.
(xv) The students admitted by unrecognised
E 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.
F (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
G 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
H
ADARSH SHIKSHA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. SUBHASH 15
RAHANGDALE
bound to take action in accordance with those A
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 B
admitted by such ~nstitutions 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 C
contained in Appendix-1 of the Regulations. [Para
33] [98-C-H; 99-A-H; 100-A-H; 101-A-H; 102-A-B]
In the instant appeals the following directions are
passed:
D
(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 containetj in the
impugned orders. This .would mean that result of the E
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 F
conditions specified in Section 14(3)(a) of
I
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 G
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 H
16 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 2 S.C.R.
A 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.
B (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
c 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
D 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
E 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
F entitled to challenge the same by availing remedy of
appeal under Section 18 of the 1993 Act. [Para 34]
[102-8-H; 103-A-E]
Case Law Reference:
G 1975 (1) SCR 173 relied on Para 2.1
1988 (3) Suppl. SCR 893 relied on Para2.2
1992 (3) SCR 792 relied on Para 2.3
1993 (3) SCR 985 relied on Para 2.4
H
ADARSH SHIKSHA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. SUBHASH 17
RAHANGDALE
1986 (Supp.) sec 166 referred to Para 2.5 A
2005 (2) SCR 350 referred to Para 9.3
2006 (3) SCR638 relied on Para 9.3
2010 (1) SCR 678 relied on Para 16 B
1997 (6) Suppl. SCR 595 relied on Para 16
2003 (3) Suppl. SCR 746 relied on Para 16
2006 (4) Suppl. SCR 742 relied on Para 16
c
2006 (9) Suppl. SCR 683 relied on Para 16
2007 (10) SCR 1060 relied on Para 16
1987 (1) SCR 458 relied on Para 17
2003 (1) SCR 975 relied on Para 21 D
2005 (2) SCR 302 relied on Para 22
2011 (2) SCR 291 relied on Para 24
1986 (2) SCR 749 relied on Para 29 E
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 104
of 2012.
From the Judgment & Order dated 13.03.2009 of the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh Principal Seat at Jabalpur in Writ F
Petition No. 6146 of 2008.
WITH
C.A. Nos. 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 114, 115, 116,
118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 131, G
132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144,
145, 146 & 147 of 2012.
P.S. Patwalia, S.K. Dubey, P.N. Mishra, Jasbir Singh
Malik, Gouri Karuna Das, Bhakti Pasrija, Shanti Kumar Jaisani, H
18 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 2 S.C.R.
A Ajay Singh, Sanjeev Kumar Sharma (for R.C. Kaushik), S.K.
Sabharwal, B.K. Satija, P.P. Singh, Vipin Kumar, K.K.
Shrivastava, Deepak Goel, Dr. Kailash Chand, R.C. Kohli, G.
Prakash, Neeraj Shekhar, Ashutosh Thakur, Nikhil Jain, Kuna!
Verma, Urned Singh Gulia, Vikram Singh Gulia, Santosh Paul,
B Sriharsh N. Bundela, At.!1ay Kumar, Arti Singh, Anilendra
Pandey, Priya Kashyap, Brijesh Pandey, Amitesh Kumar, Ravi
Kant (for Gopal Singh), B.S. Banthia, Vikas Upadhyay, Varun
Thakur, Shankar Dinate, Purvish Jitendra Malkan, Shree
Prakash Sinha, Vijay Kumar, Shekhar Kumar, Niraj Sharma,
C Raju! Shrivastav, S.K. Verma, Rukhsana Choudhary,
Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, Vibudhendra Mishra, M.k. Michael,
Ekta Kadiyan, Anu Gupta, Tapan Trivedi, Gopal Singh, Amitesh
Kumar, Ravi Kant for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D
GS. SINGHVI, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. The importance of teachers and their training has been
highlighted time and again by eminent educationists· and
E leaders of society. The Courts have also laid considerable
emphasis on the dire need of having qualified teachers in
schools and colleges.
2.1 In Ahmedabad St. Xavier's College Society v. State
of Gujarat (1974) 1 SCC 717, A.N. Ray, C.J., observed:
F
"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
G ·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
H engaged in the common ideal of pursuit of knowledge. It
ADARSH SHIKSHA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. SUBHASH 19
RAHANGDALE [G.S. SING_HVI, J.]
is, therefore, manifest that the appointment of teachers is A
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
puty of the minority institutions to render the very best to B
the students. In the right of administration, checks and
balances in the shape of regulatory measures are required
to ensure the appointment of good teachers and their
conditions of service. The right to administer is to be
tempered with regulatory measures to facilitate smooth c
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
0
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, E
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 F
nation. Regulations are, therefore, necessary to see that
there are no divisive er disintegrating forces in
administration."
2.2 In Andhra Kesari Education Society v. Director of
School Education (1989) 1 SCC 392, this Court observed: G
"Though teaching is the last choice in the job market, the
role of teachers is central to all processes of formal
education.The teae<her alone could bring out the skills and
intellectual capabilities of students. He is the 'engine' of the H
20 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 2 S.C.R.
A 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 inspire and motivate into action the
B 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
c 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
D
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."
E 2:3 In 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
F 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
G 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
H
ADARSH SHIKSHA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. SUBHASH 21
RAHANGDALE [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
cope up with the psychological approach to the aptitudes A
of the children to perform that pivotal role. In short teachers
need to be 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 B
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 C
and judicial fiat to control the mode of education and
examining system are detrimental to the efficient
management of the education."
2.4 In St. Johns' Teachers Training Institute (for Women},
Madurai v. State of Tamil Nadu (1993) 3 SCC 595, the Court D
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 E
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
F
system with improved methods of teaching, to achieve
qualitative excellence in teacher-education."
2.5 In N.M. Nageshwaramma v. State of Andhra Pradesh
1986 (Supp.) SCC 166, the Court observed:
-
'The Teachers Training Institutes are meant to teach
G
children of impressionable age and we 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 H
22 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 2 S.C.R.
A 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
B 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
C decade.s private institutions engaged in conducting teacher
training courses I 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. ·
D 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
E such institutions with the hope that at the 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
F 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
G 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
H
ADARSH SHIKSHA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. SUBHASH 23
RAHANGDALE [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
cases, we consider it necessary to notice the scheme of the A
1993 Act and the Regulations framed thereunder.
THE SCHEME OF THE 1993 ACT AND THE
REGULATIONS
5.1 With a view to achieve the object of planned and B
coordinated development for the teacher education system
throughout the country and for regulation and proper
maintenance of norms and standards in the teacher education
system and for matters connected therewith, Parliament
enacted the 1993 Act. The 19·93 Act provides for the C
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 D
"recognised institution" to mean an institution recognised under
Section 14. Section 20) 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, E
various functionaries of the Government, thirteen persons
possessing experience and knowledge in the field of education
or teachirig, nine members representing the States and the
Union Territories administration, three members of Parliament,
three members to be appointed from amongst teachers of F
primary and secondary education and teachers of recognised
institutions. Section 12 of the Act enumerates functions of the
Council. Section 14 provides for recognition of institutions
offering course or training in teacher education. Section 15 lays
down the procedure for obtaining permission by an existing G
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
H
24 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 2 S.C.R.
A 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
B 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
c 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
Government can make rules. Under Section 32(1) the Council
can make regulations for implementation of the provisions of
0 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
E 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.
5.2 The relevant portions of Sections 12, 14 to 16, 17, 17-
F 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.-lt shall be the duty of the
Council to take all such steps as it may think fit for ensuring
G 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-
(a) undertake surveys and studies relating to various
H aspects of teacher education and publish the result thereof;
ADARSH SHIKSHA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. SUBHASH 25
RAHANGDALE [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
(b) make recommendations to the Central and State A
Governments, Universities, University Grants Commission
and recognised institutions in the matter of preparation of
suitable plans and programmes in the field of teacher
education;
B
(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; C
(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 o
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; E
(g)-(i) * * *
0) examine and review periodically the implementation of
the norms, guidelines and standards laid down by the F
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. G
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 H
26 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2012] 2 S.C.R.
A 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
B 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.
c (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
D 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
E for proper functioning of the institution for a cour~e 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
F
(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:
G
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.
H (4) ***
ADARSH SHIKSHA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. SUBHASH 27
RAHANGDALE [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
(5) Every institution, in respect of which recognition has A
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).
B
(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
c
(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
0
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.
E
(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 F
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, library,
qualified staff, laboratory, ;md that it fulfils such other G
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
H
28 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 2 S.C.R.
A (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:
B 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) ***
c
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-
D
(a) grant affiliation, whether provisioriaf or otherwise, to any
institution; or
(b) hold examination, whether provisional or otherwise, for
a course or training conducted by a recognised institution,
E 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.
***
F 17 - Contravention of provisions of the Act and
consequences thereof
(1) Where the Regional Committee is, on its own motion
or on any representation received from any person,
G 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
H granted, it may withdraw recognition of such recognised
ADARSH SHIKSHA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. SUBHASH 29
RAHANGDALE [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
institution, for reasons to be recorded in writing; A
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: B
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 o(communication of such
o~er. C
(2) A copy of every order passed by the Regional
Committee under sub-section (1),-
(a) shall be communicated to the recognised institution
0
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 E
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 F
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 the academic session next following the date of
communication of the said order.
G
(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 H
30 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 2 S.C.R.
A 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
B 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
c education, unless the institution concerned has obtained
recognition under Section 14 or permission under Section
15, as the case may be.
18 - Appeals
D
(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.
E (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
F 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 copy of the
order appealed against and by such fees as may be
G
prescribed.
(4) The procedure for disposing of an appeal shall be such
as may be prescribed:
H Provided that before disallowing an appeal, the appellant .
ADARSH SHIKSHA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. SUBHASH 31
RAHANGDALE [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
shall be given a reasonable opportunity to represent its A
case .
.(5) The Council may confirm or reverse the order appealed
against.
20 - Regional Committees B
(1) The Council shall, by notification in the Official Gazette,
establish the following Regional Committees, namely:--
(i) the Eastern Regional Committee;
c
(ii) the Western Regional Committee;
(iii) the Northern Regional Committee; and
(iv) the Southern Regional Committee.
D
(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) ***
E
(4) ***
(5) ***
(6) The Regional Committee shall in addition to its F
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 G
vacancies among members of, a Regional Committee
shall be such as may be determined by regulations.
29 - Directions by the Central Government
H
32 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 2 S.C.R.
A (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.
8 (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,
c 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
D
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;
E
(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
F 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-
G (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;
H (iii) starting of new courses or training in recognised
ADARSH SHIKSHA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. SUBHASH 33
RAHANGDALE [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
institutions under clause (f) of section 12; A
(iv) standards in respect of examinations leadif'!g to
teacher education qualifications referred to in· clause (g)
of section 12;
(v) the tuition fees and other fees chargeable by institutions · 8
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 (I) of section 12; C
(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 D
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 E
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;
F
(i) the functions which may be assigned by the Council to
the Executive Committee under sub-section (1) of section
19;
Q) the procedure and the quorum necessary for transaction G
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; H
34 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 2 S.C.R.
A (I) 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;
B (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
c 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."
D 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,
E 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
Teacher Education (Form of Application for Recognition, the
Time~Limit of Submission of Application, Determination of
F 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
G 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
H to all matters relating to teacher education programmes
ADARSH SHIKSHA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. SUBHASH 35
RAHANGDALE [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
covering norms and standards and procedures for A
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
B
(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. c
(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
0
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 on-line. In the· latter case, the requisite E
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.
F
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. G
(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 H
36 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012} 2 S.C.R.
·A 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.
B
(iii) A written communication in addition shall also follow
to the applicant.
(iv) A written communication alongwith a copy of the
c 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 ·
D 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
E 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
F . Administration concerned has no recommendation to
make.
(4) Though normally the applicant institutions will ensure
submission of applications complete in all respects, in
G 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 shal! remove within 90
days. The date of receipt of the application after
completion of deficiencies shall be treated as the date of
H
ADARSH SHIKSHA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. SUBHASH 37
RAHANGDALE [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
receipt of the application complete in all respects within A
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 B
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 C
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 D
institutions, its location, name of the course applied for with
intake, availability of physical infrastructure (land, building,
office, classrooms, and other facilities/amenities),
instructional facilities (laboratories, library, etc.) and the
particulars of their proposed teaching and non-teaching E
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 F
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 G
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.
H
38 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 2 S.C.R.
A (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
B 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
c 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
D decisions of the Regional Committees are not in
contravention of the NCTE Act, NCTE Rules and
regulations including the norms and standards.
( 11) The institution concerned shall be informed of the
E 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
F website and also formally inform the Regional Committee
concerned. The Regional Committee concerned shall then
issue a formal unconditional recognition order.
(13)-(14) ***
G
8. Conditions for grant of recognition:
(1) An institution must fulfill a!I the prescribed conditions
related to norms and standards as prescribed by the
NCTE for conducting the course or training in teacher
H education. These norms, inter alia, cover conditions
ADARSH SHIKSHA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. SUBHASH 39
RAHANGDALE [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
relating to financial resources, accommodation, library, A
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
B
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 C
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. Programme, if it· has 0
accredited itself with the National Assessment and
Accreditation Council (NMC) 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 E
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 F
Administration law shall prevail.
(6)-(9) ***
(10) An institution shall make admission only after it
obtains unconditional letter of recognition from the Regional G
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, H
40 . SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2012] 2 S.C.R.
A 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.
8
(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
C Regulations and was retained in the 2005 Regulations wa.
amended vide notification dated 12. 7.2006, paragraphs 1.0, 2.
, 3.0, 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 of which are extracted below: "1
0 Preamble Teacher preparation course for secondary edu
ation, generally known as 8.Ed., is a professional course that
D repares 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
E 2.1 Duration
B.Ed. programme shall be of a duration of at least one
academic year.
2.2 Working Days
F
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 I secondary I senior secondary
G 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 .
.H
ADARSH SHIKSHA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. SUBHASH 41
RAHANGDALE [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
3.0 Intake, Eligibility and Admission Procedure A
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 8
courses and other practical activities of the programme to
facilitate participatory teaching and learning.
3.2 Eligibility
c
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 D
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 E
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." F
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: G
"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 H
42 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 2 S.C.R.
A Central/State Government/UT administration;
(2) Institutions financed by the Central/State Government/
UT administration;
(3) All universities, including institutions deemed to be
8 universities, so recognised under the UGC Act, 1956.
(4) Self-financed educational institutions establi~hed and
operated by 'not for profit', Societies and Trusts registered
under the appropriate law.
c 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
D ·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
E 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.
F
(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
G 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
H recognition has been sought.
ADARSH SHIKSHA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. SUBHASH 43
RAHANGDALE [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
(5) All complete applications received on or before 31st A
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.
B
***
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 C
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 D
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 E
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 F
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 G
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 H
44 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 2 S.C.R.
A 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 be conducted by a team
B
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.
c 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
D be conducted within 30 days of receipt of the consent of
the institution.
(5)-(8) . ***
(9) The institution concerned shall be informed, through a
E
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 shal.1 not be notified in the
Gazette. The faculty shall be appointed on the
F 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
G 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
H r&cognition.
ADARSH SHIKSHA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. SUBHASH 45
RAHANGDALE [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
(10) All the applicant institutions shall launch their own A
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
infrastructure (land, building, office, classrooms, and other 8
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 conc~rned, after appointing the
c
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 D
order that shall be notified as per provision of the NCTE
Act.
(12)-(13) ***
E
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 ortraining in teacher education. These norms, inter
alia, cover conditions relating to financial resources,
F
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 G
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 H
46 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2012] 2 S.C.R.
A year.
(3) An institution shall be permitted to apply for
enhancement of course wise intake in teacher education
courses already approved, after completion of three
academic sessions of running the respective courses.
B
(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
c 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
D 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
E 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
F 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
G 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) * * *
H
ADARSH SHIKSHA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. SUBHASH 47
RAHANGDALE [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
(10) At the time of inspection, the building bf the institution A
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
standards. The applicant institution shall produce the B
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) *** c
(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. D
(13)-(16) * * *"
The details of the petitions filed in 2007 and 2008 and the
orders passed by the High Court
E
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, F
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 G
commercial premises like marriage halls and shops, and in the
existing school premises without the required infrastructure and
staff. They admitted 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 H
48· SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 2 S.C.R.
A 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
B 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
c 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
D
20th August, 2007
Government of India,
Ministry of Human Resources Development
E
Department of School Education & Literacy
The Chairperson,
National Council for Teacher Education,
F
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
G
Western Regional Committee of National Council for
Teacher Education (NCTE).
Sir,
H It has come to notice of the department of school education
ADARSH SHIKSHA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. SUBHASH 49
RAHANGDALE [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
& Literacy that there has been uneven and A
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. B
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 C
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. D
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. E
Your sincerely
(Simmi Choudhary)
Deputy Secretary to Government
Govt. of India" F
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:
G
"August 22, 2007
To,
Dr. OVS Sikarwar,
Regional Director H
50 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2012] 2 S.C.R.
A Western Regional Committees
Manas Bhawar (Near Air)
Shyamala Hills,
Bhopal : 162002
Subject: Directions under Section 29 of the NCTE Act,
B 1993 to withhold the grant of Recognition to institutions
Courses /Additional intake falling under the Jurisdiction of
Western Regional Committee of NCTE.
Sir,
c 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
D 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
E 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 VVestern Regional
Committee is held. The Chairperson and members of the
Western Regional Committee may immediately be
F suitably informed in this regard.
Yours Faithfully,
Sd/-
(V.C. Tewari)
Members Secretary"
G 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
H
ADARSH SHIKSHA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. SUBHASH 51
RAHANGDALE [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
courses. They pleaded that even though the applications filed A
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 B
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 C
State of Maharashtra v. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra
Mahavidya/aya (2006) 9 SCC 1 and held that the Central
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 D
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 E
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 F
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 beeh uneven and disproportionate G
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 H
52 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 2 S.C.R.
A 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
8 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
c with a view to achieve planned and co-ordinated
development of the teacher education system throughout
the country. That apart, Regulation 4 deals 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
D
assigned to the Council and the por1er 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."
E
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
G
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
pe ready to face the consequences if the petition is
decided against them in view of the aforesaid order no
H equity can ever flow in favour of the institutions. We would
ADARSH SHIKSHA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. SUBHASH 53
RAHANGDALE [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
like to place it on record that an institution which is A
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 B
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 institution without c
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
0
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 E
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 F
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 G
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. H
54 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 2 S.C.R.
A 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
B the 1993 Act as well as the M.P. B.Ed. Examination Rules,
2007, order dated 29.11.2007 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:
c " .... 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
D 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
E 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.
F 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."
G
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
H should be permission for grant of college level counselling.
ADARSH SHIKSHA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. SUBHASH 55
RAHANGDALE [G.S. SINGHVI, J.)
Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that A
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: B
"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 C
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 o
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 E
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 F
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 G
of the entrance test cannot be found fault with. Once the
said mode has been taken recourse to the college level
counselling should not be allowed. Therefore, the aforesaid
submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners leaves
H
56 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 2 S.C.R.
A 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-
B 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 recogni"~d
colleges/institutions as per norms.
c
(b) The students who have qualified in the entrance
examination but could not appear in the counsel
ling should be called for counselling by a date which wou
d be notified within a period of seven days and the said dat ·
D would be after seven days as a result of which the couns
!ling would become convenient. (c) The a
lotment of seats should be made strictly on the basis
of norms keeping in view the concept of proportionalit
so that the grievance is put to rest. (d) The college leve
E 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
F order in SLP(C) No. 3269 of 2008, etc., which were disposed
of by this Court on 18.2.2008 in the following terms:
,"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.
G 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
H
ADARSH SHIKSHA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. SUBHASH 57
RAHANGDALE [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
fresh centralized counselling for filling up all the unfilled A
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 8
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 C
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 D
institutions and as 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 E
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 F
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:
G
"(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 H
58 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 2 S.C.R.
A 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.
8
(c) Certain conditions are relatable to the institutions after
they become functional but on that foundation it cannot be
construed that the orders of recognition are totally
unconditional.
c (d) The State Government cannot refuse 'No Objection
Certificate' relying on the M.P. Vishwaviqyalaya Adhiniyum,
.: 1973 in view of the decision of the Apex Court rendered
in the case of Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra
Mahavidyalaya (Supra).
D
(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. ·
E : '(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
F 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
G the NCTE the University shall grant affiliation on
satisfaction of the conditions enumerated in th
orde
itself and shall not entrench or encroach upon the fil
d by taking recourse to its Act or its statues. (h) T
H e University shall be totally bound by the conditions impose
ADARSH SHIKSHA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. SUBHASH 59
RAHANGDALE [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
in the order and shall not travel beyond them. A
(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 B
can be imparted education afresh after recognition and
affiliation are granted.
0) If the institutions are eventually granted recognition and
affiliation fees collected from the students shall be adjust
for fresh course which would commence after recogn.ition C
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 D
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 E
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: F
"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 G
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 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 H
60 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 2 S.C.R.
A 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
B 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
c 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
D
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
E 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
F 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 the State Government. After taking
note of his statement, the High Court held:
"16. We understand the anxiety of the petitioner that the
G
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
H
ADARSH SHIKSHA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. SUBHASH 61
RAHANGDALE [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
same. The University also could have been well advised A
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 B
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 c
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.
D
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 E
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 castle in the air. An educational institution which
is supposed to impart, education in B.Ed., course has to F
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 G
institutions would be governed by the directions contained
in paragraph 42 of Jan Seva Shiksha Samiti (supra), it !s
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 H
62 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 2 S.C.R.
A 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
B 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
c 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
D
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
E 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 petitions
are dismissed. We may further state here that we would
have imposed exemplary costs as it was within the special
F 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
G uncalled for anxiety on the part of the persons who are in
the management of the said institutions."
9.9 In Rajendra Katare Shlksha Mahavidya/aya 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
H
ADARSH SHIKSHA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. SUBHASH 63
RAHANGDALE [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
recognition from the competent authority and affiliation from the A
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.
B
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 C
counsel appearing for the petitioner are basically based
on the order passed by the 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 D
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. E
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 28-12-2007111-01-2008. By the principle
of sheer arithmetics 180 days training is not possible and F
hence, the order passed by the respondent no. 2 cannot
be faulted."
9.11 In Sheet/a 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 G
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
aufuori~ H
64 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 2 S.CR.
A 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. and six universities of Madhya Pradesh as party
respondents and prayed for issue of direction to the universities
B 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
c 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:
0
"(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.
E Shastro Mahavidya/aya (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.
F (c) The Institutions/Colleges can give admissions only after
they obtain the order of recognition from the Regional
Committee concerned under Regulation 7(1) and affiliation
from the concerned examining body.
G (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.
H
·. ADARSH SHIKSHA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. SUBHASH 65
RAHANGDALE [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
(f) The NCTE cannot pass an order of recognition A
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
8
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 C
make.
0) 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 o
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 E
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 F
the Regulations framed thereunder.
(I) The Apex Body shall communicate to the universities
and the State Government about the recognition facet
positively within a week therefrom. G
(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
H
66 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 2 S.C.R.
,A 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.
B (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
c of 2008 and connected cases
10.1 Subhash Rahangdale filed V\/rit 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
D standards in the teacher education system in various colleges
run by different educational societies I entities or the institutions
financed by Central I State Government or Union Territory
Administration or the universities including the deemed
universities and self-financed educational institutions
E established and operated by non-profit making societies and
trusts registered within the State. He prayed for appointment
of an expert team of 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
F 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.
G 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
H faculty members and whether they were still continuing in the
ADARSH SHIKSHA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. SUBHASH 67
RAHANGDALE [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
colleges. On 17 .12.2008 the High Court passed a detailed A
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 B
colleges which have been cleared by the NCTE are entitled
to appear in the examination for the academic session
2007-08.
b) The University Teaching Department and the Colleges c
which have been cleared ahd 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 D
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. E
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. F
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 G.
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. H
68 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 2 S.C.R.
.l
A g) The studel'lts who have presecuted their studies in UOT
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.
B
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
C 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.
D
As regards the direction for conducting of examination is
stayed until the High Court consider the matter and pass
further orders."
E 10.4 Thereafter, the High Court considered report dated
27.1.2009 prepared bythe 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
F categories:
Category 01
Clearly recognized institutions who are recognized and
their recognition is to continue (This includes some cases
G 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
H
ADARSH SHIKSHA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. SUBHASH 69
RAHANGDALE [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
.. _. --~' ,; •• : Jo:proceei;iings·to ~ithdraw the recognition from 2008-09 A
onwards.
Category 03
Cases which are to be recognized frelm 2008-09 onwards
and Universities are required to affiliate, if not already 8
done.
Category 04
Institutions which are not recognized during 2007-08 due C
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:
D
"(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.
E
(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 F
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 G
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:
H
70 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 2 S.C.R.
A (v) Submission of Mr. Naman Nagrath, learned counsel for
interveners, to the effect that the students 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.
B 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.
c
(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
D 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. BO Silve, learned senior counsel.
(ix) The colleges whose cases have been rejected for
E 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.
F (x) The rest of the colleges in respect of which the
inspection is in progress shall be completed as undertaken
by Mr. BO 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
G 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 should be kept in mind, that
H
ADARSH SHIKSHA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. SUBHASH 71
RAHANGDALE [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
education cannot be crucified, or guillotined at the alter of A
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 8
(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 c
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 0
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 E
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 inasmuch
as the NCTE while submitting the list has not taken care F
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 G
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 H
72 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 2 S.C.R.
H !teeth (supra), certain Institutions h~d 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
B 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
c 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
D 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
E 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
F not have 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
G
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
H universities in the light of the directions given in the earlier
ADARSH SHIKSHA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. SUBHASH 73
RAHANGDALE [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
eases iAeludifl§! Vikramaditya Mal!laviohyalaya's c~se slil0ulet lile A
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 B
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 C
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 D
cannot confer the benefit of recognition.
(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. E.
(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 F
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 G
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
\
74 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 2 S.C.R.
A (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
B deals with the withdrawal of recognition of such recognized
institutions.
0) 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
c an already recognized institutions and hence, statutory
protection has been granted.
(k) The terms "refusing recognition" used in second proviso
to Section 17 (1) can alone relate to sub-section (1) and
D (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.
(I) The contention that students could have been admitted
without proper recognition and affiliation by the educational
E 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
F 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.
G
(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.
H (o) The claim put forth by the students that they should be
ADARSH SHIKSHA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. SUBHASH 75
RAHANGDALE [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
equitably dealt with and be permitted to appear in the A
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 B
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.
c
(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 C
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 E
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 F
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. G
(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.
H
76 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 2 S.C.R.
A (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.
B (v) The Colleges in respect of which results have been
published shall reap the benefit of such declaration."
The grounds of challenge
11 . The appellants have challenged the impugned orders
c 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
D
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
E 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
F 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
G
in State of 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.
H
ADARSH SHIKSHA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. SUBHASH 77
RAHANGDALE [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
(iv) That the High Court misinterpreted the provisions A
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 B
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 c
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 by admitting
the students on the basis of institutional counselling. D
. (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. E
(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 F
body and the respondents are duty bound to
declare the result of those who have already
a·ppeared in the examination.
12. In furtherance of the liberty given by the Court the
counsel for the appellants filed written submissions on behalf G
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 H
78 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 2 S.C.R.
A through centralized counselling. It had also not
prescribed a cut off mark for the pre-8. Ed.
examination for 2007-08. Even the students who
secured zero marks were allotted to the colleges
through centralised counselling. In view of this, the
B 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
c 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
D Prasarsarni Samiti & Ors." 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
E 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.
(iv.) In its affidavit dated 24. 7 .2010 the NCTE has
F 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
G already admitted.
(v.) Some of the petitioners have not been granted
affiliations by their respective Universities for
academic session 2007-08,' although requisite fee
H· has been accepted for this academic session. The
ADARSH SHIKSHA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. SUBHASH 79
RAHANGDALE [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
once the affiliation order is granted for a particular A
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.
8
13. In paragraph 8 of the written submissions, it has been
stated that the self-financed private 8.Ed. colleges undertake
not to admit any student in future except tl'lrough centralised
counselling for any of the academic session.
14. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State of C
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 o
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 E
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 F
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 G
of students admitted for the Sessions 2005-06,
2006-07 and 2008-09 and no direction may be
issued for declaring the result of the students
admitted for the Sessions 2005-06 and 2006-07.
More so because the admissions were made by H
80 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 2 S.C.R.
A. 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
B 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
C 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
D 28106 appeared in the examinations in furtherance of the
interim orders passed by the Courts.
CONSIDERATION
E 16. In the light of the above, we shall first consider whether
the High Court committed an error by entertaining the writ
petition 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
F it is not necessary to advert to the plethora of precedents on.
the subject because in State of Uttarancha/ v. Ba/want Singh
Chaufaf (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
G feel satisfied that the petitioner has genuinely come forward to
espouse publi~ 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-Ill of the
public interest litigation in the context of transparency and
H probity in governance, referred to the judgments in Vineet
ADARSH SHIKSHA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. SUBHASH 81
RAHANGDALE [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
Narain v. Union of India (1998) 1 SCC 226, Centre for Public A
. Interest Litigation v. Union of India (2003) 7 SCC 532, Rajiv
Ranjan Singh "La/an" (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:
B
"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 C
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 D
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 E
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 F
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 Minister. The Division Bench affirmed the G
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 H
82 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2012] 2 S.C.R.
A 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 '
B 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
c 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)
D 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
E other physical infrastructure and qualified staff 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
F 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
G 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
H ulterior motive. Learned counsel for the appellants also did not
ADARSH SHIKSHA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. SUBHASH 83
RAHANGDALE [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
make any such argument. Therefore, it cannot be said that the A
High Court committ~d 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 Court had not ordered re-scrutiny B
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 c
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 D
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 E
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 F
Regulations are mandatory and that recognition can be granted
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 G
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 H
84 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 2 S.C.R.
A 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
B 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
C 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) 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
D receipt of the copy of the application. If the State Government/
Union Territory Admjnistration 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
E duty bound to consider the recommendations of the State
Government I 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
F 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:
G
"1. The establishment of teachers' training institutions by
Government, private managements or any other agencies
should largely be determined by assessed need for trained
teachers. This need should take into consideration the
supply of trained teachers from existing institutions, the
H
ADARSH SHIKSHA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. SUBHASH 85
RAHANGDALE [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
requirement of such teachers in relation to enrolment A
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 8
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 C
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.
D
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. E
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 F
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 G
education, etc.
5. With a view to ensuring supply of qualified and trained
teacher~ for such specialities such as education of the
disabled, non-formal education, education of adults, pre- H
86 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 2 S.C.R.
A 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
B among prospective teachers, institutions which can ensure
adequate residential facilities for the Principal ahd staff of
the institutions as well as hostel facilities for a substantial
proportion of its enrolment should be encouraged.
c 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
D
, 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
E 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
F 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
G 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 demonstration school where innovative and experimental
approaches can be demonstrated could be given
preference."
H
ADARSH SHIKSHA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. SUBHASH 87
RAHANGDALE [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
21. The question whether the State Government has any A
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 B
(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 C
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 D
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. E
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 F
has moved an application for grant of recognition. The
institution may be located in the interior of the district in
a faraway State. The Regional Committee cannot
perform such Herculean task and it has to necessarily
depend upon some other agency or body for obtaining G
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 H
88 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 2 S.C.R.
A 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. "
B
(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
C 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
D 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
E
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 which find it difficult
F 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,
G 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
H Regional Committee while considering the application for
ADARSH SHIKSHA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. SUBHASH 89
RAHANGDALE [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
granting recognition to an institution which wants to start A
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 B
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 c
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
D
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."
E
22. In Government of Andhra Pradesh v. J.B. Educational
Society (2005) 3 SCC 212, this Court considered the question
whether 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 F
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 Ill of the G
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
H
90 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 2 S.C.R.
A 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.
B 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
c 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
facilitiE!S to the people in the locality. The State authorities
alone can decide about the educational facilities and
D needs of the locality. If there are more colleges in a
particular area, the State 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
E 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
F 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
G 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.
H
ADARSH SHIKSHA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. SUBHASH 91
RAHANGDALE [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
The general survey in various fields of technical education A
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 llT
is to be established in a particular region, a general survey B
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 C
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."
D
23. In State of Maharashtra v. Sant Dnyaneshwar
Shikshan Shastra Mahavidya/aya (supra), this Court
considered the provisions of the 1993 Act and the 2002
Regulations and held:
E
"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 F
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 G
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 H
92 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 2 S.C.R.
A 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
8
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,
C 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.
D 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
E 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
F 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
G them do not succeed in this venture because of non-
availability of posts. The State GovernmenVUnion 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
H successfully pas" BEd and like courses every year.
ADARSH SHIKSHA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. SUBHASH 93
RAHANGDALE [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
Therefore, by incorporating the provision for sending the A
applications to the State Government/Union Terrifory
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 institutions to start BEd and like B
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 c
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 0
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 E
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 F
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 G
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
the mandatory conditions prescribed in the 1993 Act and the
Regulations. They also did not dispute that in view of Section
.H
94 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2012] 2 S.C.R.
'
A 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
B 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
c 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
D 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
relying upon the admission procedure contained in para 3.3 of
Appendix-I, which contains the Norms and Standards for
E 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
F 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
G 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 sue~ students simply because they
were allowed to provisionally appear in the examination in
compliance of the interim orders passed by the High Court and/
H or this Court. An ancillary qu,estion, which would require
ADARSH SHIKSHA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. SUBHASH 95
RAHANGDALE [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
consideration is, whether the students who had not completed A
the requirement of minimum teaching days were entitled to
appear in the examination and a direction can be given for
declaration of their result.
29. A somewhat similar question was considered in A.P.
8
Christians Medical Educational Society v. Government of
Andhra Pradesh (1986) 2 sec 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 C
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 D
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, E
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
with the question, whether the students who had already been F
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 G
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 H
owes its existence and the regulations made by the
96 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 2 S.C.R.
A 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)
B 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
C 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
D training in one of the privately 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
E
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
F 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
G 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."
H (emphasis supplied)
ADARSH SHIKSHA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. SUBHASH 97
RAHANGDALE [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
31. In State of Maharashtra v. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale A
(supra), this Court noted that there was mushroom growth of
ill-equipped, under-staffed and unrecognised education
I institutions in Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Tamil Nadu and Mah
rashtra and that an interim order was passed by the Hig
Court for allowing the students to appear in the examinat B
on and proceeded to observe: "Slackening the standa
d and judicial fiat to control the mode of education and examini
g system are detrimental to the efficient management o
the education. The directions to the appellants to disobey
the law is subversive ofthe rule of law, a breeding ground c
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. D
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 E
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 F
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 G
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 TN. v. St. Joseph
Teachers Training Institute (1991) 3 SCC.87. As such no H .
.equity or legal right can be pleaded on behalf of the
98 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 2 S.C.R.
A 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;
s 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
C in.terference 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
D 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
E 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 I UT Administration, to
F 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 recommendations within the
time specified in Regulation 7(3) of the Regulations.
G'
(iii) While granting recognition, the Regional
Committees are required to give due weightage to
the recommendations made by the State
GovernmenUUT Administration and keep in view
H the observations made by this Court in St. Johns
ADARSH SHIKSHA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. SUBHASH 99
RAHANGDALE [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
Teachers Training Institute v. Regional Director, A
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.
B
(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 C
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 D
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) E
after affording reasonable opportunity to the
applicant to make a written representation, the
concerned 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. F
(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, G
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
H
100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 2 S.C.R.
A from the end ofthe 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
B
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
c 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 .
D 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 affiliation unless the applicant has
E 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 ·
F conditions contained in the statute like the
University Act or the State Education Board Act
under which it was established or the guidelines I
norms which may have been laid down by the
concerned examining body.
G
(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.
l:l
ADARSH SHIKSHA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. SUB HASH 101
RAHANGDALE [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
(xiii) While making admissions, every recognised A
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. B
(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 C
the rules of natural justice.
(xv) The students admitted by unrecognised institution
and institutions which are not affiliated to any
examining body are not entitled to appear in the o
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 E
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.
F
(xvii) The NCTE shall issue d!rection 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: G
(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 H
102 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 2 S.C.R.
A 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
B contained in Appendix-1 of the Regulations.
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
C 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
D 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
E 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
F 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
G 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.
H
ADARSH SHIKSHA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. SUBHASH 103
RAHANGDALE [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
(iii) The directions contained in the preceding clause A
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 B
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
c
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 D
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 E
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
F
costs.
D.G. Appeals dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "teacher education"Sign in to search