Supreme Court of India
MAA VAISHNO DEVI MAHILA MAHAVIDYALAYAversusSTATE OF U.P. & ORS.
- Citation
- 2012 INSC 600
- Decided
- 13 December 2012
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- A K PATNAIK
Holding
Recognition by the NCTE is a condition precedent to affiliation, the cut‑off date fixed by this Court is binding, and any State or university rule inconsistent with the NCTE Act is void, making strict adherence to the prescribed schedule mandatory.
Summary
The Supreme Court considered multiple writ petitions and appeals filed by private teacher‑education colleges, including Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya, which had obtained recognition from the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) but were denied affiliation by universities and the Uttar Pradesh State Government on the ground that they missed the cut‑off date of 10 May fixed by this Court in the College of Professional Education case. The petitions challenged whether the cut‑off could be extended, whether the State could impose conditions inconsistent with the NCTE Act, and whether the schedule prescribed for recognition and affiliation was mandatory. The Court held that the NCTE Act, a central law, is supreme over any conflicting state legislation; recognition by NCTE is a condition precedent to affiliation and the cut‑off date is binding. It further ruled that any deviation from the prescribed schedule amounts to contempt of court. Accordingly, the Court upheld the rejection of affiliation for institutions beyond the cut‑off, directed strict adherence to the schedule, ordered pending applications to be decided within three months, and made the interim order of 27 September 2012 absolute.
Issues considered
- The cut‑off date for affiliation fixed by the Supreme Court can be altered or extended by the High Court or State authorities.
- Whether the State Government or university may impose affiliation conditions that conflict with the NCTE Act.
- Whether recognition by the NCTE is a condition precedent to affiliation under Sections 14 and 16 of the NCTE Act.
- Whether the NCTE Act, as a central law, prevails over conflicting state legislation under Article 254 of the Constitution.
- Whether non‑compliance with the prescribed schedule constitutes contempt of court.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Art.254, s. VII Schedule List I Entry 66, s. VII Schedule List III Entry 25
- Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
- National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993s. 14(1)(a), s. 14(3)(a), s. 14(4), s. 14(6), s. 16, s. 17, s. 32
- U.P. State University Act, 1973s. 37(1), s. 37(10), s. 37(2), s. 37(6), s. 37(8)
Subjects
NCTEaffiliationrecognitioncut‑off datecentral supremacyrepugnancycontempt of courtsteacher educationhigher educationscheduleArticle 254
Judgment
[2012] 13 S.C.R. 810
A MAA VAISHNO DEVI MAHILA MAHAVIDYALAYA
v.
STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 276 of 2012)
DECEMBER 13, 2012.
B
[A.K. PATNAIK AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.]
Education/Educational Institutions - Professional
educational institutions - Affiliation - Cut off date for affiliation
C fixed by Supreme Court in a judgment - Universities declining
to grant affiliation - Challenged by the institutions before High
Court as well as Supreme Cow1 by filing writ petitions - High
Court dismissed Writ Petitions on the ground that it had no
jurisdiction to extend the cut-off date provided in the judgment
o of Supreme Court - Held: The authorities were not wrong in
rejecting the applications for affiliation in view of the cut-off
date as fixed by Supreme Court - Grant of recognition by
NCTE under NCTE Act is the condition precedent for grant
of affiliation by the examining body/University - The
E concerned Department of the State or the affiliating body can
lay down guideline or policy only in conformity with the
directions issued by NCTE - The NCTE Act being the law
enacted by centre would be supreme and the state law must
give way in favour of central law to the extent of repugnancy -
F The conditions imposed by NCTE while granting recognition,
shall prevail and cannot be altered, re-examined or infringed
under the garb of state law - Operation of the University Act
would be enforceable in case of technical colleges only when
the condition prescribed by the University for grant and
G continuation of affiliation is in conformity with the norms and
guidelines prescribed by NCTE -Once the relevant Schedules
are prescribed under Regulations or judge-made law, no one
is entitled to carve out exceptions to the prescribed Schedules
- The defaulting body would be liable for the proceedings for
H 810
MAA VAISHNO DEVI MAHILA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. 811
STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
contempt of courts and for departmental disciplinary action - A
There is some over-lapping and contradiction between the
dates and period stated under the Regulations inter se and
even with reference to judgments of the Court - In order to
avoid the ambiguity and confusion, fresh schedule is
prescribed, in relation to recognition and affiliation- Contempt B
of Courts Act, 1971 - National Council for Teachers Education
Act, 1993 - ss. 14(1)(a) and 16 - NCTE (Form of application
for recognition, the time limit of submissions of application,
determination of norms and standards for recognition of
teacher education programmes and permission to start new c
course or training) Regulations, 2002 - National Council for
Teachers Education (Recognition, Norms and Procedure)
Regulations, 2005 - National Council for Teacher Education
(Recognition, Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2009 -
Constitution of India, 1950 - VII Schedule - List I Entry 66 and
0
List /II Entry 25.
Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 254, VII Schedule, List I
and List Ill - Where the field is covered by the Parliamentary
Law in terms of List I and List Ill, subject to the exceptions
stated in Art. 254, the law made by the State Legislature E
would, to the extent of repugnancy would be void - The test of
repugnancylconflict is not restricted to the obedience of one
resulting in disobedience of other but even where result of one
would be in conflict with the other..
F
The Supreme Court, in the case of *College of
Professional Education and Ors. vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh, recorded that for the academic year 2012-13
and subsequent academic years, the educational
institutions and the State Government arrived at a broad G
consensus regarding the procedure and terms and
conditions of admission, recognition and affiliation. A
Schedule for admission was provided by the Court for
the academic year 2012-13. The court fixed a cut-off date
for affiliation. The colleges which were affiliated upto H
812 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 13 S.C.R.
A 7.7.2011 alone were permitted to participate in the
counseling for the academic year 2011-12. For the next
consecutive academic years, the colleges which were
permitted to participate in the counseling, were the ones
which received affiliation on or before 10th May of that
B year.
Some Colleges of the State, which did not receive
affiliation from the Universities, filed writ petitions before
High Court, challenging the order of the Universities
declining to grant affiliation. The writ petitions were
C dismissed by High Court primarily on the ground that the
court had no jurisdiction to extend the cut-off date as
provided in the judgment of Supreme Court in the case
of *College of Professional Education. Appeals have
been filed challenging the judgment of High Court. Some
D institutions filed writ petitions before this Court,
challenging the order declining grant of affiliation.
Disposing of the appeals and the writ petitions, the
Court
E
HELD: 1.1. The National Council for Teachers
. Education Act, 1993 (NCTE Act) is a special act enacted
to cover a particular field, i.e. teacher training education
and, thus, has to receive precedence over other laws in
relation to that field. No institution or body is empowered
F to grant recognition to any institution under the NCTE Act
or any other law for the time being in force, except the
NCTE itself. Grant of recognition by the Council is a
condition precedent to grant of affiliation by the examining
body to an institute. [Para 41] [849-G-H; 850-A]
G
1.2. The non-obstante language of Section 16 of the
NCTE Act requires the affiliating body to grant affiliation
only after recognition or permission has been granted by
the NCTE. The provisions of Section 16 give complete
H supremacy to the expert body/NCTE in relation to grant
MAA VAISHNO DEVI MAHILA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. 813
STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
of recognition. In fact, it renders the role of other bodies A
consequential upon grant and/or refusal of recognition.
When the NCTE is called upon to consider an application
for grant of recognition, it has to consider all the aspects
in terms of Section 14(1 )(a) of the NCTE Act. The
amplitude of this provision is very wide and hardly leaves B
any matter relatable to an educational institution outside
its ambit. Thus, the NCTE is a supreme body and is
vested with wide powers to be exercised with the aid of
its expertise, in granting or refusing to grant recognition
to an educational institution. The NCTE is the paramount C
body for granting the approval/recognition not only for
commencing of fresh courses but even for increase in
intake, etc. The Council has to ensure maintenance of
educational standards as well as strict adherence to the
prescribed parameters for imparting of such educational o
courses, including the infrastructure. The provision and
scheme of the NCTE Act is pari materia to that of the
Medical Council of India Act, 1956 and the All India
Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 etc. [Para 42)
[850-A-E] E
1.3. The Council is the authority constituted under the
Central Act with the responsibility of maintaining
standards of education and judging upon the infra-
structure and facilities available for imparting such
professional education. Its opinion is of utmost F
importance and shall take precedence over the views of
the State as well as that of the University. The concerned
Department of the State and the affiliating University have
a role to play but it is limited in its application. They
cannot lay down any guideline or policy which would be G
in conflict with the Central statute or the standards laid
down by the Central body. State can frame its policy for
admission to such professional courses but such policy
again has to be in conformity with the directives issued
by the Central body. [Para 47) [855-F-H; 856-A] H
814 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 13 S.C.R.
A State of Tamil Nadu and Anr. v. Adhiyaman Educational
and Research Institute and Ors. (1995) 4 SCC 104: 1995 (2)
SCR 1075; Jaya Gokul Educational Trust v. Commissioner
and Secretary toGovernment Higher Education Deptt.,
Thiruvananthapuram, Kera/a State and Anr. (2000) 5 SCC
B 231: 2000 (2) SCR 1234; Maharashtra v. Sant Dnyaneshwar
Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya and Ors. (2006) 9 SCC 1:
2006 (3) SCR 638 - relied on.
1.4. In the present cases, while the State grants its
C approval, and University its affiliation, for increased intake
of seats or commencement of a new course/college, its
directions should not offend and be repugnant to what
has been laid down in the conditions for approval granted
by the Central authority or Council. What is most
important is that all these authorities have to work ad
D idem as they all have a common object to achieve i.e. of
imparting of education properly and ensuring
maintenance of proper standards of education,
examination and infrastructure for betterment of
educational system. [Para 47) [856-A-C]
E
2.1. The NCTE Act was enacted by the Parliament
with reference to Entry 66 of List I of Schedule VII of the
Constitution. There is no such specific power vested in
the State Legislature under List II of the Seventh
F Schedule. Entry 25 of List Ill of the Seventh Schedule is
the other Entry that provides the field for legislation both
to the State and the Centre, in relation to education,
including technical education, medical education and
Universities; vocational and technical training and labour.
G The field is primarily covered by the Union List and thus,
the State can exercise any legislative power under Entry
25, List Ill but such law cannot be repugnant to the
Central law. Wherever the State law is irreconcilable with
the Central law, the State Law must give way in favour
H of the Central law to the extent of repugnancy. This will
MAA VAISHNO DEVI MAHILA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. 815
STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
show the supremacy of the Central law in relation to A
professional education, including the teacher training
programmes. [Para 48) (856-0-G]
Dr. Preeti Srivastava and Anr. v. State of Madhya
Pradesh and Ors. (1999) 7 SCC 120: 1999 (1) Suppl. SCR B
249 - followed.
Medical Council of India v. State of Kamataka (1998) 6
SCC 131: 1998 (3) SCR 740; S. Satyapal Reddy v.
Government of A.P. (1994) 4 SCC 391; Jaya Goku/
Educational Trust v. Commissioner and Secretary to C
Government Higher Education Deptt., Thiruvananthapuram,
Kera/a State and Anr. (2000) 5 SCC 231: 2000 (2) SCR
1234; State of Tamil Nadu and Anr. v. Adhiyaman
Educational and Research Institute and Ors. (1995) 4 SCC
104: 1995 (2) SCR 1075; Maharashtra v. Sant Dnyaneshwar D
Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya and Ors. (2006) 9 SCC 1:
2006 (3) SCR 638; Engineering Kamgar Union v. Electro
Steels Castings Ltd.and Anr. (2004) 6 SCC 36: 2004 (1)
Suppl. SCR 301- relied on.
E
2.2. Wherever the field is covered by the
Parliamentary law in terms of List I and List Ill, the law
made by the State Legislature would, to the extent of
repugnancy, be void. Of course, there has to be a direct
conflict between the laws. The direct conflict is not
necessarily to be restricted to the obedience of one F
resulting in disobedience of other but even where the
result of one would be in conflict with the other. It is
difficult to state any one principle that would uniformly
be applicable to all cases of repugnancy. It will have to
be seen in the facts of each case while keeping in mind G
the laws which are in conflict with each other. Where the
field is occupied by the Centre, subject to the exceptions
stated in Article 254, the State law would be void. [Para
53) (863-G-H; 864-A-B]
H
816 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 13 S.C.R.
A 2.3. In the present case, the provisions of the NCTE
Act is a Central legislation referable to Entry 66 of List I
of the Seventh Schedule. Thus, no law enacted by the
State, which is in conflict with the Central Law, can be
permitted to be operative. [Para 54] [864-C]
B
2.4. There is a possibility of some conflict between a
University Act or Ordinance relating to affiliation with the
provisions of the Central Act. In such cases, after coming
into operation of the Central Act, the operation of the
University Act would be deemed to have become
C unenforceable in case of technical colleges. The .·
provisions of the Universities Act regarding affiliation of
technical colleges and conditions for grant of
continuation of such affiliation by university would
remain operative but the conditions that are prescribed
D by the university for grant and continuation of affiliation
must be in conformity with the norms and guidelines
prescribed by the NCTE. [Para 56) [864-F-H; 865-A]
2.5. Under Section 14 and particularly in terms of
E Section 14(3)(a) of the Act, the NCTE is required to grant
or refuse recognition to an institute. It has been
empowered to impose such conditions as it may
consider fit and proper keeping in view the legislative
intent and object in mind. In terms of Section 14(6) of the
F Act, the examining body shall grant affiliation to the
institute where recognition has been granted. Granting
recognition is the basic requirement for grant of affiliation.
It cannot be said that affiliation is insignificant or a mere
formality on the part of the examining body. It is the
G requirement of law that affiliation should be granted by
the affiliating body in accordance with the prescribed
procedure and upon proper application of mind.
Recognition and affiliation are expressions of distinct
meaning and consequences. The purpose of recognition
and affiliation is different. In the context of the Act,
H
MM VAISHNO DEVI MAHILA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. 817
STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
affiliation enables and permits an institution to send its A
students to participate in public examinations conducted
by the examining body and secure the qualification in the
nature of degrees, diploma and certificates. On the other
hand, recognition is the licence to the institution to offer
a course or training in teaching education. The affiliating B
body/examining body does not have any discretion to
refuse affiliation with reference to any of the factors which
have been considered by the NCTE while granting
recognition. [Para 57] (865-B-G]
Chairman, Bhartia Education Society v. State of C
Himachal Pradesh and Ors. (2011) 4 SCC 527: 2011 (2)
SCR 461 - relied on.
2.6. Once the affiliating body acts within the
fundamentals of Section 14 of the Act, possibility of a D
conflict can always be avoided. The fields which are
sought to be covered under the provisions of Section 37
of the Universities Act and the Statutes of various
universities are clearly common to the aspects which are
squarely covered by the specific language under the Act. E
That being so, all State laws in regard to affiliation in so
far as they are covered by the Act must give way to the
operation of the provisions of the Act. The requirements
which have been examined and the conditions which
have been imposed by the NCTE shall prevail and cannot F
be altered, re-examined or infringed under the garb of the
State Law. The affiliating/examining body and the State
Government must abide by the proficiency and command
of the NCTE's directions. Existence of building, library,
qualified staff, financial stability of the institution, G
accommodation, etc. are the subjects which are
specifically covered under Section 14(3)(b) of the Act.
Thus, they would not be open to re-examination by the
State and the University. If the recognition itself was
conditional and those conditions have not been satisfied,
in such circumstances, within the ambit and scope of H
818 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 13 S.C.R.
A Sections 46 and 16 of the Act, the affiliating body may not
give affiliation and inform the NCTE forthwith of the
shortcomings and non-compliance of the conditions. In
such situation, both the Central and the State body
should a.ct in tandem and, with due coordination, come
B to a final conclusion as to the steps which are required
to be taken in regard to both recognition and affiliation.
But certainly, the State Government and the University
cannot act in derogation to the NCTE. [Paras 59 and 61]
(866·0; 867-G-H; 868·A·E]
c St. John Teachers Training Institute v. Regional Director,
National Council for Teacher Education (2003) 3 SCC 321:
2003 (1) SCR 975 • relied on.
2.7. The State opinion, as contemplated under
D Section 37 of the University Act, to the extent it admits to
overreach, is reconcilable and its results are not in its
orientation to the directives of the NCTE are void and
inoperative to the extent they can be resolved in which
case clear precedence is to be given to the directives of
E the NCTE during such resolution. The opinion of the
State, therefore, has to be read and construed to mean
that it would keep the factors determined by the NCTE
intact and then examine the matter for grant of affiliation.
The role of the State Government is minimised at this
F stage which, in fact, is a second stage. It should primarily
be for the University to determine the grant or refusal of
affiliation and role of the State should be bare, minimum
non-interfering and non-infringing. [Para 62] (868-F-H;
869-A]
G 2.8. Once it grants recognition, then such grant
attains supremacy viz-a-viz the State Government as well
as the affiliating body. Normally, these questions cannot
be re-agitated at the time of grant of affiliation. Once the
University conducts inspection in terms of its Statutes or
H Act, without offending the provisions of the Act and
MAA VAISHNO DEVI MAHILA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. 819
STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
conditions of recognition, then the opinion of the State A
Government at the second stage is a mere formality
unless there was a drastic and unacceptable mistake or
the entire process was vitiated by fraud or there was
patently eminent danger to life of the students working
in the school because of non-compliance of a B
substantive condition imposed by either of the bodies. In
the normal circumstances, the role of the State is a very
formal one and the State is not expected to obstruct the
commencement of admission process and academic
courses once recognition is granted and affiliation is c
found to be acceptable. [Para 63] [869-D-G]
2.9. The exercise of discretion by the State
Government and affiliating body has to be within the
framework of the Act, the Regulations and conditions of
recognition. The Court stated that the State Government D
or the Union Territory has to necessarily confine itself to
the guidelines issued by the NCTE while considering
application for grant of 'No Objection Certificate'.
Minimization of the role of the State at the second stage
can also be justified on the ground that affiliation primarily E
is a subject matter of the University which is responsible
for admission of the students laying down the criteria
thereof, holding of examinations and implementation of
the prescribed courses while maintaining the standards
of education as prescribed. [Para 64] [870-A-D] F
St. John Teachers Training Institute v. Regional Director,
National Council for Teacher Education (2003) 3 sec 321:
2003 (1) SCR 975 - relied on.
Maharashtra v. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra G
Mahavidyalaya and Ors. (2006) 9 SCC 1; Bhartia Education
Society v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. (2011) 4 sec
527: 2011 (2) SCR 461 - referred to.
3.1. Once the relevant Schedules have been H
820 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 13 S.C.R.
A prescribed under the Regulations or under the Judge
made law, none, whosoever it be, is entitled to carve out
exceptions to the prescribed Schedule. Adherence to the
Schedule is the essence of granting admission in a fair
and transparent manner as well as to maintain the
B standards of education. The purpose of providing a time
schedule is to ensure that all concerned authorities act
within the stipulated time. The prescribed schedules
under the Regulations and the judgments must be strictly
adhered to without exceptions. None in the hierarchy of
c the State Government, University, NCTE or any other
authority or body involved in this process can breach the
Schedule for any direct or indirect reason. Anybody who
is found to be defaulting in this behalf is bound to render
himself or herself liable for initiation of proceedings under
the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 as well
0
as for a disciplinary action in accordance with the orders
of the Court. Adherence to Schedule achieves the object
of the Act and its various aspects. Disobedience results
, in unfair admissions, not commencing the courses within
the stipulated time and causing serious prejudice to the
E students of higher merit resulting in defeating the rule of
merit. [Paras 65, 66 and 67] [870-E-F; 871-A-C, F]
3.2. The Court adopts and reiterates the Schedule
stated by this Court in the case of *College of
F Professional Education in relation to admission as well
as recognition and affiliation. The process for grant of
recognition, affiliation and thereby sanctioning of
commencement of the courses in terms of the
Regulations and the orders of this Court gives an outer
G period of approximately 270 days, i.e. 9 months, from 1st
September to 10th May of the year immediately preceding
the concerned academic year. Thus, for the entire
process to be within this framework, it must be completed
within the afore-stated period. The process inter alia
H includes various steps including comments of the State,
MAA VAISHNO DEVI MAHILA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. 821
STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
inspection of the institution and compliance of the A
various conditions afore-noted in the order of recognition
and affiliation by the affiliating body. [Paras 68 and 69]
[871-G; 872-A-C]
3.3. There appear to be some over-lapping periods 8
and even contradictions between the dates and periods
stated under the regulations inter se and even with
reference to the judgments of this Court prescribing the
Schedule. For example in terms of the judgment of this
Court in the case of *College of Professional Education
the last date for grant of affiliation is 10th May of the C
concerned year, but as per Regulation 5.5 of the NCTE
. Regulations, 2009, the last date for grant of recognition is
15th May of the relevant year. Similarly, there is an overlap
between the period specified in Regulation 7.1 and that
under Regulation 7.2. Such overlapping is likely to cause D
some confusion in the mind of the implementing authority
as well as the applicant. Thus, it is necessary for this
Court to put to rest these avoidable events and
unnecessary controversies. Compelled with these
circumstances and to ensure that there exists no E
ambiguity, uncertainty and confusion, the Court directs
and prescribes· a fresh schedule upon a cumulative
reading of the Regulations and judgments of this Court in
relation to recognition and affiliation. [Para 70] [872-0-H]
F
3.4. The schedule stated in the case of *College of
Professional Education and in this judgment in relation
to admissions, recognition, affiliation and
commencement of courses shall be strictly adhered to by
all concerned including the NCTE, the State Government G
and the University/examining body. In the event of
disobedience of schedule and/or any attempt to
overreach or circumvent the judgment of this Court and
the directions contained herein, the concerned person
shall render himself or herself liable for proceedings
H
822 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 13 S.C.R.
A under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and even for
departmental disciplinary action in accordance with law.
[Para 74] [878-F-H; 879-A]
3.5. The NCTE/ State Government/ Examining or
affiliating body are directed to consider the applications
8
and pass appropriate orders granting or refusing to grant
recognition/affiliation to the petitioner institutions within
three months from the date of the judgment. If the
institutions are aggrieved from the order passed by the
C authorities in terms of clause 'C', they will be at liberty to
challenge the same in accordance with law. The NCTE
shall circulate the copy of this judgment to all Regional
Committees, concerned State Governments and all
affiliating bodies and also put the some on its website for
information of all stakeholders and public at large. [Para
D 74] [879-B-D]
*College of Professional Education and Ors. vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh (2013) SCC 721 - relied on.
E 4.1. There is no fault with the view taken by the
authorities concerned in rejecting the application or not
granting application for affiliation on the ground that there
was a cut-off date and/or the conditions of
recommendation/affiliation had not been satisfied. 10th of
May has been provided as the cut-off date, after which
F no affiliation for the current academic year would be
granted. This, being the law stated by this Court, is
binding on all concerned, including any authority. The
authorities have rightly acted in declining to entertain and/
or refusing affiliation to the institutions being beyond the
G cut-off date. Adherence to the schedule was the
obligation of the authorities and the institutions cannot
raise any grievance in that regard. The said time
schedule must become operative in all respects and
nobody should be permitted to carve exceptions to this
H mandatory direction. [Para 71] [876-A-D]
MAA VAISHNO DEVI MAHILA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. 823
STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
4.2. The plea has been taken by the respondents A
University/State that conditions of affiliation have not
been satisfied. It is not for this Court to examine the
compliance or breach of conditions and their extent in the
special leave petitions or writ petitions as the case may
be. The disputes are of very serious nature. They will B
squarely fall beyond the ambit of appellate or writ
jurisdiction by this Court. This is for the specialised
bodies to examine the matters upon physical verification
and to proceed with the application of the institute in
accordance with law. [Para 72] [876-D-E, G~H; 877 ·A] c
4.3. Vide order dated 26th July, 2012 a stay in regard
to counseling and admission was granted by this Court.
However, the stay was vacated by order dated 27th
September, 2012. In furtherance to the above order, the
admissions had been granted in the recognised and D
affiliated institutes. The interim order dated 27th
September, 2012 is made absolute. In the colleges which
were neither recognised nor affiliated, whether or not
included in the list of counseling, no admissions were
given to the students. The petitioner/appellant colleges E
fall in that category. No relief can be granted to them in
the present writ petitions and appeals except issuance of
certain directions. [Paras 73 and 74] [877-A-B; 878-D-E]
Case Law Reference: F
1995 (2) SCR 1075 Relied on Para 43, 51
2000 (2) SCR 1234 Relied on Para 45, 51
2006 (3) SCR 638 Relied on Para 46, 52,
56, 64 G
1998 (3) SCR 740 Relied on Para 48
1999 (1) Suppl. SCR 249 Followed Para 49
(1994) 4 sec 391 Relied on Para 50 H
824 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2012] 13 S.C.R.
A 2004 (1) Suppl. SCR 301 Relied on Para 52
2003 (1) SCR 975 Relied on Para 59
(2013) Vol. 2 sec 121 Relied on Para 70, 74
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
B
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
W.P (C) No. 276 of 2012
WITH
c C.A. No. 9064/2012, 9065/2012, 9066/2012, 9067/2012,
9068/2012, 9069/2012, 9070/2012, 9071/2012, 9072/2012,
9073/2012, 9074/2012, 9075/2012, 9076/2012, 9078/2012,
9077/2012, 9062/2012, 9063/2012 W.P (C) No. 296 of 2012,
306 of 2012, 307 of 2012, 329 of 2012, 354 of 2012, 345 .of
0 2012, 346 of 2012, 347 of 2012, 349 of 2012, 350 of 2012,
354 of 2012, 395 of 2012, 389 of 2012, 397 of 2012.
Krishnan Venugopal, Jayant Bhushan, S.R. Singh, P.N.
Mishra, Pramod Swarup, Pooja Dhar, Udai U.S. Rathore,
E Gaurav Agrawal, Rajesh Srivastava, Meenesh Dubey, D.P.
Pande, S.R. Setia, Raghvendra Singh, Sanjay Sharawat, Aditya
Kant Sharma, Ritesh Agarwal, Aneesh Mittal, Rita Chaudhary, ·
Madhur Jain, Sunil Kumar Jain, D.N. Dubey, Avnish Singh,
Ujjawal Pandey, Sushant K. Yadav, Yash Pal Dhingra,
F Satyendra Kumar, Sunita Bhardwaj, Bijendra Singh, Shail
Kumar Dwivedi, Siddharth Krishna Dwivedi, C.D. Singh,
Ayesha Chaudhary, Amitesh Kumar, Ravi Kant, Gopal Singh,
Ameet Singh, Pareena Swarup, Sushma Verma, Mukul Singh,
Praveen Swarup and Vishwajit Singh for the appearing parties.
G The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SWATANTER KUMAR, J. 1. Leave granted in all the
Special Leave Petitions.
2. In the case of College of Professional Education and
H
MAA VAISHNO DEVI MAHILA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. 825
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [Civil Appeal No.5914 of A
2011 decided on 22nd July, 2011], this Court recorded that for
the academic year 2012-2013 and subsequent academic
years, the institutions and the State Government have arrived
at a broad consensus regarding the procedure and terms and
conditions of admission, recognition and affiliation. The terms B
and conditions which have been agreed and had received the
approval of the court were noticed in great detail in that
judgment. For the academic year 2012-2013 and subsequent
years, the following schedule for admission was provided :
1. Publication of Advertisement 01.02.2011 c
2. Sale of Application Forms and their 10.02.2012 to
submission 10.03.2012
3. Date of Entrance Examination 20.04.2012 to
25.04.2012 D
4. Declaration of Result 25.05.2012 to
30.05.2012
5. Commencement and completion of 01.06.2012 to
counseling 25.06.2012 E
6. Last Date of Admissions after 28.06.2012
counselinQ
7. Commencement of Academic 01.07.2012
Session
F
3. The Court further directed that for the academic year,
there would be only one counseling. It was to continue for a
period of 25 days and was to be conducted as per the
directions contained in the judgment. Having provided for the
various facets in relation to the manner, procedure and G
methodology to be adopted for admissions, the court also
provided for the time by which affiliation should be granted to
the colleges for the relevant academic year. Clause Vl(b) of the
judgment which has bearing upon the matters in issue before
us reads as under:- H
826 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2012) 13 S.C.R.
A "(b) After the counseling is over, the concerned University
will continue to allot the candidates from the above
mentioned waiting list against the vacant seats till all the
seats in the colleges are filled up. It is further submitted
that the organizing university will provide students only to
B the existing B.Ed. College and all those B.Ed. Colleges
which will get affiliation upto dated 07.07.2011 will not be
considered for counseling to the year 2011-12 and for the
next consecutive years and onward the colleges which will
be get affiliated on or before.10th of May of that year,
c would be considered for counseling."
4. As is clear, the Court had fixed a cut-off date for
affiliation. The colleges which were affiliated upto 7th July, 2011
only were permitted to participate in the counseling for the
academic year 2011-2012. For the next consecutive academic
D years, the colleges which were permitted to participate in the
counseling were the ones' which received affiliation on or before
10th May of that year. In other words, the colleges which did
not receive affiliation by the said cut-off date were not to be
included in the counseling.
E 5. Some of the colleges in the State of Uttar Pradesh which
had not received affiliation filed writ petitions challenging the
order of the universities declining grant of affiliation to them.
These writ petitions came to be dismissed by different
judgments of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,
F Lucknow Bench, inter alia, but primarily on the ground that the
court had no jurisdiction to extend the cut-off date as provided
in the judgment of this Court in the case of College of
Professional Education (supra).
G 6. In 17 special leave petitions, different petitioners have
challenged the judgments of the concerned High Court before
this Court. The petitioners in 15 writ petitions have approached
this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
challenging the order of the university/authorities declining to
grant affiliation again in view of the cut-off date fixed by this
H Court.
MAA VAISHNO DEVI MAHILA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. 827
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
7. These writ petitions and appeals have raised common A
questions of law on somewhat different facts. Thus, we
propose to dispose of these writ petitions and appeals by this
common judgment. Before we dwell upon the real controversy
arising for consideration of the Court in the present case, it will
be necessary for the court to refer to the facts in some of the B
writ petitions/appeals.
Facts
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 276 of 2012
8. It is the case of the petitioner that Maa Vaishno Devi C
Shiksha Samiti, a society registered under the provisions of the
Societies Registration Act, 1860 had been imparting education
in various disciplines as main object. In furtherance to its
stated objects, the society opened Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila
Mahavidyalaya (for short, the "College") to conduct courses in D
education (B.A., B.Ed.) in the year 2007. Initially, the college
started with B.A. course and was granted affiliation by Dr. Ram
Manohar Lohia Avadh University (for short, the 'University') in
accordance with law. Thereafter, the college intended to
conduct B.Ed course for which it applied for grant of affiliation E
and recognition. to the respective authorities. On 24th
September, 2010, the National Council for Teacher Education
(for short "NCTE") granted recognition to the petitioner college
for conducting B.Ed. courses of secondary level of one year with
annual intake for 100 students from the academic session
F
2010-2011.
9. In furtherance to the request of the College, the
University conducted inspection of the College and thereupon
recommended its case to the State Government. On 6th July,
2011 the State Government granted permission to accord G .
temporary affiliation to the petitioner to run B.Ed classes for
one year on self-finance basis for the academic year 2011-
2012. Subsequently, on 22nd July, 2011, as already noticed,
the judgment of this Court came to be passed in the case of
College of Professional Education and Ors. (supra) fixing the H
828 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 13 S.C.R.
A time schedule for grant of affiliation. A strict timeline was laid
down for application, examination, counseling and admissions
with the academic session to begin on 1st July, 2012.
10. Para VI of the judgment dated 22nd July, 2011 does
have an element of ambiguity. While noticing the submissions
B and passing appropriate directions, the court noticed "it is
further submitted that the organizing university will provide
students only to the existing B.Ed. College and all those B.Ed.
colleges which will get affiliation dated 7th July, 2011 will not
be considered for counseling to the year 2011-12 and for the
C next consecutive year and onward, the colleges which will get
affiliated on or before 10th of May of that year would be
considered for counseling ..... ". It is obvious that there is
something amiss prior to the words 'will not' appearing
immediately after the date of 7th July, 2011. Obviously, what
D the court meant was that the colleges which are affiliated or
which will get affiliation upto 7th July, 2011 are the colleges to
which the organizing university will provide students, but other
colleges which get affiliation after 7th July, 2011 will not be
considered for counseling for the year 2011-2012.
E Furthermore, for subsequent academic years, the colleges to
which the students will be provided would be the colleges which
attain affiliation by 10th May of that year. That is the spirit of
the directions. Thus, we must read and construe the judgment
ifl that fashion.
F 11. Reverting to the facts of the present case, the University
granted temporary affiliation to the college for the academic
year 2011-12 on 27th August, 2011 with intake capacity of 100
seats. The petitioner college claims that it had got permanent
recognition from NCTE for B.Ed. courses. In face of this, the
G name of the petitioner college was inducted in the list of
colleges for which the counselling was held by the organizing
university for the academic year 2011-12. Since the petitioner
college had received temporary affiliation for B.Ed. classes
only for one year, it again approached the University and the
H State Government for grant of permanent affiliation for the
MM VAISHNO DEVI MAHILA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. 829
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
subsequent academic years and completed all the formalities A
as well as requested the authorities to constitute an Inspection
Team as required under the law. In the meanwhile, the
Department of Higher Education, State of Uttar Pradesh,
issued an office order dated 11th January, 2012 vide which the
time schedule for seeking affiliation as directed by the court B
was fixed. The last date for submission of proposal to the
concerned university was 10th March, 2012. The proposal
received was to be forwarded to the Government by the
University latest by 25th March, 2012 and the State
Government was required to grant approval by 10th April, 2012. c
This date of 10th April, 2012, in fact, stood extended upto 10th
May, 2012, the date fixed by this Court. The University
constituted a three member team to inspect the college which
submitted its report on 26th February, 2012. The Report is
stated to have been submitted finding that the petitioner was D
possessed of adequate building, infrastructure and funds for
running the B.Ed. course and recommended permanent
affiliation. It is the case of the petitioner that all relevant
documents and fees for grant of permanent affiliation were
submitted to the University on 5th March, 2012, i.e., five days E
prior to the last date for submission of proposal. The
University took lot of time and finally on 10th April, 2012, it
informed the petitioner that some more documents were
required to be submitted. The petitioner submitted the required
documents on 11th April, 2012. This application was
forwarded by the University to the State Government only on F
20th April, 2012 along with approval in Form 'A'. For the
academic year 2012-13, the organizing university had held the
Joint Entrance Test for all UP colleges on 23rd April, 2012. The
result of the same was declared and admission and counseling
sessions were scheduled to be held between 7th June, 2012 G
to 22nd June, 2012. The petitioner college seriously
apprehended that it may not be able to participate in the
counseling for the academic year 2012-2013 because of the
delay caused by the University and the State Government,
particularly keeping in view the cut-off date of 10th May, fixed H
830 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 13 S.C.R.
A . by the Court. Consequently, the petitioner along with others
filed writ petition being Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2417(M/S) of
2012 in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow
Bench. This Writ Petition came to be disposed of by the order
of the Court dated 9th May, 2012. The Court, while noticing
B the directions of this Court as contained in its order dated 22nd
July, 2011, directed the respondents to consider petitioner's
case on the basis of their eligibility as required for affiliation
and take decision while expressing the hope that the State
would do its best in the matter. The petitioner has contended
c that though a number of deficiencies were noticed in the other
colleges, yet most of the colleges were granted conditional
permission for affiliation giving time to remove the deficiencies
pointed out in the order. Unlike other colleges, the State
Government vide its Order dated 10th May, 2012, had rejected
the application of the petitioner and pointed out various
0
deficiencies. The relevant part of the order reads as under:-
"(3) In the sequence of the said orders of the Hon'ble High
Court, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow, after the last date i.e.
25.03.2012 prescribed by the Government, the proposals
E for affiliation for B.Ed. course of the referred university were
considered. After due consideration, in the impugned
affiliation proposal the following discrepancies have been
found:-
1. For granting of affiliation, on the University level
F the certificate of the committee organized has not
been received.
2. The inspection report of the inspection board
and the details of the area of classes in the letter
of the University have not been mentioned.
G
3. The boundary walls of the university are not
plastered and the photograph of the boundary walls
of only one side has been received and on the
second floor of the university construction work is
H partly going on. In front of the rooms of the second
MAA VAISHNO DEVI MAHILA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. 831
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
floor railings have not been constructed due to A
which a serious accident is possible.
4. The result of B.Ed. has not been received. The
University with the deficiency of the result of
examination has made conditional
recommendation on the Format-A. B
5. In relation to not being charged with group
cheating/copying the educational session in the
report of the controller of examination is not clear.
6. The fire extinguishing certificate has been issued c
on 15.02.2009. The certificate till date has not
been received.
7. The NBC has been signed by the Additional
Engineer/Superintending Engineer but the letter
umber and date is not mentioned. D
8. The details of payment of monthly salary from the
bank to the teachers are not received. The record
of the months of December 2011 and January and
February 2012 has been made available.
E
(4) Therefore, in view of the abovementioned
discrepancies the State Government under section 37(2)
of the U.P. State University Act, 1973 (as amended by the
U.P. State University Amendment Act, 2007) at Graduation
level has for Maa Vaishno Devi Women University,
Siyaram Nagar, Devrakot, Faizabad under the Education F
system has not found it eligible for a prior permission of
affiliation for B.Ed. course with a capacity of 100 seats
since under the autonomous scheme from educational
session 2012-2013. In sequence of it the writ petition no.
2417(M/S)/2012 and in others also which are in question, G
in compliance to the order dated 09.05.2012 of the Hon'ble
High Court the application of Sh. Chedi Lal Verma,
Manager, Maa Vaishno Devi Women University, Siyaram
Nagar, Devrakot, Faizabad dated 09.05.2012 is
accordingly dismissed." H
832 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 13 S.C.R.
A 12. The petitioner has submitted that it removed the
objections as pointed out in the said letter and informed the
authorities on 18th May, 2012. On the same very date, the
petitioner made a representation to the State Government
stating that objections had been removed and the case of the
B petitioner may be considered for affiliation. No response was
received to the said representation. Being left with no other
option, the petitioner filed another writ petition being WP (M/
S) No.3499 of 2011 before the same court praying inter alia
that the order dated 10th May, 2012 passed by the State
C Government be quashed, for issuance of a direction requiring
respondent No. 2 to include the petitioner college in the
counseling for B.Ed. course for the academic year 2012-13
and for direction that the petitioner college be deemed to have
received affiliation, temporarily at least. This writ petition was
finally disposed of by a Bench of that Court vide its order dated
0
13th June, 2012. The relevant part of the order reads as under:-
"The arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner
in view of the recommendations of the University appears
to be correct. Accordingly, the order dated 10.5.2012
E contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition is hereby set
aside. The matter is remitted back to the State
Government to decide it afresh in the light of the
recommendations of the University and the letter of the
institution contained at page 50 subject to their information
F available on record and the State Government shall take
a decision, expeditiously, say within a period of ten days'
from the date a certified copy of this order is produced
before it.
Subject to above, the writ petition is finally disposed of."
G 13. As is clear from the above direction, the matter was
remitted to the State Government. The order dated 10th May,
2012 was set aside and the State Government was directed
to consider the case afresh. This was primarily on the basis
that according to the petitioner, the University had
H recommended the case and had forwarded its approval in Form
MM VAISHNO DEVI MAHILA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. 833
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
A showing no deficiencies. The State Government, without A
any inspection, had rejected the request for affiliation and other
colleges had been given temporary affiliation.
14. On the very next day i.e. on 14th June, 2012, the
petitioner again made a representation to the State Government
to consider its case in accordance with the directions of the 8
Court in the order dated 13th June, 2012. Again, vide order
dated 21st June, 2012, the State Government rejected the
application of the petitioner. The State Government referred
to the schedule for counseling as well as for grant of affiliation
in terms of the order of this Court dated 22nd July, 2011. The C
State Government referred to the Schedule for counseling as
well as for grant of affiliation in terms of order dated 22nd
November, 2011. It rejected the application being beyond the
cut-off date of 10th May. It also mentioned in paragraphs VI of
the said order that certain compliances had not been done till D
that date by the college and again eight defects of non-
compliance were pointed out in the said order.
15. The petitioner claims to have been seriously prejudiced
by the order dated 21st June, 2012 as it was denied the chance
to participate in the counseling process for the academic year E
2012-2013 onwards.
16. To the averred facts there is not much controversy.
Primarily, the respondents have raised two pleas (i) firstly that
the deficiencies had not been removed in their entirety and
F
secondly that the cut-off date fixed by this Court by its order
dated 22nd July, 2011 does not permit the State to grant
affiliation to the petitioner college for the current academic year.
SLP (C) No.21695 of 2012
17. The petitioner is a private unaided institution run by a G
registered society namely Aman Educational and Welfare
Society. The Society started the Aman Institution of Education
and Management (for short the "College") and had applied for
grant of recognition for running the B.Ed. course. The college
was inspected and recognition was granted by the NCTE on H
834 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 13 S.C.R.
A 30th September, 2008. The State Government had granted
affiliation subject to fulfillment of conditions stated therein, which
amongst others contained a stipulation that admission of the
students shall be made only after affiliation by the examining
body before the commencement of the academic session and
B admission shall be completed well before the cut-off date. For
the academic year 2009-2010, the University conducted the
inspection on 12th March, 2011 and forwarded its
recommendation for grant of permanent affiliation. Similar
recommendations were also made on 7th July, 2011 for the
c academic year 2011-2012. The State Government, in view of
these recommendations granted permission for temporary
affiliation for one year with effect from 1st July, 2011 for the
academic year 2011-2012. The students were also provided
to the college against the sanctioned 100 seats for that
0 academic year. The petitioner college had applied for
extension of affiliation for the academic session 2012-2013 and
the University had sent its recommendations to the State
Government vide its letter dated 3rd December, 2011. Vide
letter dated 9th April, 2012, respondent No. 1 had brought out
E certain deficiencies. On 13th April, 2012, the petitioner
submitted necessary documents. However, again certain
deficiencies were pointed out by the State Government vide its
letter dated 18th April, 2012. The petitioner claims to have
removed these deficiencies and intimated respondent No. 1
vide its letter dated 20th April, 2012. Thereafter the University
F had sent its recommendations vide letter dated 9th May, 2012.
According to the petitioner, thereafter the State Government did
not point out any substantive deficiencies and, in fact, no
deficiencies. According to them, though there were no
deficiencies, the State Government vide its letter dated 9th May,
G 2012 refused to grant affiliation to the petitioner and pointed
out certain deficiencies and informed that the institution was not
found fit for grant of affiliation for 100 seats. The petitioner
had challenged this order of the State Government before the
High Court. It was the case of the petitioner that there were no
H shortcomings or deficiencies in the Institute. Furthermore,
MAA VAISHNO DEVI MAHILA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. 835
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.)
number of other similarly placed institutions had been granted A
permission/affiliation and had been given time to remove the
deficiencies. Thus, the order of the respondent was arbitrary.
18. It may be noticed that apprehending its exclusion from
the counseling, the petitioner had filed a writ petition being Writ
Petition (M/S) No.2572 of 2012 before the High Court pf B
Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in which vide its order
dated 28th May, 2012, the Court had directed the respondent
authorities to consider the case of the petitioner college afresh.
In this order, the court had also noticed "the court finds that all
shortcomings as pointed out by the State Government stand C
removed. Therefore, in these circumstances, it is provided that
the State Government may take a fresh decision in light of the
present facts and additional evidence which had been brought
on record by the petitioner and pass fresh orders in
accordance with law, within a period of ten days." In D
furtherance to the order of the High Court, the State Government
still persisted with the fact that there were deficiencies in the
infrastructure and other requirements of the petitioner college
and while noticing the deficiencies which were still persisting,
the State Government vide letter dated 11th June, 2012 rejected E
the application for grant of affiliation. The following deficiencies
were noticed:-
"1. Lasted inspection report was Deficiency is still exists
not found there.
F
2. Certificate from the Bank for Certificate of payment
the payment to teachers and of was not provided
details of payment to the with the representation
remaining teachers
3. Affidavits and Agreement of Deficiency is still exists. G
the proposed teachers for
the year 2008-2009 not
provided and for the years
2012-2013
H
836 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 13 S.C.R.
A 4. Appointment letters of Deficiency is still exists.
proposal teachers are not
provided
5. C.A. Balance Sheet for one Balance sheet of CA is
Year only provided
B
6. Fire fighting certificate is not Deficiency is still exists
mentioned
7. Certificate from NCB or Deficiency is still exists
equivalent officer (Executive
c Engineer)
8. Affidavit of manager on Deficiency is still exists
stamp paper of Rs. 50/- is
not mentioned
D xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
10. In respect B.Ed. Education course in the Special
Leave Petition bearing no. 13040/2010, titled College of
professional Education and ors vs. UP State and others,
Vide order dt. 22.7.2011 passed by the Hon'ble High Court
E in the said petition for fixing the time table to the concerned
and fixed last date for permission 10.5.2012, and after
expiry of the aforesaid all the deficiency have to be fulfilled,
otherwise it shall be contempt of the Court.
Therefore in the precept the petitioner Institute, there is no
F occasion to provide a chance, if the proposal of the
petitioner university proposed for the year 2013-14 the
same can be considered accordingly, therefore the
representation of the petitioner dt. 30.5.2012.
G Therefore, the orders in the Writ Petition no. 2972 (MS)
2012 of the petitioner, Aman Institute of Management and
education, Duhai, Ghaziabad, Vs. UP State, In
compliance of order dated 28.5.2012 is being sent."
19. The petitioner challenged the legality and correctness
H
MAA VAISHNO DEVI MAHILA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. 837
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
of the order dated 11th June, 2012 before the High Court in A
Writ Petition (MIS) No. 3607 of 2012. The High Court
dismissed the writ petition but made certain observations which
were in favour of the petitioner. The operative part of the order
reads as under:-
"Assuming that the petitioner is qualified to be affiliated, B
even then petitioner cannot be granted any indulgence on
account of cut-off date fixed by the apex court i.e.
10.5.2012. This Court does not have any power to
reschedule the time schedule fixed by the apex court. The
petitioner, if is aggrieved by the said cut-off date, is at C
liberty to approach the apex court for clarification and
further orders, so that they are able to convince the apex
court regarding their rightful claim.
In the present case, the Court feels that there is no
0
shortcoming in the petitioner-institution at the moment and
the State Government has acted unmindfully, but it has to
be looked into at this juncture whether the cut-off date can
be by-passed. No such direction is possible at the hands
of this 3 Court and, therefore, any direction in favour of the
petitioner will amount to violating the orders passed by the E
apex court.
The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the
opposite parties themselves have not followed the time
schedule as fixed by the apex court can be looked into and F
can be gone into by the apex court. But this Court feels
that no such direction for allocation of students can be
issued in favour of the petitioner at this juncture.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
20. Aggrieved from the said judgment, the college has filed G
the appeal by way of special leave.
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 350 of 2012
21. This petition has been filed under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India by three petitioner colleges which are H
838 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 13 S.C.R.
A being run and managed by the Society registered under the
Societies Registration Act, 1860. Vide order dated 24th
January, 2007, the NCTE at its 113th Meeting held on 18th/19th
January, 2007 considered the application moved by the first
petitioner for grant of recognition to run B.Ed. courses in the
B institution and granted the same. However, in its 141st
Meeting, the Northern Regional Committee (for short "NRC")
refused recognition to the first petitioner vide order dated 25th
January, 2010. This order was subsequently modified upon
appeal by the first petitioner, but without any effective relief.
c Being dissatisfied, the first petitioner filed Writ Petition No.
3836 (M/8) of 2010 before the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad. The Court passed order dated 14th May, 2010, in
furtherance to which an inspection was conducted under Section
17 of the NCTE Act, 1993. Thereafter the first petitioner filed
another Writ Petition No. 7248 of 2010 before the same court
0
in which vide order dated 20th April, 2011, the Court took note
of the fact that the NCTE had failed to comply with the direction
of passing final order within one month and directed the
concerned authorities to comply with the order dated 14th May,
E 2010, and required them to explain their conduct. However, in
the meanwhile, this Court passed the order dated 22nd July,
2011 in the case of the College of Professional Education
(supra) fixing 10th May as the cut-off date for grant of affiliation
to colleges for running of courses for the current academic year.
The petitioner colleges Nos. 1 and 2 got affiliation from the Ram
F Manohar Lohiya Avadh University, Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh, in
accordance with the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973
(for short, 'the Universities Act'). Petitioner No.1 college was
accorded affiliation vide order dated 25th August, 2011 for 100
seats in the 8.Ed. course for one year. In furtherance to order
G of the High Court, the petitioner No.1 was asked to furnish
certain details. The response submitted by Petitioner No.1 was
considered by the NRC of the NCTE in its 190th Meeting and
it decided to restore the recognition for 8.Ed. courses with
annual intake of 100 seats in continuation of the previous
H recognition order dated 24th January, 2007. Accordingly, the
MAA VAISHNO DEVI MAHILA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. 839
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
order dated 28th December, 2011, was passed by the NRC A
of the NCTE. Thereafter, the respondent-university, vide its
letter dated 30th April, 2012 recommended to the State
Government for grant of permanent affiliation to petitioner No.
1 to run the B.Ed. courses. For these reasons, the petitioner
No. 1 claimed that it was entitled to be included in the B
Counseling as at that time, they had the recognition as well as ·
the affiliation. Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 were also placed in
similar situation. However, the State Government on
insignificant shortcoming refused the affiliation to petitioner Nos.
2 and 3 vide order dated 10th May, 2011. According to the c
petitioner, certain other colleges similarly placed were granted
affiliation and even included in the list of counseling for the
academic year 2012-2013.
22. The petitioners challenged the non-grant of affiliation
by the State Government to conduct the courses of B.Ed. on D
account of their non-inclusion in the Bulletin for Counseling and
admission to their colleges. The petitioners, thus, are
aggrieved from non-inclusion in counseling process as well as
non-grant of affiliation on account of the cut-off date of 10th May
of the current academic year. E
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 346 of 2012
23. This is also a petition filed under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India. The petitioner is an unaided self-
financing institution run by a registered society named J. Milton
F
Shiksha Samiti. The petitioner college was granted recognition
by the NCTE vide its order dated 14th May, 2008 for
conducting B.Ed. courses for the academic year 2008-2009
whereafter the petitioner obtained affiliation from Dr. Bhimrao
Ambedkar University, U.P., Respondent No.2, for that
academic year and has been conducting the said course till the G
academic year 2011-2012. The respondent No.2-University
granted provisional affiliation to the petitioner for the academic
year 2011-2012 vide letter dated 7th July, 2011, subject to
fulfillment of certain conditions. Vide letter dated 21st
December. 2011, the petitioner informed the University H
840 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 13 S.C.R.
A (respondent No.2) about fulfillment of the conditions as required
by the letter dated 7th July, 2011 and requested the University
to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of extension of
provisional affiliation or grant of permanent affiliation. For the
academic year 2012-2013, respondent No.3-University
B conducted Joint Entrance Test for admission to UP B.Ed.
Colleges on 23rd April, 2012. Counseling was scheduled to
be held from 7th June, 2012 to 22nd June, 2012. As noticed
earlier, this Court had passed the order dated 22nd July, 2011
directing the last date for grant of affiliation as 10th May of the
c concerned academic year. Vide letter dated 13th June, 2012,
respondent No. 2 University had forwarded the affiliation
proposal of the petitioner to the State Government. Although,
the State Government did not pass any written order rejecting
the case of the petitioner, but according to the petitioner, they
were orally informed that their case could not be processed now
0
for the current academic year in view of the order passed by
this Court.
24. The petitioner filed writ petition being Misc. Single
No.4040 of 2012 before the Allahabad High Court. The High
E Court, vide its order dated 25th July, 2012, directed the
respondents to pass fresh order.
25. It is the case of the petitioner that denial of affiliation
and permission to participate in the counseling by the
respondent is on account of the cut-off dates fixed by this Court
F and, therefore, has approached this Court under Article 32 of
the Constitution of India with the above prayers.
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 345 .of 2012
26. Writ Petition (Civil) No.345/2012 and Writ Petition
G (Civil) No. 34 7 of 2012 also has similar facts where the
petitioner-college was granted recognition by the NCTE and
had even been granted affiliation for the academic year 2011-
2012. However, its application for extension of affiliation for the
academic year 2012-2013 or grant of permanent affiliation was
H not decided and subsequently the petitioner was denied
MAA VAISHNO DEVI MAHILA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. 841
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
affiliation and permission to participate in the counseling for the A
current academic year 2012-2013 in view of the cut-off date
fixed by this Court .. In both these writ petitions, the writ
petitioners challenged the action of the respondents, and their
non-inclusion in the list for counseling.
27. It is not necessary for us to note the facts of each case 8
separately as in all other cases the facts are somewhat similar
to either of the writ petitions, the facts of which we have afore-
referred.
28. For regulation and proper maintenance of norms and c
standards in the teacher education system and for all matters
connected therewith, it was considered to establish a Central
National Council for Teacher Education, for which purpose the
Indian Parliament enacted the National Council for Teacher
Education Act, 1993 (for short, the 'Act'). The NCTE was to
0
be established in terms of Section 3 of the Act and was to
consist of the persons specified therein. For the purpose of
the present case, we are required to refer to certain provisions
of the Act. The first relevant provision which can be referred
to is Section 12 of the Act which states the functions that are
to be performed by the NCTE. Section 13 places an obligation E
upon the NCTE to conduct inspection of the Institute in the
prescribed manner. Other very significant provision is Section
14 that deals with the recognition of the Institution offering
course or training in teacher education. One of the important
powers of the NCTE is the power of delegated legislation as F
contained in Section 32 of the Act. We shall deal with these
provisions along with some other relevant provisions in some
detail.
29. Under the Scheme of the Act, in terms of Section 12,
it shall be the duty of the NCTE to take all such steps as it may G
think fit for ensuring planned and coordinated development of
teacher education, as per the Preamble of the Act. It has to
lay down guidelines for compliance by recognized institutions
for starting new courses of training and for providing physical
and instructional facilities, staffing pattern and staff qualification H
842 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 13 S.C.R.
A amongst others, to examine and review periodically the
implementation of the norms, guidelines and standards laid
down by the NCTE and to suitably advise the recognised
institutions and foremost, it must ensure prevention of
commercialization of teacher education. For the purposes of
B ascertaining whether the recognised institutions are functioning
in accordance with the provisions of this Act, the Council may
cause inspection of any such institution to be made by such
person as it may direct and in such manner as may be
prescribed. A complete procedure has been provided under
c Section 13 for conducting inspection of the institution. After
coming into force of the Act, every institution offering or
intending to offer a course or training in teacher education on
or after the appointed day may, for grant of recognition under
the Act, make an application to the Regional Committee
0 concerned in such form and in such manner as may be
determined by the Regulations. Section 14(3)(a) provides the
scope and requirement for establishing such institution. The
recognition may be granted to an institution when it has
adequate financial resources, aceommodation, library, qualified
staff, laboratory and it fulfills such other conditions required for
E proper functioning of the institution for a course or training in
teacher education as may be determined by regulations and
upon such conditions as may be imposed. If an institution does
not satisfy the requirements of Section 14(3)(a), the Council may
pass an order refusing recognition to the institution for reasons
F to be recorded. Such grant and/or refusal has to be published
in the Official Gazette and communicated in writing to the
institution and to the concerned examining body or the State
Government and the Central Government in accordance with
Section 14(4). Section 14(6) will be of some significance once
G we deal with the facts of the present case, as it is a provision
providing interlink between recognition of an institution by the
NCTE, on the one hand and affiliation by the examination body,
on the other. Section 14(6) reads as under:
"14(6) Every examining body shall, on receipt of the order
H
MM VAISHNO DEVI MAHILA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. 843
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
under sub-section (4), - A
(a) grant affiliation to the institution, where recognition has
been granted; or
(b) cancel the affiliation of the institution, where recognition
has been refused." B
30. Linked to this very provision is the provision of Section
16 of the Act that reads as follows :
"16. AFFILIATING BODY TO GRANT AFFILIATION
AFTER RECOGNITION OR PERMISSION BY THE C
COUNCIL
Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the
time being in force, no examining body shall, on or after
the appointed day;--
(a) grant affiliation, whether provisional or D
otherwise, to any institution; or
(b) hold examination, whether provisional or
otherwise, for a course or training conducted by a
recognized 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."
31. The institution which does not comply with the terms F
and conditions imposed or contravenes any terms and
conditions subject to which the recognition was granted, any
regulation, orders made under the Act and/or any provision of
the Act, the NCTE may withdraw recognition of such recognized
institution for reasons to be recorded in writing under Section G
17(1) subject to compliance of the conditions stated therein.
Once the recognition is withdrawn, the following very serious
consequences follow in terms of Section 17(3) of the Act :
1. such institution shall discontinue the course or
H
844 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 13 S.C.R.
A training in teacher education;
2. 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
8 session next following the date of communication
of the said order.
32. Following the date of communication of such order, an
institution which carries on and offers any course of training in
teacher education in terms of Section 17(4), the degree
C obtained from such an institution shall not be treated as valid
qualification for employment under any State Government or the
Central Government, Government University or school, college
or any other Government institution.
o 33. From the reading of the above provisions, it is clear
that the NCTE is expected to perform functions of a very high
order and to ensure maintenance of higher standards of
education in teachers training. Default in compliance of its
orders/directions can result in very serious consequences and,
E in fact, would render the concerned institute ineffective and
inoperative. Where the recognition by the NCTE gives benefits
of wide magnitude to an institute, there the withdrawal of
recognition not only causes impediments in dispensation of
teacher training courses by that institution but the institution is
F obliged to discontinue such courses from the specified time.
34. Section 16 opens with a non obstante language and
has an overriding effect over all other laws for the time being
in force. It requires that unless the institution concerned has
obtained recognition from the Regional Committee concerned,
G no examining body 'shall', on or after the appointed day, grant
affiliation, whether provisional or otherwise, or even hold
examination, whether provisional or otherwise, for the courses
in the teacher training programme. On the other hand, Section
17(3) also uses the expression 'shall' thereby making it
H mandatory for the University or the examining body to cancel
MAA VAISHNO DEVI MAHILA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. 845
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.)
affiliation of the institution in accordance with the order passed A
by the NCTE withdrawing the recognition of the Institution.
These provisions convey the significant, vital and overriding
effect of this Act in comparison to other laws in force.
35. To perform its functions, the NCTE constitutes regional
committees which are divided into four different regions. The 8
purpose of constitution of these committees is to effectively deal
with the aspect of grant, continuation or refusal of the
recognition. It has two objectives to attain - (1) convenience
for all stakeholders; and (2) more effective implementation of
the provisions of the Act. Section 32 empowers the NCTE to C
make regulations not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act
and the Rules made thereunder, generally to carry out the
provisions of the Act. The Regulations are to deal with various
subjects including providing of norms, guidelines and standards
in respect of minimum qualification for a person to be employed D
as a teacher, starting of new courses or training in recognized
institutions, standards in respect of examinations leading to
teacher education, qualifications and other specified matters.
The Central Government, in exercise of the power vested in it
under Section 31(1) of the Act, framed the Rules called the E
'National Council for Teacher Education Rules, 1997'. These
Rules, in detail, deal with the expert members of the NCTE,
powers and duties of the Chair-person, appeals which a person
could make in terms of Rule 10 in relation to the orders passed
under Sections 15, 16 and 17 of the Act. However, these Rules F
were subjected to amendment vide notification dated 15th
September, 2003.
36. Vide notification dated 13th November, 2002, the
'NCTE (Form of application for recognition, the time limit of
submissions of application, determination of norms and G
standards for recognition of teacher education programmes
. and permission to start new course or training) Regulations,
2002' were notified to deal with the prescribed procedure for
making applications for recognition as well as how it is to be
dealt with and grant and refusal of recognition. Under H
846 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 13 S.C.R.
A Regulation 8, it was specified that the norms and standards for
various teacher education courses should be separately
provided for separate courses. Resultantly, under Appendix 3
to Appendix 14, norms and standards in relation to various
courses, which were to be complied with by the applicant, were
e specified. The object was to bring greater transparency and
specialization into the entire process of grant of recognition to
the institutions. For example, norms and standards for
secondary teacher education programme was provided under
Appendix 7. Similarly, other courses were provided different
c standards. Appendix 1A prescribed the form of an application
for grant of recognition of teacher education institutions/
permission to start a new course or increase in intake. This
application contained all information that was necessary for the
Regional Committee to entertain an application and know the
requisite details, as contemplated under Section 14(1)(a).
0
37. Further, to facilitate the operation of the Regulations
and for removal of functional difficulties, after consultation with
different quarters, the NCTE framed regulations under Section
32 of the Act which were called the 'National Council for
E Teachers Education (Recognition, Norms and Procedure)
Regulations, 2005'. Under these Regulations, different time
limits were provided within which the applications were to be
dealt with and responded to by different stakeholders involved
in the process of grant/refusal of recognition. Under these
F Regulations, the applications which were complete in all
respects had to be processed by the office of the concerned
Regional Committee within 30 days of the receipt of such
application. A written communication along with a copy of the
application form submitted by the institution of the concerned
State/Union Territory shall be sent to the State Government/UT
G Administration concerned. On receipt of the application, the
State Government/UT Administration concerned was required
to furnish its recommendations to the office of the Regional
Committee concerned within 60 days from the receipt. If the
recommendation was negative, the State Government was
H
MAA VAISHNO DEVI MAHILA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. 847
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
required to provide detailed reasons/grounds thereof in terms A
of Regulation 7(3) of the Regulations. Then, the expert team
was to be appointed which was to visit the institution. Video
tapes of the visiting team were to be placed before the
Regional Committee along with its recommendations and the
Regional Committee was to decide grant of recommendation B
or permission to the institution only after all the conditions
prescribed under the Act, Rules, Regulations and the norms
and standards laid down were satisfied. The institution
concerned was required to be informed of the decision for
grant/refusal of recognition or permission. It could impose such C
conditions as the NCTE may deem fit and proper.
38. Thereafter, vide notification dated 27th November,
2007, again in exercise of its powers under sub-section (2) of
Section 32, the NCTE revised the Regulations and these are
called the 'National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition, o
Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2009'. They deal with the
applicability, eligibility, manner of making application and time
limits, processing fee, processing of applications, conditions
for granting recommendation, norms and standards, academic
calendar, power to relax any of the provisions of these E
Regulations, etc. These Regulations are quite comprehensive
and under Regulation 13, the Regulations of 2007 and 2005
both are repealed and it is stated in Regulation 13(3) that the
repeal of the said earlier Regulations shall not affect previous
operation of any Regulation so repealed or anything duly done F
thereunder. Under Regulation 5, the application has to be filed
in the manner prescribed and within the time specified. Under
Regulation 5(4), duly completed application in all respects may
be submitted to the Regional Committee concerned during the
period from 1st day of September, till 31st day of October of G
the preceding year to the academic session for which
recognition has been sought. Regulation 5(4), however,
provided that the condition of last date for submission of
application shall not apply to any innovative programme of
teacher education for which separate guidelines have been
H
848 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 13 S.C.R.
A issued by the NCTE. The final decision on all the applications
received, either recognition granted or refused, shall be
communicated to the applicant on or before 15th day of May
of the succeeding year. These Regulations take note of even
minute details like that if there is any omission or deficiency in
8 the documents, the Regional Committee shall point out the
deficiency within 45 days of the receipt of the application which
the applicant shall remove within 60 days from the date of
receipt of communication of such deficiency. In terms of
Regulation 7(2), like in the 2007 Regulations, a written
C communication along with a copy of the application has to be
sent to the State Government or the Union Territory
Administration within 30 days from the date of the receipt of
the application inviting recommendations or comments which
are to be submitted by them within 45 days of the issue of letter
to the State or the Union Territory, as the case may be. After
D consideration of the recommendations, the Regional
Committee shall decide as regards the inspection of the
institutions and communicate the same to the institution. The
Regional Committee shall ensure that inspection is conducted
within 30 days from the date of this communication to the
E institution. The experts are to visit the institution and submit
their report. The inspection has to be video-graphed.
Considering the recommendation of the State Government, the
Regional Committee shall grant or refuse the recognition within
the specified date. It is also required under these Regulations
F [Regulation 8(2)] that, in the first instance, an institution shall be
considered for grant of recognition of only one course for the
basic unit as prescribed in the norms and standards for the
particular teacher education programme. After completion of
three academic sessions of the respective course, it can submit
G an application for one basic unit only of an additional course
or for an additional unit of the existing recognized course before
the cut-off date prescribed for submission of applications in the
year succeeding the completion of three academic sessions.
After the recognition has been granted in terms of Regulation
H 11, it is incumbent upon the affiliating body to regulate the
MAA VAISHNO DEVI MAHILA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. 849
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
process of admission in teacher education institutions by A
prescribing the schedule or academic calendar in respect of
each of the courses listed in Appendix 1 to 13 to the
Regulations and this has to be done at least three months in
advance of the commencement of each academic session and
upon due publicity. B
39. This is the scheme of grant and/or refusal of the
recognition to an institution dealing with various courses of
teacher training programme.
40. Under the scheme of the NCTE Act, there are three c
principal bodies involved in processing the applications for
grant or refusal of recognition for running of teacher training
courses by various institutions. They are the NCTE, the State
Government, the affiliating body or the University, as the case
may be. Each of these stakeholders has been assigned a
definite role under the provisions of the NCTE Act and even D
the stage at which such role is required to be performed. The
provisions of the NCTE Act even identify the scope and extent
of power which each of these bodies is expected to exercise.
As already noticed, the NCTE Act has been enacted with the
object of constituting a National Council with a view to achieve E
planned and coordinated development of teacher education
system throughout the country and also to ensure maintenance
of proper norms and standards in teacher education system.
The NCTE is a specialized body and is expected to perform
varied functions including grant of recognition, ensuring F
maintenance of proper norms and standards in relation to
teacher education, inspection of the colleges through experts
and to ensure strict adherence to the time schedule specified
under the NCTE Act and rules and regulations framed therein.
41. The NCTE Act is a special act enacted to cover a G
particular field, i.e. teacher training education and, thus, has to
receive precedence over other laws in relation to that field. No
institution or body is empowered to grant recognition to any
institution under the NCTE Act or any other law for the time
being in force, except the NCTE itself. Grant of recognition H
850 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 13 S.C.R.
A by the Council is a condition precedent to grant of affiliation by
the examining body to an institute.
42. The non-obstante language of Section 16 requires the
affiliating body to grant affiliation only after recognition or
permission has been granted by the NCTE. The provisions of
B Section 16 give complete supremacy to the expert body/NCTE
in relation to grant of recognition. In fact, it renders the role of
other bodies consequential upon grant and/or refusal of
recognition. When the NCTE is called upon to consider an
application for grant of recognition, it has to consider all the
C aspects in terms of Section 14(1)(a) of the NCTE Act. The
amplitude of this provision is very wide and hardly leaves any
matter relatable to an educational institution outside its ambit.
To put it simply, the NCTE is a supreme body and is vested
with wide powers to be exercised with the aid of its expertise,
D in granting or refusing to grant recognition to an educational
institution. The NCTE is the paramount body for granting the
approval/recognition not only for commencing of fresh courses
but even for increase in intake, etc. The Council has to ensure
maintenance of educational standards as well as strict
E adherence to the prescribed parameters for imparting of such
educational courses, including the infrastructure. The provision
and scheme of the NCTE Act is pari materia to that of the
Medical Council of India Act, 1956 and the All India Council
for Technical Education Act, 1987 etc.
F 43. Now, we may examine some of the judgments of this
Court which have dealt with these aspects. In the case of State
of Tamil Nadu and Anr. v. Adhiyaman Educational &
Research Institute and Ors. (1995) 4 sec 104 the Supreme
I
Court while discussing various aspects in regard to
G constitutional validity of Tamil Nadu Private College Regulation
Act, 1976 and the provisions of the All India Council for
Technical Education Act clearly spelled out the preferential role
of the Council as under:
"22. The aforesaid provisions of the Act including its
H preamble make it abundantly clear that the Council has
MAA VAISHNO DEVI MAHILA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. 851
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
been established under the Act for coordinated and A
integrated development of the technical education system
at all levels throughout the country and is enjoined to
promote qualitative improvement of such education in
relation to planned quantitative growth. The Council is also
required to regulate and ensure proper maintenance of 8
norms and standards in the technical education system.
The Council is further to evolve suitable performance
appraisal system incorporating such norms and
mechanisms in enforcing their accountability. It is also
required to provide guidelines for admission of students C
and has power to withhold or discontinue grants and to de-
recognise the institutions where norms and standards laid
down by it and directions given by it from time to time are
not followed. This duty and responsibility cast on the
Council implies that the norms and standards to be set
should be such as would prevent a lopsided or an isolated D
development of technical education in the country .
... It is necessary to bear this aspect of the norms and
standards to be prescribed in mind, for a major debate
before us centered around the right of the States to E
prescribe standards higher than the one laid down by the
Council. What is further necessary to remember is that the
Council has on it representatives not only of the States but
also of the State Universities. They have, therefore, a say
in the matter of laying down the norms and standards which
F
may be prescribed by the Council for such education from
time to time. The Council has further the Regional
Committees, at present, at least, in four major
geographical zones and the constitution and functions of
the Committees are to be prescribed by the regulations G
to be made by the Council. Since the Council has the
representation of the States and the provisional bodies on
it which have also representation from different States and
regions, they have a say in the constitution and functions
of these Committees as well .... "
H
852 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 13 S.C.R.
A 44. Further, the Court, while noticing the inconsistency
between the Central and State statutes or the State authorities
acting contrary to the Central statute, held as under :
"41. (vi) However, when the situations/seats are available
and the State authorities deny an applicant the same on
B the ground that the applicant is not qualified according to
its standards or qualifications, as the case may be,
although the applicant satisfies the standards or
qualifications laid down by the Central law, they act
unconstitutionally. So also when the State authorities de-
c recognise or disaffiliate an institution for not satisfying the
standards or requirement laid down by them, although it
satisfied the norms and requirements laid down by the
Central authority, the State authorities act illegally.
xxx xxx xxx
D
43. As a result, as has been pointed out earlier, the
provisions of the Central statute on the one hand and of
the State statutes on the other, being inconsistent and,
therefore, repugnant with each other, the Central statute
will prevail and the de-recognition by the State Government
E
or the disaffiliation by the State University on grounds which
are inconsistent with those enumerated in the Central
statute will be inoperative."
45. Still, in another case of Jaya Gokul Educational Trust
F v. Commissioner & Secretary to Government Higher
Education Deptt., Thiruvananthapuram, Kera/a State and Anr.
[2000) 5 SCC 231), the Court reiterating the above principle,
held as under:
"22. As held in the Tamil Nadu case AIR 1995 sew
G 2179, the Central Act of 1987 and; in particular, Section
1O(K) occupied the field relating the ·grant of approvals'
for establishing technical institutions and the provisions of
the Central Act alone were to be complied with. So far
as the provisions of the Mahatma Gandhi University Act
H or its statutes were concerned and in particular statute
MAA VAISHNO DEVI MAHILA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. 853
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
9(7), they merely required the University to obtain the A
'views' of the State Government. That could not be
characterised as requiring the "approval" of the State
Government. If, needed, the University statute could be so
interpreted, such a provision requiring approval of the
State Government would be repugnant to the provisions B
of Section 1O(K) of the AICTE Act, 1987 and would again
be void. As pointed out in the Tamil Nadu case there were
enough provisions in the Central Act for consultation by the
Council of the AICTE with various agencies, including the
State Governments and the Universities concerned. The c
State Level Committee and the Central Regional
Committees contained various experts and State
representatives. In case of difference of opinion as
between the various consultees, the AICTE would have to
go by the views of the Central Task Force. These were 0
sufficient safeguards for ascertaining the views of the State
Governments and the Universities. No doubt the question
of affiliation was a different matter and was not covered
by the Central Act but in the Tamil Nadu case, it was held
that the University could not impose any conditions
inconsistent with the AICTE Act or its Regulation or the E
conditions imposed by the AICTE. Therefore, the
procedure for obtaining the affiliation and any conditions
which could be imposed by the University, could not be
inconsistent with the provisions of the Central Act. The
University could not, therefore, in any event have sought F
for 'approval' of the State Government."
46. This view of the Supreme Court was reiterated with
approval by a larger Bench of the Supreme Court in the case
of State of Maharashtra v. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan G
Shastra Mahavidya/aya and Ors. [(2006) 9 SCC 1]. While
discussing in detail the various legal issues in relation to grant
of affiliation/ recognition to the institution and permission to start
a new college, the Court held as under:
"53. The Court then considered the argument put forward H
854 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 13 S.C.R.
A on behalf of the State that while it would be open for the
Council to lay down minimum standards and requirements,
it did not preclude the State from prescribing higher
standards and requirements.
54. Negativing the contention, the Court quoted with
B approval the following observations of B.N. Rau, J. in G.P.
Stewart v. Brojendra Kishore Roy Chaudhury (AIR 1939
Cal. 628 : 43 Cal. W.N. 913) :
"It is sometimes said that two laws cannot be said
to be properly repugnant unless there is direct
c
conflict between them, as when one says 'do' and
the other 'dont', there is no true repugnancy,
according to this view, if it is possible to obey both
the laws. For reasons which we shall set forth
presently, we think that this is too narrow a test;
D there may well be cases of repugnancy where both
laws say 'don't' but in different ways. For example,
one law may say 'no person shall sell liquor by
retail, that is, in quantities of less than five gallons
at a time' and another law may say, 'no person shall
E sell liquor by retail, that is, in quantities of less than
ten gallons at a time'. Here, it is obviously possible
to obey both laws, by obeying the more stringent
of the two, namely, the second one; yet it is equally
obvious that the two laws are repugnant, for to the
F extent to which a citizen is compelled to obey one
of them, the other, though not actually disobeyed,
is nullified."
xxx xxx xxx
G 64. Even otherwise, in our opinion, the High Court
was fully justified in negativing the argument of the
State Government that permission could be refused
by the State Government on "policy consideration".
As already observed earlier, policy consideration
H was negatived by this Court in Thirumuruga
MAA VAISHNO DEVI MAHILA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. 855
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
Kirupananda Variyar Thavathiru Sundara A
Swamiga/ Medical Educational and Charitable
Trust Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 1996 DGLS (soft)
327 : 1996 (3) S.C.C. 15 : JT 1996 (2) S.C. 692
as also in Jaya Gokul Educational Trust.
XXX XXX XXX B
74. It is thus clear that the Central Government has
considered the subject of secondary education and
higher education at the national level. The Act of
1993 also requires Parliament to consider teacher- C
education system "throughout the country". NCTE,
therefore, in our opinion, is expected to deal with
applications for establishing new Bed colleges or
allowing increase in intake capacity, keeping in
view the 1993 Act and planned and coordinated
development of teacher- education system in the D
country. It is neither open to the State Government
nor to a university to consider the local conditions
or apply "State policy" to refuse such permission.
In fact, as held by this Court in cases referred to
hereinabove, the State Government has no power E
to reject the prayer of an institution or to overrule
the decision of NCTE. The action of the State
Government, therefore, was contrary to law and has
rightly been set aside by the High Court."
F
47. The above enunciated principles clearly show that the
Council is the authority constituted under the Central Act with
the responsibility of maintaining education of standards and
judging upon the infra-structure and facilities available for
imparting such professional education. Its opinion is of utmost G
importance and shall take precedence over the views of the
State as well as that of the University. The concerned
Department of the State and the affiliating University have a role
to play but it is limited in its application. They cannot lay down
any guideline or policy which would be in conflict with the Central
H
856 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 13 S.C.R.
A statute or the standards laid down by the Central body. State
can frame its policy for admission to such professional courses
but such policy again has to be in conformity with the directives
issued by the Central body. In the present cases, there is not
much conflict on this issue, but it needs to be clarified that while
B the State grants its approval, and University its affiliation, for
increased intake of seats or commencement of a new course/
college, its directions should not offend and be repugnant to
what has been laid down in the conditions for approval granted
by the Central authority or Council. What is most important is
c that all these authorities have to work ad idem as they all have
a common object to achieve i.e. of imparting of education
properly and ensuring maintenance of proper standards of
education, examination and infrastructure for betterment of
educational system. Only if all these authorities work in a
0 coordinated manner and with cooperation, will they be able to
achieve the very object for which all these entities exist.
48. The NCTE Act has been enacted by the Parliament
with reference to Entry 66 of List I of Schedule VII of the
Constitution. There is no such specific power vested in the
E State Legislature under List II of the Seventh Schedule. Entry
25 of List Ill of the Seventh Schedule is the other Entry that
provides the field for legislation both to the State and the
Centre, in relation to education, including technical education,
medical education and Universities; vocational and technical
F training and labour. The field is primarily covered by the Union
List and thus, the State can exercise any legislative power under
Entry 25, List Ill but such law cannot be repugnant to the Central
law. Wherever the State law is irreconcilable with the Central
law, the State Law must give way in favour of the Central law
G to the extent of repugnancy. This will show the supremacy of
the Central law in relation to professional education, including
the teacher training programmes. In the case of Medical
Council of India v. State of Kamataka [(1998) 6 SCC 131],
the Court had the occasion to discuss this conflict as follows: -
H "27. The State Acts, namely, the Karnataka Universities
MAA VAISHNO DEVI MAHILA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. 857
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
Act and the Karnataka Capitation Fee Act must give way A
to the Central Act, namely, the Indian Medical Council Act,
1956. The Karnataka Capitation Fee Act was enacted for
the sole purpose of regulation in collection of capitation fee
by colleges and for that, the State Government is
empowered to fix the maximum number of students that B
can be admitted but that number cannot be over and above
that fixed by the Medical Council as per the regulations.
Chapter IX of the Karnataka Universities Act, which
contains provision for affiliation of colleges and recognition
of institutions, applies to all types of colleges and not c
necessarily to professional colleges like medical colleges.
Sub-section (10) of Section 53, falling in Chapter IX of this
Act, provides for maximum number of students to be
admitted to courses for studies in a college and that
number shall not exceed the intake fixed by the university 0
, or the Government. But this provision has again to be read
subject to the intake fixed by the Medical Council under
its regulations. It is the Medical Council which is primarily
responsible for fixing standards of medical education and
overseeing that these standards are maintained. It is the E
Medical Council which is the principal body to lay down
conditions for recognition of medical colleges which
would include the fixing of intake for admission to a
medical college. We have already seen in the beginning
of this judgment various provisions of the Medical Council
Act. It is, therefore, the Medical Council which in effect F
grants recognition and also withdraws the same.
Regulations under Section 33 of the Medical Council Act,
which were made in 1977, prescribe the accommodation
in the college and its associated teaching hospitals and
teaching and technical staff and equipment in various G
departments in the college and in the hospitals. These
regulations are in considerable detail. Teacher-student
ratio prescribed is 1 to 10, exclusive of the Professor or
Head of the Department. Regulations further prescribe,
apart from other things, that the number of teaching beds H
858 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 13 S.C.R.
A in the attached hospitals will have to be in the ratio of 7
beds per student admitted. Regulations of the Medical
Council, which were approved by the Central Government
in 1971, provide for the qualification requirements for
appointments of persons to the posts of teachers and
B visiting physicians/surgeons of medical colleges and
attached hospitals.
xxx xxx xxx
29. A medical student requires gruelling study and that
c can be done only if proper facilities are available in a
medical college and the hospital attached to it has to be
well equipped and the teaching faculty and doctors have
to be competent enough that when a medical student
comes out, he is perfect in the science of treatment of
human beings and is not found wanting in any way. The
D country does not want half-baked medical professionals ·
coming out of medical colleges when they did not have full
facilities of teaching and were not exposed to the patients
and their ailments during the course of their study. The
Medical Council, in all fairness, does not wish to invalidate
E the admissions made in excess of that fixed by it and does
not wish to take any action of withdrawing recognition of
the medical colleges violating the regulation. Henceforth,
however, these medical colleges must restrict the number
of admissions fixed by the Medical Council. After the
F insertion of Sections 10-A, 10-B and 10-C in the Medical
Council Act, the Medical Council has framed regulations
with the previous approval of the Central Government which
were published in the Gazette of India dated 29-9-1993
(though the notification is dated 20-9-1993). Any medical
G college or institution which wishes to increase the
admission capacity in MBBS/higher courses (including
diploma/degree/higher specialities), has to apply to the
Central Government for permission along with the
permission of the State Government and that of the
H university with which it is affiliated and in conformity with
MAA VAISHNO DEVI MAHILA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. 859
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
the regulations framed by the Medical Council. Only the A
medical college or institution which is recognised by the
Medical Council can so apply."
49. A Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Dr.
Preeti Srivastava & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
((1999) 7 SCC 120), while dealing with the provisions of the B
Medial Council of India Act and referring to Entry 25 of List Ill
and Entry 66 of List I with reference to the Articles 245, 246,
254 and 15(4) of the Constitution, spelled out the supremacy
of the Council and the provisions of the Central Act, particularly
in relation to the control and regulation of higher education. It C
also discussed providing of the eligibility conditions and
qualifications and determining the standards to be maintained
by the Institutions. The Court in paragraph 36 of the judgment
held as under: -
"36. It would not be correct to say that the norms for D
admission have no connection with the standard of
education, or that the rules for admission are covered only
by Entry 25 of List Ill. Norms of admission can have a
direct impact on the standards of education. Of course,
there can be rules for admission which are consistent with E
or do not affect adversely the standards of education
prescribed by the Union in exercise of powers under Entry
66 of List I. For exampte, a State may, for admission to
the postgraduate medical courses, lay down qualifications
in addition to those prescribed under Entry 66 of List I. F
This would be consistent with promoting higher standards
for admission to the higher educational courses. But any
lowering of the norms laid down can and does have an
adverse effect on the standards of education in the
institutes of higher education. Standards of education in G
an institution or college depend on various factors. Some
of these are:
(1) the calibre of the teaching staff;
•
H
860 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 13 S.C.R.
A (2) a proper syllabus designed to achieve a high level
of education in the given span of time;
(3) the student-teacher ratio;
(4) the ratio between the students and the hospital
B beds available to each student;
(5) the calibre of the students admitted to the institution;
(6) equipment and laboratory facilities, or hospital
facilities for training in the case of medical colleges;
c (7) adequate accommodation for the college and the
attached hospital; and
(8) the standard of examinations held including the
manner in which the papers are set and examined
and the clinical performance is judged."
D 50. The principle of repugnancy and its effects were
discussed by this Court in the case of S. Satyapal Reddy v.
Government of A.P. (1994) 4 SCC 391, wherein it held as
under:
E "7. It is thus settled law that Parliament has exclusive
power to make law with respect to any of the matters
enumerated in List I or concurrent power with the State
Legislature in List Iii of the Vllth Schedule to the Constitution
which shall prevail over the State law made by the State
Legislature exercising the power on any of the entries in
F
List Ill. If the said law is inconsistent with or incompatible
to occupy the same field, to that extent the State law stands
superseded or becomes void. It is settled law that when
Parliament and the Legislature derive that power under
Article 246(2) and the entry in the Concurrent List, whether
G prior or later to the law made by the State Legislature,
Article 246(2) gives power, to legislate upon any subject
enumerated in the Concurrent List, the law made by
Parliament g~ts paramountcy over the law made by the
State Legislature unless the State law is reserved for
H
MAA VAISHNO DEVI MAHILA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. 861
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
consideration of the President and receives his assent. A
Whether there is an apparent repugnance or conflict
between Central and State laws occupying the same field
and cannot operate harmoniously in each case the court
has to examine whether the provisions occupy the same
field with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the B
Concurrent List and whether there exists repugnancy
between the two laws. Article 254 lays emphasis on the
words ''with respect to that matter''. Repugnancy arises
when both the laws are fully inconsistent or are absolutely
irreconcilable and when it is impossible to obey one without c
disobeying the other. The repugnancy would arise when
conflicting results are produced when both the statutes
covering the same field are applied to a given set of facts.
But the court has to make every attempt to reconcile the
provisions of the apparently conflicting laws and court 0
would endeavour to give harmonious construction. The
purpose to determine inconsistency is to ascertain the
intention of Parliament which would be gathered from a
consideration of the entire field occupied by the law. The
proper test would be whether effect can be given to the E
provisions of both the laws or whether both the laws can
stand together. Section 213 itself made the distinction of
the powers exercisable by the State Government and the
Central Government in working the provisions of the Act.
It is the State Government that operates the provisions of F
the Act through its officers. Therefore, sub-section (1) of
Section 213 gives power to the State Government to
create Transport Department and to appoint officers, as it
thinks fit. Sub-section (4) thereof also preserves the power.
By necessary implication, it also preserves the power to
prescribe higher qualification for appointment of officers G
of the State Government to man the Motor Vehicles
Department. What was done by the Central Government
was only the prescription of minimum qualifications, leaving
the field open to the State Government concerned to
prescribe if it finds necessary, higher qualifications. The H
862 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 13 S.C.R.
A Governor has been given power under proviso to Article
309 of the Constitution, subject to any law made by the
State Legislature, to make rules regulating the recruitment
which includes prescription of qualifications for
appointment to an office or post under the State. Since the
B Transport Department under the Act is constituted by the
State Government and the officers appointed to those
posts belong to the State service, while appointing its own
officers, the State Government as a necessary adjunct is
entitled to prescribe qualifications for recruitment or
c conditions of service. But while so prescribing, the State
Government may accept the qualifications or prescribe
higher qualification but in no case prescribe any
qualification less than the qualifications prescribed by the
Central Government under sub-section (4) of Section 213
of the Act. In the latter event, i.e., prescribing lesser
D
qualifications, both the rules cannot operate without
colliding with each other. When the rules made by the
Central Government under Section 213(4) and the statutory
rules made under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution
are construed harmoniously, there is no incompatibility or
E inconsistency in the operation of both the rules to appoint
fit persons to the posts or class of officers of the State
Government vis-a-vis the qualifications prescribed by the
Central Government under sub-section (4) of Section 213
of the Act."
F
51. In the case of Jaya Gokul Educational Trust (supra),
the Court, while referring to the case of State of Tamil Nadu v.
Adhiyaman Educational and Research Institute (supra), took
the view that where the provisions of the State Act overlap and
G are in conflict with the provisions of the Central Act in various
areas, the matters which are specifically covered under the
Central Act cannot be undermined and they shall prevail. The
court further stated that a provision in the Universities Act
requiring the University to obtain merely the views of the State
Government could not be characterized as requiring 'approval'
H
MAA VAISHNO DEVI MAHILA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. 863
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.)
of the State Government. If the University Statute could be so A
interpreted, such a provision requiring approval of the State
Government would be repugnant to the provisions of Section
1O(k) of the AICTE Act and would, therefore, be void.
52. In the case of Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra
Mahavidyalaya (supra), the Court, while dealing with the B
provisions of the Act with which we are concerned in the
present case, held that field of teachers' education and matters
connected therewith stood fully and completely occupied by the
Act and hence the State legislature could not encroach upon
that field. In the case of Engineering Kamgar Union v. Electro C
Steels Castings Ltd. and Anr. ((2004) 6 SCC 36), the Court
was dealing with a direct conflict between the two provisions
of different Acts and stated that direct conflict arises not only
where the provisions of one of the Acts has to be disobeyed if
the other is followed but also where both laws lead to different D
. results. Extending the doctrine of repugnancy to that situation,
the Court held in paragraph 18 of the judgment that the Central
Law shall prevail. The said paragraph reads as under: -
"18. In terms of clause (2) of Article 254 of the Constitution
of India where a law made by the legislature of a State with E
respect to one of the matters enumerated in the
Concurrent List contains any provisions repugnant to the
provisions of an earlier law made by Parliament or an
existing law with respect to the matters, then the law so
made by the legislature of such State shall, if it has been F
reserved for consideration of the President and has
received its assent, prevail in that State. It is not in dispute
that the 1983 Act has received the assent of the President
of India and, thus, would prevail over any parliamentar~· law
governing the same field." G
53. From the above consistent view of this Court it is clear
that wherever the field is covered by the Parliamentary law in
terms of List I and List Ill, the law made by the State Legislature
would, to the extent of repugnancy, be void. Of course, there
has to be a direct conflict between the laws. The direct conflict H
864 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 13 S.C.R.
A is not necessarily to be restricted to the obedience of one
resulting in disobedience of other but even where the result of
one would be in conflict with the other. It is difficult to state any
one principle that would uniformly be applicable to all cases of
repugnancy. It will have to be seen in the facts of each case
B while keeping in mind the laws which are in conflict with each
other. Where the field is occupied by the Centre, subject to
the exceptions stated in Article 254, the State law would be
void.
54. In the present case, we are concerned with the
C provisions of the NCTE Act which is a Central legislation
referable to Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule. Thus,
no law enacted by the State, which is in conflict with the Central
Law, can be permitted to be operative.
55. Now, let us examine the conflict that arises in the
D present cases. In terms of the provisions of the Act, the
Regional Committee is required to entertain the application,
consider State opinion, cause inspection to be conducted by
an expert team and then to grant or refuse recognition in terms
of the provisions of the Act. Once a recognition is granted and
E before an Institution can be permitted to commence the course,
it is required to take affiliation from the affiliating body, which
is the University.
56. Thus, grant of recognition or affiliation to an institute
F is a condition precedent to running of the courses by the
Institute. If either of them is not granted to the institute, it would
not be in a position to commence the relevant academic
courses. There is a possibility of some conflict between a
University Act or Ordinance relating to affiliation with the
G provisions of the Central Act. In such cases, the matter is
squarely answered in the case of Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan
Shastra Mahavidya/aya (supra) where the Court stated that
after coming into operation of the Central Act, the operation of
the University Act would be deemed to have become
unenforceable in case of technical colleges. It also observed
H that provision of the Universities Act regarding affiliation of
MAA VAISHNO DEVI MAHILA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. 865
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
technical colleges and conditions for grant of continuation of P
such affiliation by university would remain operative but the
conditions that are prescribed by the university for grant and
continuation of affiliation must be in conformity with the norms
and guidelines prescribed by the NCTE.
57. Under Section 14 and particularly in terms of Section 8
14(3)(a) of the Act, the NCTE is required to grant or refuse
recognition to an institute. It has been empowered to impose
such conditions as it may consider fit and proper keeping in
view the legislative intent and object in mind. In terms of
Section 14(6) of the Act, the examining body shall grant C
affiliation to the institute where recognition has been granted.
In other words, granting recognition is the basic requirement
for grant of affiliation. It cannot be said that affiliation is
insignificant or a mere formality on the part of the examining
body. It is the requirement of law that affiliation should be D
granted by the affiliating body in accordance with the
prescribed procedure and upon proper application of mind.
Recognition and affiliation are expressions of distinct meaning
and consequences. In the case of Chairman, Bhartia
Education Society v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. E
[(2011) 4 SCC 527], this Court held that the purpose of
recognition and affiliation is different. In the context of the Act,
affiliation enables and permits an institution to send its students
to participate in public examinations conducted by the
examining body and secure the qualification in the nature of F
degrees, diploma and certificates. On the other hand,
recognition is the licence to the institution to offer a course or
training in teaching education. The Court also emphasised that
the affiliating body/examining body does not have any discretion
to refuse affiliation with reference to any of the factors which G
have been considered by the NCTE while granting recognition.
58. The examining body can impose conditions in relation
to its own requirements. These aspects are (a) eligibility of
students for admission; (b) conduct of examinations; (c) the
manner in which the prescribed courses should be completed; H
866 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2012] 13 S.C.R.
A and (d) to see that the conditions imposed by the NCTE are
complied with. Despite the fact that recognition itself covers
the larger precepts of affiliation, still the affiliating body is not
to grant affiliation automatically but must exercise its discretion
fairly and transparently while ensuring that conditions of the law
B of the university and the functions of the affiliating body should
be complementary to the recognition of NCTE and ought not
to be in derogation thereto.
59. In the case of St. John Teachers Training Institute v.
Regional Director, National Council for Teacher Education
C [(2003) 3 SCC 321], this Court attempted to strike a balance
between the role played by the NCTE, on the one hand and
affiliating body and State Government, on the other. Once the
affiliating body acts within the fundamentals of Section 14 of
the Act, possibility of a conflict can always be avoided.
D
60. In these appeals, we are concerned with the colleges
which are affiliated to different universities. Some of them are
affiliated to Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Avadh University,
Faizabad, some to Dr. Bhimarao Ambedkar University, Agra
E while others to the University of Meerut. All these universities
have been created by statutes and have their own ordinances.
The Universities Act is the parent statute under which all these
universities have been constituted. Under Section 2(20) of the
Universities Act, 'University' means an existing University or a
new University established after the commencement of this Act
F in terms of Section 4 of this Act. Section 4 empowers the State
Government to establish a university in the manner prescribed
by its notification in the Official Gazette. The provision provides
for establishment of different universities and which had, in fact,
been already established. Chapter VII of the Universities Act
G deals with Affiliation and Recognition. Section 37(1) states that
the section shall apply to different universities under which all
the universities which are respondent in these appeals are
covered. In terms of Section 37(2), the Executive Council may,
with the previous sanction of the State Government, admit any
H college which fulfils such conditions of affiliation as may be
MAA VAISHNO DEVI MAHILA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. 867
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
prescribed, to the privileges of affiliation or enlarge the A
privileges of any college already affiliated or subject to the
provisions of sub-section (8), withdraw or curtail any such
privilege. It has further been provided that a college should
substantially fulfill the conditions of affiliation in the opinion of
the State Government, for it to sanction grant of affiliation to B
the college. In terms of Section 37(6), the Executive Council
of the university shall cause every affiliated college to be
inspected from time to time at intervals not exceeding five
years. Section 37(8) states that the privileges of affiliation of
a college which fails to comply with any direction of the c
Executive Council under sub-section (7) or to fulfill the condition
of affiliation may, after obtaining the report from management
of the college and with previous sanction of the chancellor, be
withdrawn or curtailed by the Executive Council in accordance
with the provisions of the Statutes. In terms of Section 37(10), D
a college which has been affiliated is entitled to continue the
course of study for which the admissions have already taken
place. To give an example, under the statute of the Meerut
University, affiliation of new colleges is dealt with under statute
13.02 to 13.10 of Chapter XIII. This requires that every
E
application for affiliation of a college has to be made so as to
reach the Registrar in less than 12 months before the
commencement of the course and before an application is
considered by the Executive Council, the Vice-Chancellor must
be satisfied that there is due compliance with the provisions
of statutes 3.05, 13.06 and 13.07. Besides, it requires the F
conditions like adequate financial resources, suitable and
sufficient building, adequate library, two hectares of land,
facilities for recreation of students, etc. to be fulfilled. The
constitution of the Management of every college has also been
provided. G
61. The fields which are sought to be covered under the
provisions of Section 37 of the Universities Act and the Statutes
of various universities are clearly common to the aspects which
are squarely covered by the specific language under the Act.
H
868 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 13 S.C.R.
A That being so, all State laws in regard to affiliation in so far as
they are covered by the Act must give way to the operation of
the provisions of the Act. To put it simply, the requirements which
have been examined and the conditions which have been
imposed by the NCTE shall prevail and cannot be altered, re-
B examined or infringed under the garb of the State Law. The
affiliating/examining body and the State Government must
abide by the proficiency and command of the NCTE's
directions. To give an example, existence of building, library,
qualified staff, financial stability of the institution,
c accommodation, etc. are the subjects which are specifically
covered under Section 14(3)(b) of the Act. Thus, they would
not be open to re-examination by the State and the University.
If the recognition itself was conditional and those conditions
have not been satisfied, in such circumstances, within the ambit
0 and scope of Sections 46 and 16 of the Act, the affiliating body
may not give affiliation and inform the NCTE forthwith of the
shortcomings and non-compliance of the conditions. In such
situation, both the Central and the State body should act in
tandem and, with due coordination, come to a final conclusion
E as to the steps which are required to be taken in regard to both
recognition and affiliation. But certainly, the State Government
and the University cannot act in derogation to the NCTE.
62. Now, we may deal with another aspect of this very facet
of the case. It is a very pertinent issue as to what the role of
F the State should be after the affiliation is granted by the
affiliating body. We have already discussed that the State
opinion, as contemplated under Section 37 of the University Act,
to the extent it admits to overreach, is reconcilable and its
results are not in its orientation to the directives of the NCTE
G are void and inoperative to the extent they can be resolved in
which case clear precedence is to be given to the directives
of the NCTE during such resolution. The opinion of the State,
therefore, has to be read and construed to mean that it would
keep the factors determined by the NCTE intact and then
H examine the matter for grant of affiliation. The role of the State
MAA VAISHNO DEVI MAHILA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. 869
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
Government is minimised at this stage which, in fact, is a second A
stage. It should primarily be for the University to determine the
grant or refusal of affiliation and role of the State should be bare,
minimum non-interfering and non-infringjng.
63. It is on record and the Regulations framed under the
Act clearly show that upon receiving an application for B
recommendation, the NCTE shall send a copy of the application
with its letter inviting recommendations/comments of the State
Government on all aspects within a period of 30 days. To such,
application, the State is expected to respond with its complete
comments within a period of 60 days. In other words, the C
opinion of the State on all matters that may concern it in any of
the specified fields are called for. This is the stage where the
State and its Department should play a vital role. They must
take all precautions to offer proper comments supported by due
reasoning. Once these comments are sent and the State D
Government gives its opinion which is considered by the NCTE
and examined in conjunction with the report of the experts, it
may grant or refuse recognition. Once it grants recognition, then
such grant attains supremacy viz-a-viz the State Government as
well as the affiliating body. Normally, these questions cannot E
be re-agitated at the time of grant of affiliation. Once the
University conducts inspection in terms of its Statutes or Act,
without offending the provisions of the Act and conditions of
recognition, then the opinion of the State Government at the
second stage is a mere formality unless there was a drastic and F
unacceptable mistake or the entire process was vitiated by
fraud or there was patently eminent danger to life of the students
working in the school because of non-compliance of a
substantive condition imposed by either of the bodies. In the
normal circumstances, the role of the State is a very formal one G
and the State is not expected to obstruct the commencement
of admission process and academic courses once recognition
is granted and affiliation is found to be acceptable.
64. In the case of Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra
Mahavidyalaya (supra), the view of this Court was that the State H
870 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 13 S.C.R.
A Government has no role whatsoever. However, in the case of
Bhartia Education Society (supra), it was stated that the role
of the State Government was limited to the manner of
admission, eligibility criteria, etc. without interfering with the
conditions of recognition prescribed by the NCTE. The exercise
B of discretion by the State Government and affiliating body has
to be within the framework of the Act, the Regulations and
conditions of recognition. Even in St. John Teachers Training
Institute (supra), the Court stated that the State Government or
the Union Territory has to necessarily confine itself to the
c guidelines issued by the NCTE while considering application
for grant of 'No Objection Certificate'. Minimization of the role
of the State at the second stage can also be justified on the
ground that affiliation primarily is a subject matter of the
University which is responsible for admission of the students
laying down the criteria thereof, holding of examinations and
0
implementation of the prescribed courses while maintaining the
standards of education as prescribed.
65. Lastly, the question which is required to be discussed
in light of the facts of the present cases is adherence to the
E Schedule. Once the relevant Schedules have been prescribed ·
under the Regulations or under the Judge made iaw, none,
whosoever it be, is entitled to carve out exceptions to the
prescribed Schedule. Adherence to the Schedule is the
essence of granting admission in a fair and transparent manner
F as well as to maintain the standards of education. The purpose
of providing a time schedule is to ensure that all concerned
authorities act within the stipulated time. Where, on the one
hand, it places an obligation upon the authorities to act
according to the Schedule, there it also provides complete
G clarity to other stakeholders as to when their application would
either be accepted and/or rejected and what will be the time
duration for it to be processed at different quarters. It also gives
clear understanding to the students for whose benefit the entire
process is set up as to when their examinations would be held,
when results would be declared and when they are expected
H to take admission to different colleges in order of merit
MAA VAISHNO DEVI MAHILA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. 871
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
obtained by them in the entrance examinations or other A
processes for the purposes of subject and college preference.
66. We are constrained to reiterate with emphasis at our
command that the prescribed schedules under the Regulations
and the judgments must be strictly adhered to without
exceptions. None in the hierarchy of the State Government, 8
University, NCTE or any other authority or body involved in this
process can breach the Schedule for any direct or indirect
reason. Anybody who is found to be defaulting in this behalf is
bound to render himself or herself liable for initiation of
proceedings under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts C
Act, 1971 as well as for a disciplinary action in accordance with
the orders of the Court. In the case of Parshavanath Charitable
Trust & Ors. V. All India Council for Technical Education &
Ors. (Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) 26086 of 2012), decided on the
same date, this Court held as under : D
"29 ... Time schedule is one such condition specifically
prescribed fer admission to the colleges. Adherence to
admission schedule is again a subject which requires strict
conformity by all concerned, without exception. Reference E
in this regard can be made to Ranjan Purohit and Ors. V.
Rajasthan University of Health Science and Ors. ((2012)
8 SCALE 71] at this stage, in addition to the judgment of
this Court in the case of Medical Council of India v.
Madhu Singh, [(2002) 7 SCC 258]."
F
67. Undoubtedly, adherence to Schedule achieves the
object of the Act and its various aspects. Disobedience results
in unfair admissions, not commencing the courses within the
stipulated time and causing serious prejudice to the students
of higher merit resulting in defeating the rule of merit.
G
68. We may very clearly state here that we adopt and
reiterate the Schedule stated by this Court in the case of
College of Professional Education (supra) in relation to
admission as well as recognition and affiliation. This obviously
includes the commencement of the courses in time. However, H
872 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 13 S.C.R.
A in order to avoid the possibility of any ambiguity, we propose
to state the schedule for recognition and affiliation in terms of
the NCTE Regulation~ 2009 and the judgment of this Court in
the case of College of Professional Education (supra) :
69. The process for grant of recognition, affiliation and
B thereby sanctioning of commencement of the courses in terms
of the Regulations and the orders of this Court gives an outer
period of approximately 270 days, i.e. 9 months, from 1st
September to 1Oth May of the year immediately preceding the
concerned academic year. Thus, for the entire process to be
C within this framework, it must be completed within the afore-
stated period. The process inter alia includes various steps
including comments of the State, inspection of the institution
and compliance of the various conditions afore-noted in the
order of recognition and affiliation by the affiliating body.
D 70. There appear to be some over-lapping periods and
even contradictions between the dates and periods st~ted
under the regulations inter se anct ev:m with reference to the
judgments of this Gm.iil prescribing the Schedule. For example
in terms of the judgment of this Court in the case of College of
E Professional Education (supra), the last date for grant of
affiliation is 10th May of the concerned year, but as per
Regulation 5.5 of the NCTE Regulations, 2009, the last date
for grant of recognition is 15th May of the relevant year.
Similarly, there is an overlap between the period specified in
F Regulation 7.1 and that under Regulation 7.2. Such overlapping
is likely to cause some confusion in the mind of the
implementing authority as well as the applicant. Thus, it is
necessary for this Court to put to rest these avoidable events
and unnecessary controversies. Compelled with these
G circumstances and to ensure that there exists no ambiguity,
uncertainty and confusion, we direct and prescribe the following
schedule upon a cumulative reading of the Regulations and.
judgments of this Court in relation to recognition and affiliation.
H
MAA VAISHNO DEVI MAHILA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. 873
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
Schedule A
1. Submission of applications 1st September to 1st for
for recognition in terms of October of the year
Regulation 5.4 relevant immediately preceding the
academic year
B
2. Communication of Within 45 days from the
deficiencies, shortcomings date of receipt of the
or any other discrepancy in applications
the application submitted
by the applicant to the
applicant in terms of
c
Regulation 7.1
3. Removal of such Within 60 days from the
deficiencies by the date of receipt of
applicant communication D
4. Forwarding of copy of the Within 90 days from the
application to the State date of receipt of the
Government/UT application
Administration for its
E
recommendations/
comments in terms of
Regulation 7.2
5. Recommendations/ Within 30 days from the
comments of the State date of issue of letter to it. F
Government/UT
Administration to be
submitted to the Regional
Committee under
Regulation 7 .3 G
6. If recommendations/ Within seven days from the
comments are not received date of expiry of the period
within 30 days, the of 30 days.
Regional Committee shall
send to the State H
874 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 13 S.C.R.
A GovemmenVUT
Administration a reminder
letter for submission of the
recommendations/
comments.
B
7. State Government/UT Within 15 days from the date
Administration shall furnish of receipt of such reminder
the recommendations/ letter
comments
c 8. Intimation regarding Within 10 days from final
inspection by the Regional scrutiny of the application.
Committee to the applicant
under Regulation 7(4)
9. Report by the Inspection 20 days thereafter
D Committee under
Regulation 7(5)
10. Letter of intent to the 1Oth of February of the
institution with respect to succeeding year/relevant
E grant or refusal of year
recognition in terms of
Regulation 7.9
11. Time to comply with certain 20 days from the date of
specified conditions, in issuance of letter of intent
F terms of Regulation 7(10)
and 7(11)
12. Issuance of formal order of By 3rd March of each year
recognition
G 13. Last date for submitting By 10th March of each year
proposal for affiliation
14. Forwarding of proposal by By 10th March of each year
the University to the State
GovernmenVUT A
H
MAA VAISHNO DEVI MAHILA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. 875
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
dministration after A
inspection by expert team
15. Comments to be submitted By 10th March of each year
by the State Government/
UT Administration, if any
B
16. Final date for issuance/ By 10th March of each year
grant of affiliation for the
relevant academic year
• All notices/orders/requirements/letters in terms of
the above schedule or under the provisions of the C
Act or terms and conditions of already granted
recognition/affiliation shall be sent by the authority
concerned by Speed Postle-mail on the address
given in the application for correspondence etc. and
shall be posted on the website of the concerned o
Authority/Committee/Council/ Government.
The recognition and affiliation granted as per above
schedule shall be applicable for the current
academic year. For example recognition granted
upto 3rd March, 2013 and affiliation granted upto E
1Oth May, 2013 shall be effective for the academic
year 2013-2014 i.e. the courses starting from 1st
April, 2013. For the academic year 2013-2014,
no recognition shall be issued after 3rd March,
2013 and no affiliation shall be granted after 1Oth F
May, 2013. Any affiliation or recognition granted
after the above cut-off dates shall only be valid for
the academic year 2014-2015.
We make it clear that no Authority/person/ Council/
Committee shall be entitled to vary the schedule for G
any reason whatsoever. Any non-compliance shall
amount to violating the orders of the Court.
71. In all the appeals and petitions before us, the basic
issue is whether the university and the State Government were H
876 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 13 S.C.R.
A justified in rejecting the application or not granting application
for affiliation on the ground that there was a cut-off date and/or
the conditions of recommendation/affiliation had not been
satisfied. In some cases, serious disputes have been raised
with regard to the fulfillment of the conditions of recognition and/
8 or affiliation. As far as the reason in relation to cut-off date is
concerned, we cannot find any fault with the view taken by the
authorities concerned. 10th of May has been provided as the
cut-off date, after which no affiliation for the current academic
year would be granted. This, being the law stated by this Court,
C is binding on all concerned, including any authority. The
authorities have rightly acted in declining to entertain and/or
refusing affiliation to the institutions being beyond the cut-off
date. Adherence to the schedule was the obligation of the
authorities and the institutions cannot raise any grievance in
that regard. The said time schedule must become operative
0 in all respects and nobody should be permitted to carve
exceptions to this mandatory direction.
72. Coming to the cases where the plea has been taken
by the respondents University/State that conditions of affiliation
E have not been satisfied. It is not for this Court to examine the
compliance or breach of conditions and their extent in the
special leave petitions or writ petitions as the case may be. In
fact, the judgment of the High Court has been brought to our
notice where it has been recorded that conditions in some
F cases have been complied with, but still the State has taken
the stand that besides cut-off date, other conditions are also
not satisfied. One of the examples relates to the matter where
the State/affiliating body has found that even the building's
boundary wall was not complete and the fire equipments have
not been installed as prescribed. However, these were
G specifically disputed by the petitioners/appellants who
contended that all conditions had been satisfied. Thus, these
are disputes of very serious nature. They will squarely fall
beyond the ambit of appellate or writ jurisdiction by this Court.
This is for the specialised bodies to examine the matters upon
H
MAA VAISHNO DEVI MAHILA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. 877
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
physical verification and to proceed with the application of the A
institute in accordance with law.
73. We may mention that firstly vide order dated 26th July,
2012 a stay in regard to counseling and admission was granted
by this Court. However, this order was varied again by order
dated 27th September, 2012 which reads as under:- B
"By our interim order dated 26th July, 2012, we had, while
taking note of the fact that counselling for vacant seats
in B.Ed. Course for different private colleges in the State
of Uttar Pradesh was scheduled from 27th July, 2012 to
26th August, 2012, directed that the counselling will not be C
held for the time being.
On 25th September, 2012, after hearing writ petition and
all other connected matters, we had called upon the
Universities to file an affidavit on the issue whether the D
students admitted to the institution which had already
been affiliated will be able to complete the course
during the academic session as per the Regulations of
the NCTE if the interim order is vacated or modified now.
Pursuant to the aforesaid orders passed on 25th E
September, 2012, an affidavit has been filed on behalf of
respondent No. 2 - Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Awadh
University and it is inter alia stated therein that if the
vacancies in the seats in different private colleges which
are affiliated are filled up and students are admitted, the F
University will still be in a position to complete the
mandatory requirements of 200 days as per the NCTE
norms and Regulations, since the examinatio11s for the last
academic session 2011-12 have commenced from the
second week of September, 2012 only. Along with the G
affidavit, a chart has been annexed to indicate that there
were 13,435 vacant seats in self-financing colleges which
are affiliated to the concerned Universities comprising
2762 vacant seats in the Arts and Commerce Stream and
10,673 seats in Science and Agriculture.
H
878 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 13 S.C.R.
A Considering the aforesaid facts stated in the affidavit filed
on behalf of respondent No. 2, we vacate the interim and
permit the authorities to fill up the vacant seats in B.Ed.
Course in different self-financing colleges which have
already been granted affiliation as well as Government
B and Goyernment aided Colleges. But we make it clear
that the authorities will ensure that the students are
admitted strictly as per the procedure that has been
already notified on the basis of merit in the entrance
examination and fresh counselling will take place after a
fresh advertisement in the newspapers having circulation
c in the State of Uttar Pradesh and in the internet. The
authorities will also ensure that the students admitted
complete the mandatory period of 200 days' course in the
B.Ed. as per norms of the NCTE.
D The matters are reserved for judgment."
74. In furtherance to the above order, we are informed that
the admissions had been granted in the recognised and
affiliated institutes. In the colleges which were neither
recognised nor affiliated, whether or not included in the list of
E counseling, no admissions were given to the students. The
petitioner/appellant colleges fall in that category. We do not
propose to grant any relief to them in the present writ petitions
and appeals except issuance o'f certain directions.
Consequently and in view of our above discussion, we dispose
F of all these appeals/writ petitions with the following directions:-
A) The schedule stated in the case of College of
Professional Education {supra) and in this
judgment in relation to admissions, recognition,
affiliation and commencement of courses shall be
G strictly adhered to by all concerned including the
NCTE, the State Government and the University/
examining body.
B) In the event of disobedience of schedule and/or any
attempt to overreach or circumvent the judgment of
H
MAA VAISHNO DEVI MAHILA MAHAVIDYALAYA v. 879
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
this Court and the directions contained herein, the A
concerned person shall render himself or herself
liable for proceedings under the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971 and even for departmental
disciplinary action in accordance with law.
C) We hereby direct the NCTE/ State GovernmenV B
Examining or affiliating body to consider the
applications and pass appropriate orders granting
or refusing to grant recognition/affiliation to the
petitioner institutions within three months from today.
D) If the institutions are aggrieved from the order
c
passed by the authorities in terms of clause 'C'
(supra), they will be at liberty to challenge the same
in accordance with law.
E) The NCTE shall circulate the copy of this judgment o
to all Regional Committees, concerned State
Governments and all affiliating bodies and also put
the some on its website .for information of all
stakeholders and public at large.
F) The interim order dated 27th September, 2012 is E
made absolute.
75. All the writ petitions and appeals are accordingly
disposed of, however, leaving the parties to bear their own
costs.
F
K.K.T. Writ Petitions & Appeals disposed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "NCTE"Sign in to search