NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION AND ANOTHERversusVENUS PUBLIC EDUCATION SOCIETY AND OTHERS

                      [2012] 10 S.C.R. 919


  NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION AND                           A
                    ANOTHER
                                 v.
  VENUS PUBLIC EDUCATION SOCIETY AND OTHERS
          (Civil Appeal No. 7749 of 2012)
                                                                       B
                      NOVEMBER 1, 2012

    [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.]

       Educational institution - Seeking recognition from
 National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) - For                   C
 academic session 2010-11 - Council asking the institution
 to remove deficiencies - The institution moving the Court for
 direction to grant recognition - High Court directing to
 consider the case for grant of recognition - NCTE issuing
 'letter of intent' to the institution - The institution, instead of   D
 complying with the same, moved court for grant of recognition
 for academic session 2011-12 - High Court directing to
consider the case - NCTE issuing order of recognition for the
 academic session 2012-13 with direction to comply with post-
recognition conditions and directing to give admission to              E
students only after obtaining affiliation from the examining
body - The institution giving admission to students for
academic session 2011-12 and approaching the court for
direction to treat the recognition granted for the academic
session 2012-13 as recognition for academic Session 2011-              F
 12 - High Court directing to grant recognition for academic
session 2011-12 with annual intake of 50 students - On
appeal, held: Direction of the High Court is contrary to the
provisions of law and interpretation of 1993 Act and 2009
Regulations - The recognition granted for academic session             G
2012-13 could not have been directed to be retrospectively
operative as certain formalities remained to be complied with
- The institution could not have given admission without
recognition and affiliation with examining body - NCTE a/so
                               919                                     H
    920     SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2012] 10 S.C.R.

A should have acted in promptitude and not to create a feeling
    that educational institutions are harassed - National Council
    for Teacher Education Act, 1993 - s. 14 - National Council
    for Teacher Education (Recognition, Norms and Procedure)
    Regulations, 2009 - Regulations 5(5), 7(9), 7(11), 8(1) and
B   8(12).

       The respondent-Society made an application in
  October 2009 to the Western Regional Committee (WRC)
  of National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) for
  grant of recognition for the purpose of conducting
C D.El.Ed. course from the academic session 2010-11. WRC
  asked the Society to remove certain deficiencies. On the
  basis of the report of the inspection of the Society, WRC
  refused recognition. The appellate authority, directed
  inspection by NCTE headquarters. As per the order,
D inspection was conducted. After the submission of the
  report, appellate authority allowed the appeal, reversing
  the order of WRC and directing to process the case on
  merits.

E      The society filed writ petition No. 454112011 seeking
  direction for NCTE to grant recognition for the academic
  session 2010-11. During pendency of the petition, WRC
  intended to conduct further inspection. High Court
  quashed the decision of inspection by WRC and directed
F to consider the case, for grant of recognition in
  accordance with order passed by appellate authority. As
  the order passed by High Court was not complied with,
  the society filed another writ petition. High Court
  observed that the society was at liberty to file a contempt
G petition.
      WRC then issued 'letter of intent' under Clause 7(9)
  of National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition,
  Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2009. In the
  meantime the society filed contempt petition for non-
H compliance of order passed in writ petition No. 454112Q.11.
  NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION v.            921
       VENUS PUBLIC EDUCATION SOCIETY
The High Court directed to consider the case of the           A
Society.
     During pendency of the contempt petition, the
Society filed still another writ petition for direction for
grant of recognition for academic session 2011-12. WRC 8
on 27-1-2011 issued an order of recognition of the
session 2012-13 and directed the Society to comply with
all post-recognition conditions enumerated under clause
8(11) to 8(16) of 2009 Regulations. It was stated that the
Society to make admission only after it obtained affiliation
from examining body. The Society again filed writ petition C
for direction to grant the recognition from academic
session 2011-12 or to treat the recognition dated 27-10-
12 as the recognition for the session 2011-12. The High
Court decided the writ petition alongwith the contempt
petition and held that the Society was entitled to D
recognition for academic session 2011-12 with an annual
intake of 50 students. Hence the present appeal.
     The appellant contended that direction of the High
Court in the impugned judgment is legally impermissible       E
as the Society had not fulfilled the NCTE norms and also
the recognition could not have been made effective
retrospectively.

    The Society contended that after the order of the
High Court, it was obligatory on the part of WRC to confer    F
recognition; and that the Society was compelled to admit
students under the circumstances of the case and
therefore the students admitted for the session 2011-12
should be allowed to undertake the examinations.
                                                              G
    Allowing the appeal, the Court
     HELD: 1.1 In view of Section 14 of National Council
for Teacher Education Act, 1998 and Regulations 5(5),
7(9), 7(11), 8(1) and 8(12) of National Council for Teacher   H
    922     SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2012] 10 S.C.R.


A Education (Recognition, Norms and Procedure)
  Regulations, 2009, it is vivid that the university or
  examining body is required to issue letter of affiliation
  after formal recognition under sub-regulation (11) of
  Regulation 7 of the 2009 Regulations is issued. It is also
B clear that certain obligations are to be carried out by the
  institution after letter of intent is received. The letter of
  intent was communicated to the institution as well as to
  the affiliating body with a request that the process of
  appointment of qualified staff as per the policy of the
c State Government or University Grants Commission or
  University may be initiated and the institution may be
  provided all assistance to ensure that the staff or faculty
  is appointed as per the norms of the NCTE within two
  months. It was obligatory on the part of the institution to
  submit the list of the faculty, as approved by the affiliating
0
  body, to the Regional Committee. Thus understood, the
  letter of intent laid down the conditions which were to be
  fulfilled by the institution. The said letter was issued on
  22.9.2011 and the formal order of recognition was issued
  on 27 .10.2011. Clause 6 of the same, clearly stipulates
E that the institution shall make admission only after it
  obtains its affiliation from the examining body in terms of
  clause 8(12) of the 2009 Regulations. [Para 26] [942-E-H;
  943-A-B]

F      1.2 The High Court has erred in misconstruing its
  earlier order passed in Writ Petition 4541 of 2011. True it
  is, there was some delay and, therefore, the High Court
  was moved in another writ petition wherein it had granted
  liberty to file a contempt petition expecting that the
G directions in the earlier order would be duly complied
  with. Thereafter, letter of intent was issued, but the
  institution instead of complying with the same, moved
  the High Court for grant of recognition. The High Court,
  in the initial order had directed to consider the case of
H the respondent-institution for grant of recognition without
  NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION v.          923
       VENUS PUBLIC EDUCATION SOCIETY

further inspection. Issuance of letter of intent was A
necessary prior to grant of formal letter of recognition.
However, the High Court being moved, directed for
issuance of formal letter of recognition which was issued
with a postulate that the institution shall only grant
admission after obtaining affiliation from the examining B
body in terms of clause 8(12) of 2009 Regulations. The
order of recognition clearly mentioned that it was meant
for the academic session 2012-13. [Para 33) [947-D-G]

     1.3 The High Court could not have directed the
recognition to be retrospectively operative because C
certain formalities remained to be complied with. The High
Court did not keep itself alive to the conceptual difference
between "letter of intent" and "formal recognition".
Though there was delay, but that could not have enabled
the High Court to issue a writ for treating the recognition D
to be effective for the year 2011-12 with intake of fifty
students. That apart, the respondent-institution had not
obtained affiliation from the university. Therefore, the
direction of the High Court is contrary to the provisions
of law and the interpretation of the Act and the E
Regulations. [Para 34] (947-H; 948-A-C]

     1.4 Without recognition from the NCTE and affiliation
from the university/examining body, the educational
institution cannot admit the students. An educational F
institution is expected to be aware of the law. The
students who take admission are not young in age. They
are graduates. They are expected to enquire whether the
institution has recognition and affiliation. The institution
had given admission in a nonchalant manner. The
institution betrayed the trust of the students and the G
students, in a way, atrophied their intelligence. [Para 35]
[948-D-F; 949-A]
    Chairman, Bharlia Education Society and Anr. v. State
ofHimacha! Pradesh and Ors. {2011) 4 SCC 527: 2011          H
    924      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2012] 10 S.C.R.


A   (2) SCR 461 ;Adarsh Shiksha Mahavidyalaya v. Subhsh
    Rahangdale and Ors.2012 (2) SCC 425; Andhra Kesari
    Educational Society v.Director of School Education (1989) 1
    SCC 392: 1988 (3) Suppl. SCR 893; A.P. Christian Medical
    Educational Society v. Govt. of A.P. (1986) 2 SCC 667:
a   1986 (2) SCR 749; N.M.Nageshwaramma v. State of A.P.
    1986 Supp SCC 166; State of Maharashtra v Vikas Sahebrao
    Roundale (1992) 4 SCC 435:1992 (3) SCR 792; St. John's
    Teachers Training Institute (for   Women) v. State of T.N.
    (1993) 3 sec 595: 1993 (3) SCR 985 - relied on.
c     Ahmedabad St. Xavier's College Society v. State of
  Gujarat (1974)1 SCC 717: 1975 (1) SCR 173; Shri Morvi
  Sarvajanik KelavniMandal Sacha/it MSKM BEd College v.
  National Council forTeachers' Education and Ors. (2012} 2
  SCC 16: 2011 (13)SCR 555; State of T.N. v. St. Joseph
D Teachers Traininglnstitute (1991) 3 SCC 87: 1991 (2) SCR
  231 - referre_d to.

         2. NCTE should have acted in quite promptitude, for
    a statutory authority which is conferred with the power,
E   is required to act within the parameters of law and the
    directions given by the court and further not to create a
    feeling among the educational institutions that they are
    harassed. Its actions neither should show arbitrariness
    nor should it reflect any indulgence. Objectivity, reliability
F   and trust are to be the motto of the NCTE and the
    committees working under it. [Para 36) [949-C-EJ
                         Case Law Reference:
          1975 (1) SCR 173          Referred to          Para 3
G         1988 (3) Suppl. SCR 893 Referred to           Para 3
          2011 (2) SCR 461          Relied on            Para 27
          2011 (13) SCR 555         Referred to          Para 28

H
   NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION v.               925
        VENUS PUBLIC EDUCATION SOCIETY

     1986 Supp sec 166           Referred to          Para 28    A
     1991 (2) SCR 231            Referred to          Para 28
     1992 (3) SCR 792            Relied on            Para 28
     2012 (2) sec 425            Relied on            Para 29    B
     1986 (2) SCR 749            Relied on            Para 31
     1986 Supp sec 166           Relied on            Para 31
     1993 (3) SCR 985            Relied on            Para 31
                                                                 c
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
7749 of 2012.

    From the Judgment & Order dated 7 .12.2011 of the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior in Writ Petition (C) No.
7664 of 2011.                                                    D

    Amitesh Kumar, Ravi Kant, Preeti Kumari, Chandra
Shakher, Navin Prakash for the Appellants.

   Ranjit Kumar, Varun Thakur, Brajesh Pandey, Varinder E
Kumar Sharma, Vibha Datta Makhija for the Respondents.

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

    DIPAK MISRA, J. 1. Leave granted.
                                                                  F
      2. Acquisition of knowledge and obtaining of necessary
training for imparting education have their immense
signification. As C. Simmons would like to put it ''The secret of
successful teaching is to teach accurately, thoroughly, and
earnestly" and one may fruitfully add that accuracy and G
thoroughness can be achieved by cultivated education, matured
training and keen intellect. That is why teaching becomes a
teacher's passion and religion. A good teacher, in a way,
represents country's orderly civilization. A teacher is expected
to kindle interest in the taught by method of investigation, H
    926       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2012) 10 S.C.R.


A   incessant implantation of knowledge and demonstration of
    experience that is replete with intellectual pragmatism. A student
    who is keen on getting training has to keep in mind the concept
    of reason, conception of logic and sanctity of rationality. He is
    expected to distance himself from habitual disobedience and
B   unfettered feeling, for a civilized society which is governed by
    Rule of Law does not countenance such character!stics. The
    aspiration to become a teacher after obtaining training requires
    these qualities as they constitute the base on which the
    superstructure is built.
c        3. Importance of teachers and their training, significance
    of qualified teachers in schools and colleges and their
    centripodal role in building of the nation have been highlighted
    in Ahmedabad St. Xavier's College Society v. State of
    Gujarat 1, Andhra Kesari Educational Society v. Director of
D   School Education 2, State of Maharashtra v Vikas Sahebrao
    Rounda/e 3, St. John's Teachers Training Institute (for Women)
    v. State of T. N. 4 and N. M. Nageshwaramma v. State of A. P. 5,
    and recently reiterated in Adarsh Shiksha Mahavidyalaya and
    others v. Subhash Rahangdale and others6•
E
          4. It is to be clearly stated that an institution that is engaged
    or interested in getting involved in imparting a course for training
    has to obey the command of law in letter and spirit. There cannot
    be any deviation. But, unfortunately, some of the institutions
F   flagrantly violate the norms with adamantine audacity and seek
    indulgence of the court either in the name of mercy or sympathy
    for the students or financial constraint of the institution or they
    have been inappropriately treated by the statutory regulatory

G   1.   (1974) 1 sec 717.
    2.   (1989) 1 sec 392.
    3.   (1982) 4 sec 435.
    4.   (1993) 3 sec 595.
    5.   1986 Supp sec 166.
H   6.   (2012) 2 sec 425.
  NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION v.      927
VENUS PUBLIC EDUCATION SOCIETY [DIPAK MISRA, J.]

bodies. None of these grounds justify deviation. The case at           A
hand graphically depicts deviations but the High Court putting
the blame on the statutory authority has granted relief to the
respondent-institution which is impermissible.

       5. The factual exposition of the present litigation
                                                                       8
demonstrably reflects the combat between the truth and
falsehood, battle between justice and injustice, the contestation
between the accord and discord, the collision between fairness
and manipulation, the scuffle betwixt the sacrosanctity of the
majesty of law and its abuses and the clash between the
mandated principles and invocation of sympathy. Such a                 C
controversy emerges because majesty, sanctity and purity of
law have been corroded and truth, however, relative it may be
in the mundane world, has its own command and the same has
been deliberately guillotined forgetting the fundamental fact that
none can afford to build a castle in Spain in the realm of truth.      D
It is worthy to note that justice in its connotative expanse engulfs
the liberalism of an ocean, the magnanimity of the Sun, the
sternness of a mountain, the simplicity of a saint, the austerity
of a Spartan and the humility of a river. The concept of justice
has to remain embedded in spite of adversities. It should              E
remain unshaken, unterrified, unperturbed and loyal to the Rule
of Law. In the case at hand, as a maladroit effort has been
made to give an indecent burial to the command of law and
pave the path of injustice, the same has to be dealt with sternly
sans sympathy.                                                         F

     6. Presently to the factual narration. The respondent-
society submitted an application on 27 .10.2009 to the Western
Regional Committee (for short "the WRC") of National Council
for Teacher Education (for brevity "the NCTE") for grant of G
recognition for the purpose of conducting D.El.E~. course from
the academic session 2010-11. On receipt of the said
application the WRC, after scrutiny of the same, issued a
communication dated 10.2.2010 to remove certain
deficiencies, namely, the institution had submitted the lease
                                                               H
    928      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 10 S.C.R.


A deed issued by Gwalior Development Authority in favour of the
  Society for a period of thirty years but the same was not certified
  by the competent authority; that it had submitted copy of the
  building plan approved by Nagar Nigam, Gwalior meant for
  school purposes and not for the college; that the land use
B certificate issued by the competent Government authority was
  not submitted; that the building completion certification from the
  competent Government authority was not filed; that the
  encumbrance certificate from the competent Government
  authority was not submitted; and that necessary undertaking in
C the prescribed format was not enclosed. The respondent
  institution was advised to remove the deficiencies within a span
  of sixty days. It was also required to submit a reply pertaining
  to the deficiencies pointed out by the WRC. The respondent
  submitted its reply on 20.3.2010 and the same was considered
  in the 133rd meeting of the WRC held on 20-21.04.2010. On
0
  11.5.2010 the WRC informed the respondent that it would
  conduct an inspection for D.El.Ed. course for the academic
  session 2010-11 on a date between 21.5.2010 to 30.5.2010.
  The visiting team carried out the inspection and submitted its
  report to the WRC which, in its 136th meeting held on 5-
E 7.6.2010, decided to issue a show cause notice under Section
  14(3)(b) of the National Council for Teacher Education Act,
  1993 (for brevity 'the 1993 Act') and, accordingly, a show cause
  notice was issued on 19.6.2010 requiring the respondent to file
  its representation within twenty one days. The reply to show
F cause notice was received on 7.7.2010 and the WRC
  considered the same and took the decision on 20-21.7.2010
  to refuse recognition on the ground that the approved building
  plan submitted by the college showed a square building with
  ground and two floors, whereas the videograph showed the
G building was rectangular and having ground and one floor. The
  said decision was communicated vide order dated 3.8.2010
  whereunder the WRC refused recognition in exercise of power
  under Section 14(3)(b) of the 1993 Act.

H         7. As the factual matrix further gets unfolded, the
  NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION v. 929
VENUS PUBLIC EDUCATION SOCIETY [DIPAK MISRA, J.]

respondent preferred an appeal on 29.9.2010 under Section            A
18 of the 1993 Act and the appellate authority by order dated
10.11.2010 opined as follows: -

           "AND WHEREAS Shri Vivek Gupta, !?resident,
    Venus Public Education Society, Gwalior, Madhya                  8
    Pradesh presented the case of the appellant institutiqn on
    20.10.2010. In the appeal and during perso11al
    presentation, it was submitted that there was not at all any
    mismatch between the approved plan and videography.
    The building with Ground and two floors was constructed          C
    in the same shape according to the building plan which
    was also proved by the completion certificate. The
    similarity was also proved with the relevant clip of the
    videography which was submitted wherein the building
    was visible with ground and two floors with the visiting
    team. The position of the existing building with ground plus     D
    two floors was also proved by the photographs of the
    building taken from different angles. The ground taken by
    the WRC that the building was square and rectangular was
    an after thought which was totally unlawful. The WRC did
    not communicate such type of objection earlier. The              E
    building was more than sufficient and fulfills the norms and
    standards of the NCTE.

           AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the VT
    report did not indicate the dimensions of the rooms as well      F
    as the total built up area available for the proposed course.
    The report also did not contain an essential data sheet in
    which the particulars with regard to land and built up area
    details are to be filled. It merely stated the infrastructural
    facilities were as per the NCTE norms. Further the               G
    photographs annexed with the appeal do not confirm to the
    VCD available in the WRC's file. In view of this the Council
    came to the conclusion that an inspection of the institution
    may be conducted by the NCTE Hqrs. for taking a final
    decision in the appeal."                                         1-1
    930       SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2012) 10 S.C.R.


A        On the basis of the aforesaid order a team was
    constituted which submitted the report and eventually, after
    perusal of the report, the NCTE, on 11.3.2011, passed the
    following order: -
                 "AND WHEREAS the Council noting that the report
B         of the visiting team from the Hqrs. of the Council has
          clarified the position, came to the conclusion that the
          appeal deserves to be accepted and the order of the WRC
          reversed with a direction to process the case further on
          merits.
c
               _AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents,
          memorandum of appeal, affidavit and after considering oral
          arguments advanced during the hearing, the Council
          reached the conclusion that there was adequate ground
0         to accept the appeal and reverse the WRC's order dated
          03.08.2010 with the direction to the WRC to process the
          case further on merits. Accordingly, the appeal was
          accepted and the order of the WRC dated 03.08.2010
          reversed."
E      8. After the appeal was disposed of, the WRC decided to
  constitute a visiting team. In the meantime the respondent
  preferred Writ Petition No. 4541 of 2011 for issue of writ of
  mandamus to the NCTE to grant recognition for the aca~mic
  session 2010-11 for D.El.Ed. course. During the pendency of
F the writ petition, on 22. 7.2011 the WRC decided to conduct
  further inspection between 22. 7.2011 to 30. 7.2011. The
  inspecting team visited the respondent institution on 27.7.2011
  and submitted its report to the WRC. The report indicated that
  a functionary of the Society told the team that as the matter was
G subjudice, the WRC had no authority to inspect. However, the
  team went to the institution and took photographs of the
  building. When the matter came up before the High Court on
  28.7.2011, it, after narrating the chronological events and the
  order passed by the appellate authority, issued the followin!;J
H directions: -
  NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION v.      931
VENUS PUBLIC EDUCATION SOCIETY [DIPAK MISRA, J.]

      "(i)    That the decision of the Respondent No. 1 for           A
              inspection of the petitioner institution vide letter
              dated 22.7.2011 is hereby quashed;
      (ii)    The respondent is directed to consider the case of
              the petitioner for grant of recognition in accordance
                                                                      8
              with the order passed by Appellate Authority dated
              11.3.2011.

      (iii)   The case of the petitioner shall be considered for
              grant of recognition within a period of two weeks
              from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."      C

     9. As the order was not complied with within the stipulated
time, the respondent preferred Writ Petition No. 5776 of 2011.
The High Court disposed of the same by observing that the
grievance of the petitioner was that in spite of direction issued     D
by the court in the earlier writ petition, the respondents had yet
not complied with the direction and for the aforesaid purpose,
the petitioner was at liberty to file a contempt petition. The High
Court further observed that it was expected that the respondents
shall obey the direction issued by the court in W.P. C No. 4541/      E
2011.

     10. As is perceptible, the WRC in its 154th meeting held
on 11-12.9.2011 considered the matter and vide order dated
22.9.2011 issued a "letter of intent" for grant of recognition for
D.El.Ed. course under clause 7(9) of National Council for             F
Teacher Education (Recognition, Norms and Procedure)
Regulations, 2009 (for short "2009 Regulations"). The relevant
part of the said letter of intent reads as follows: -

     "3. Before grant of formal recognition under Regulation          G
     7(11) of the NCTE Regulations 2009, is considered, you
     are requested to submit the following:

      (i)     The institution shall initiate the process of
              appointments of qualified staff as per Policy of
              State Government or University Grants                   H
    932          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 10 S.C.R.


A                 Commission or University and ensure that the staff
                  or faculty is appointed as per the NCTE norms
                  within two months. (in case of M.Ed. six months).
                  The Institute shall submit the list of faculty as
                  approved by the affiliating body to the Western
B                 Regional Committee. An affidavit on the enclosed
                  format of Rs.100/- Non-Judicial Stamp Paper from
                  each faculty member appointed are to be
                  submitted.

          (ii)     The institute shall launch its own website covering
c                  interalia, the details of the institution, its location,
                   name of the course applied for with intake,
                   availability of physical infrastructural (land, building,
                   office, class rooms and other facilities/amenities),
                   infrastructural facilities (laboratory, photographs,
D                  Permanent Account Number (PAN) or Unique
                   Identity Number (UIN) of the teacher educator
                   whenever issued by the NCTE), for information of
                   all concerned. The institution shall also make
                   available on its website information relating to:
E
                   i.     Sanctioned programmes along with annual
                          intake in the institution.

                   j.     Name of faculty and staff in full as
                          'mentioned in school certificate along with
F                         their qualification, scale of pay and
                          photograph.

                   k.     Name of faculty Members who left or joined
                          during the last quarter.
G
                   I.     Names of students admitted during the
                          current session alongwith qualification,
                          percentage of marks in the qualifying
                          examination and in the entrance test, if any,
                          date of admission etc.
H
  NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION v.      933
VENUS PUBLIC EDUCATION SOCIETY [DIPAK MISRA, J.]

            m.     Fee charged from students                         A

            n.     Facilities added during the last summer.

            o.     Number of books in the library, journals
                   subscribed to and addition, if any, in the last
                   quarle~                                           B
            p.    The institution shall be free to post additional
                  relevant information, if it so desires.

    (iii)   The institution shall submit FDR of Rs.500 Lakhs         c
            towards Endowment Fund and Rs.300 Lakhs
            towards reserve fund in the joint name of authorised
            representative of the management and the
            Regional Director, WRC, NCTE and the same shall
            be maintained perpetually by way of renewal of
            FDR's at the intervals of every five years. The FDRs
                                                                     0
            submitted by the institution are returned herewith for
            conversion/renewal (this time to be added in case
            FDRs are not in the office).

   4. Any wrong or incomplete information on website shall           E
   render the institution liable for withdrawal of recognition,
   under the Act of NCTE.

   5. Admission should not be made until formal recognition
   order under Clause 7(11) of the NCTE (Recognition,                F
   Norms and Procedures) Regulation, 2009 is issued by
   Western Regional Committee, NCTE and affiliation is
   obtained from the University/examining body concerned.

   6. You are advised to comply the above requirement
   before formal recognition is considered under regulation          G
   7(11) of NCTE (Recognition, Norms and Procedures)
   Regulation, 2009 under section 14(3)(a) of the Act."

                                           [emphasis supplied]
                                                                     H
    934       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2012] 10 S.C.R.


A       11. Be it noted, in the meantime the respondent had filed
  Contempt Petition No. 677 of 2011 for non-compliance of order
  dated 28. 7.2011 passed in Writ Petition No. 4541 of 2011. On
  28.9.2011 a submission was put forth that as the court had
  decided to grant recognition to the respondent-institution, an
B interim direction should be issued to admit the students for
  D.Ed. course because after 30.9.2011 it would not be able to
  admit the students. The High Court, dealing with the said
  submission, opined as follows: -

          "In our opinion, no such interim direction can be issued in
c         favour of the petitioner vide clause 3 of the letter, the
          petitioner has been directed to submit certain information
          and documents and that has to be verified by the NCTE.
          Even apart, in a contempt matter, by way of interim
          direction, a relief could not be granted. However, we
D         observe that if the petitioner is eligible, the authority shall
          consider the case of the petitioner on 30th September,
          2011."

        12. It is worthy to note that the WRC was to file the reply
E within three weeks. During the pendency of the contempt
  petition, the respondent preferred Writ Petition No. 6674 of
  2011 for grant of recognition for academic session 2011-12
  for D.El.Ed. course. The High Court, vide order dated
  30.9.2011, directed the Regional Director of the· WRC to
F remain present and explain as to why the decision had not been
  taken in regard to grant of recognition of the respondent
  institution. As is perceived, the WRC vide order dated
  27.10.2011 issued an order of recognition. The relevant portion
  of the same is reproduced hereinbelow: -

G         "4. .. ..... the institution is required to comply with all post-
          recognition conditions enumerated from clause 8 (11) to
          Clause 8(16) of NCTE (Recognition, Norms and
          Procedures) Regulations 2009.

H         6. The institution shall make admission only after it
  NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION v.      935
VENUS PUBLIC EDUCATION SOCIETY [DIPAK MISRA, J.]

     obtains affiliation from the examining body in terms of A
     clause 8(12) of the NCTE (Recognition Norms and
     Procedures) Regulation, 2009 for the academic session·


     7.      The institution/permission will operate for 2012-13
                                                                         8
     only if the requirement of 200 teaching days in the session
     is fulfilled as per calendar of the university/affiliating body."

                                               [emphasis supplied]

     13. Being grieved by the aforesaid order the respondent             c
preferred Writ Petition No. 7664 of 2011 with a prayer to
command the NCTE to grant recognition from the academic
session 2011-12 for D.El.Ed. course or to treat the recognition
dated 27.10.2011 for the academic session 2011-12 instead
of 2012-13. The High Court dealt with the said writ petition             0
along with the contempt petition and, after referring to its earlier
order passed in Writ Petition No. 4541 of 2011, the chronology
of events, the issue of "letter of intent" and eventual grant of
recognition, concluded as under: -

     "8. In this view of the matter, in our opinion, the petitioner      E
     is entitled to have recognition for the academic session
     2011-12 also because the case of the petitioner was
     pending before the Western Regional Committee and in
     pursuance to the directions of the Court dated 28.07.2010
     passed in writ petition No. 4541/2010, it was obligatory            F
     on the part of the respondents to include the claim of the
     petitioner for recognition from the academic session 2011-
     12 also. In our opinion, the respondents have deliberately
     not included the same due to pendency of the Contempt
     F'>roceeding and other proceedings."                                G

     14. After so stating the Bench disposed of the contempt
petition and the writ petition by directing that in the recognition
order dated 27 .10.2011 it shall be added that the institution was
entitled for recognition for the D.El.Ed. course with an annual
                                                                         H
    936      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (2012] 10 S.C.R.


A   intake of 50 students for academic session 2011-12 also. The
    said order is the subject-matter of assail in this appeal.

         15. The thrust of the matter is whether the High Court by
    the impugned order passed on 7.12.2011 could have issued
    a direction as has been stated hereinabove.
8
          16. It is submitted by Mr. Amitesh Kumar, learned counsel
    for the appellants that the order of recognition passed in favour
    of the respondent was conditional and there was a clear
    stipulation that admission should not be made until formal
C   recognition under clause 7(11) of the 2009 regulations is
    issued by the WRC and affiliation is obtained from the
    University/examining body. That apart, the order of recognition
    dated 27.10.2011 clearly laid a postulate that the institution shall
    make admission only after it obtains affiliation from the
D   exafnining body in terms of clause 8(12) of 2009 Regulations
    for the academic session and, therefore, the High Court has
    fallen into error by holding that it was obligatory on the part of
    the NCTE to include the aim of the respondent for recognition
    for the academic session 2011-12 as the same was not
E   deliberately done. The learned counsel would submit the
    direction given by the High Court that the institution was entitled
    for recognition with annual intake of 50 students for academic
    session of 2011-12 also is legally impermissible inasmuch as
    the institution had not fulfilled the NCTE norms and further the
F   recognition could not have been made retrospectively effective.

          17. Mr. Varun Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the
  respondents, per contra, would contend that the WRC had
  acted mala fide in constituting the inspection team and after
  the High Court quashed the same it was obligatory on its part
G to confer recognition without any delay. It is canvassed by him
  that the appellant under the circumstances was compelled to
  admit the students and, therefore, the students who have been
  admitted for the academic session 2010-11 should be allowed
  to undertake the examinations in respect of added intake seats
H as directed by the High Court. It is vehemently proponed by him
  NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION v.      937
VENUS PUBLIC EDUCATION SOCIETY [DIPAK MISRA, J.]

that the educational institutions cannot remain at the total mercy    A
of the WRC and such an attitude on the part of the WRC is likely
to lead to anarchy and a state of uncertainty which would
corrode the financial backbone of the educational societies that
are devoted to imparting education. It is also urged by him that
such a situation would smother the legitimate expectations of         B
the students.

      18. Mrs. Vibha Datta Makhija, learned counsel appearing
for respondent No. 2, M.P. Board of Secondary Education, has
contended that it is obligatory on the part of the Board to verify    C
whether an educational institution has obtained recognition
from the NCTE and affiliation from the Board and then only the
said institution can admit the students, but in the case at hand
as the respondent No. 1 has admitted the students without
recognition and affiliation, they cannot be permitted to appear
in the examination and conferment of such privilege would             D
destroy the fundamental fibre of the education system.

     19. At this juncture, we may fruitfully refer to Section 14 of
the 1993 Act which deals with recognition of institutions offering
course or training in teacher education. It reads as follows: -       E

     "14. Recognition of institutions offering course or
     training in teacher education. - (1) Every institution
     offering or intending to offer a course or training in teache;
     education on or after the appointed day, may, for grant of
     recognition under this Act, make an application to the           F
     Regional Committee concerned in such form and in such
     manner as may be determined by regulations:

           Provided that an institution offering a course or
    training in teacher education immediately before the              G
    appointed day, shall be entitled to continue such course
    or training for a period of six months, if it has made an
    application for recognition within the said period and until
    the disposal of the application by the Regional Committee.
                                                                      H
    938          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 10 S.C.R.


A         (2) The fee to be paid along with the application under sub-
          section (1) shall be such as may be prescribed.

          (3) On receipt of an application by the Regional Committee
          from any institution under sub-section (1 ), and after
B         obtaining from the institution concerned such other
          particulars as it may consider necessary, it shall -

           (a)    if it is satisfied that such institution has adequate
                  financial resources, accommodation, library,
                  qualified staff, laboratory and that it fulfills such other
c                 conditions required for proper functioning of the
                  institution for a course or training in teacher
                  education, as may be determined by regulations,
                  pass an order granting recognition to such
                  institution, subject to such conditions as may be
D                 determined by regulations; or

           (b)    if it is of the opinion that such institution does not
                  fulfill the requirements laid down in sub-clause (a),
                  pass an order refusing recognition to such
                  institution for reasons to be recorded in writing:
E
          Provided that before passing an order under sub-clause
          (b), the Regional Committee shall provide a reasonable
          opportunity to the institution concerned for making a written
          representation.
F
          (4) Every order granting or refusing recognition to an
          institution for a course or training in teacher education
          under sub-section (3) shall be published in the Official
          Gazette and communicated in writing for appropriate
G         action to such institution and to the concerned examining
          body, the local authority or the State Government and the
          Central Government.

          (5) Every institution, in respect of which recognition has
          been refused shall discontinue the course or training in
H
  NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION v.      939
VENUS PUBLIC EDUCATION SOCIETY [DIPAK MISRA, J.]

     teacher education from the end of the academic session            A
     next following the date of receipt of the order refusing
     recognition passed under clause (b) of sub-section (3).

     (6) Every examining body shall, on receipt of the order
     under sub-section (4) -                                           B

      (a)    grant affiliation to the institution, where recognition
             has been granted; or

      (b)    cancel the affiliation of the institution, where
             recognition has been refused."                            C
     20. Section 32 of the Act empowers the council to make
regulations not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act and
rules framed thereunder generally to carry out under the
provisions of the Act. Sub-section (2)(d) provides for the norms,      o
guidelines and standards in respect of certain categories of
employees who are to be employed in the institution. The said
provision reads as follows:-

    "(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of      E
    the foregoing power, such regulations may provide for all
    or any of the following matters, namely-

    {a)

    {b)                                                                F
    {c)

    {cf)    the norms, guidelines and standards in respect of-

     (1)     the minimum qualifications for a person to be             G
             employed as a teacher under clause (cf) of Section
             12;

     (it)    the specified category of courses or training in
             teacher education under clause (e) of Section 12;
                                                                       H
    940         SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2012] 10 S.C.R.


A         (iit)   starting of new courses or training in recognised
                  institutions under clause (f) of Section 12;

          (iv)    standards in respect of examinations leading to
                  teacher education qualifications referred to in
                  clause (g) of Section 12;
B
          (v)     the tuition fees and other fees chargeable by
                  institution under clause (h) of Section 12;

           (v1)   the schemes for various levels of teachers
c                 education, and identification of institutions for
                  offering teacher development programmes under
                  clause (~ of Section 12;"

        21. It is apt to note that in exercise of the aforesaid power,
  the NCTE has, from time to time, framed certain regulations.
D Initially, regulations were framed in the year 1995. Thereafter
  in 2002, 2005, 2007, and the latest one in 2009 have been
  framed.

       22. The lis in the present case is governed by 2009
E Regulations. Clause 5(5) of 2009 Regulations provides as
  follows: -

          "5(5) All applications received on-line on or before the 31st
          day of the October of the year shall be processed for the
          next academic session and final decision, either
F
          recognition granted or refused, shall be communicated to
          the applicant on or before the 15th day of May of the
          succeeding year."

       23. On a perusal of the said Regulation, it is clear as noon
G day that recognition can only be granted for the next academic
  session. Regulation 7(9) provides for issue of "letter of intent".
  The said regulation is as follows: -

          "7(9) The Institution concerned shall be informed through
H         a letter of intent, regarding the decision for grant of
  NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION v. 941
VENUS PUBLIC EDUCATION SOCIETY [DIPAK MISRA, J.]

    recognition or permission subject to appointment of A
    qualified faculty members before the commencement of
    the academic session. The letter of intent issued under this
    clause shall not be notified in the Gazette but would be sent
    to the Institution and the affiliating body with the request
    that the process of appointment of qualified staff as per B
    policy of State Govt. or University Grants Commission or
    University may be initiated and the Institution may be
    provided all assistance to ensure that the staff or faculty
    is appointed as per National Council for Teacher Education
    Norms within two months. The Institution shall submit the   c
    list of the faculty, as approved by the affiliating Body, to
    the Regional Committee."

     24. Regulation 7(9) stipulates what the institution is
required to do after receipt of the "letter of intent". Regulation
7(11) of the 2009 Regulations provides when a formal order D
of recognition is to be issued. The said Regulation is as follows:


    "7(11) The institution concerned, after appointing the
    requisite faculty or staff as per the provisions of sub- E
    regulation (9) and after fulfilling the conditions under sub-
    reg u lation (10), shall formally inform the •Regional
    Committee concerned that the faculty has been appointed
    as per National Council for Teacher Education Norms and
    has been approved by the affiliating body. The letter F
    granting approval for the selection or appointment of faculty
    shall also be provided by the institution to the Regional
    Committee with the document establishing that the Fixed
    Deposit Receipt of Endowment Fund and Reserve Fund
    have been converted into a joint account. The Regional G
    Committee concerned shall then issue a formal order of
    recognition which shall be notified as per provision of the
    National Council for Teacher Education Act."

                                           [emphasis added]
                                                                H
    942       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 10 S.C.R.


A       25. Regulations 8(1) and 8(12) of the 2009 Regulations
    which deal with norms and standards being in a composite
    compartment are quoted below:-

          "8(1) An institution must fulfill all the prescribed conditions
          pertaining to norms and standards as prescribed by
B
          National Council for Teacher Education for conducting
          course or training in teacher education. These norms, inter-
          alia, cover conditions relating to financial resources,
          accommodation, library, laboratory, other physical
          infrastructure, qualified staff including teaching and non-
c         teaching personnel etc.

          ( 12) The University or Examining Body shall grant
          affiliation only after issue of the formal recognition order
          under sub-regulation (11) of Regulation 7 of these
D         Regulations. Further, admissions by the institution shall
          be made only after affiliation by the University or
          Affiliating body and as per the State policy."

                                                  [emphasis supplied]

E         26. On a keen scrutiny of Section 14 and the aforesaid
    Regulations it is vivid that the university or examining body is
    required to issue letter of affiliation after formal recognition
    under sub-regulation (11) of Regulation 7 of the 2009
    Regulations is issued. It is also clear that certain obligations
F   are to be carried out by the institution after letter of intent is
    received. It is clear as a cloudless sky that the letter of intent
    was communicated to the institution as well as to the affiliating
    body with a request that the process of appointment of qualified
    staff as per the policy of the State Government or University
G   Grants Commission or university may be initiated and the
    institution may be provided all assistance to ensure that the
    staff or faculty is appointed as per the norms of the NCTE within
    two months. It was obligatory on the part of the institution to
    submit the list of the faculty, as approved by the affiliating body,
H   to the Regional Committee. Thus understood, the letter of intent
  NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION v.      943
VENUS PUBLIC EDUCATION SOCIETY [DIPAK MISRA, J.]

laid down the conditions which were to be fulfilled by the            A
institution. The said letter was issued on 22.9.2011 and the
formal order of recognition was issued on 27.10.2011. Clause
6 of the same clearly stipulates that the institution shall make
admission only after it obtains its affiliation from the examining
body in terms of clause 8(12) of the 2009 Regulations. Clause         B
8(12), which has been reproduced hereinabove, clearly lays a
postulate that the university or the examining body shall grant
affiliation only after issue of formal recognition order under sub-
clause (11) of Regulation 7 and thereafter the institution shall
make the admissions.                                                  c
     27. In Chairman, Bhartia Education Society and another
v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others7 this Court in the
context of 1993 Act after drawing a distinction between
"recognition" and "affiliation" proceeded to state as follows: -
                                                                      D
      "The examining body can therefore impose its own
      requirements in regard to eligibility of students for
      admission to a course in addition to those prescribed by
      NCTE. The State Government and the examining body
      may also regulate the manner of admissions. As a E
      consequence, if there is any irregularity in admissions or
      violation of the eligibility criteria prescribed by the
      examining body or any irregularity with reference to any of
      the matters regulated and governed by the examining
      body, the examining body may cancel the affiliation F
      irrespective of the fact that the institution continues to enjoy
      the recognition of NCTE. Sub-section (6) of Section 14
      cannot be interpreted in a manner so as to make the
      process of affiliation, an automatic rubber-stamping
      consequent upon recognition, without any kind of discretion G
      in the examining body to examine whether the institution
      deserves affiliation or not, independent of the recognition.
      An institution requires the recognition of NCTE as well as
      affiliation with the examining body, before it can offer a
7.   c2011) 4 sec 527.                                                H
    944       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2012] 10 S.C.R.


A         course or training in teacher education or admit students
          to such course or training."

         28. In Shri Morvi Sarvajanik Kelavni Manda/ Sacha/it
    MSKM BEd College v. National Council for Teachers'
B   Education and others8 a two-Judge Bench, after referring to
    the decisions in N.M. Nageshwaramma (supra), State of T.N.
    v. St. Joseph Teachers Training lnstitute 9, Vikas Sahebrao
    Rounda/e (supra) and Bhartiya Education Society case (supra),
    eventually opined that there was no justification to strike a
    discordant note.
c
         29. In Adarsh Shiksha Mahavidyalaya (supra) this Court,
    after referring to Sections 12, 14 to 16, 17, 17-A, 18, 20, 29
    and 32 of the 1993 Act, Regulations 3, 5, 7 and 8 of the 2005
    Regulations and further referring to paras 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 3.1, 3.2
D   and 3.3 of the amended Regulations made by notification
    dated 12.7.2006, has categorically laid down thus:-

          "What needs to be emphasised is that no recognition/
          permission can be granted to any institution desirous of
          conducting teacher training course unless the mandatory
E
          conditions enshrined in Sections 14(3) or 15(3) read with
          the relevant clauses of Regulations 7 and 8 are fulfilled and
          that in view of the negative mandate contained in Section
          17-A read with Regulation 8(10), no institution can admit ·
          any student unless it has obtained unconditional recognition
F         from the Regional Committee and affiliation from the
          examining body."

        30. After laying down the aforesaid principle the Bench
    proceeded to deal with the cases of students who had taken
G   admission in unrecognized educational institutions. The
    question posed by the Bench is as follows:-

          "The question which remains to be considered is, whether
    a.   c2012i 2 sec 1s.
H   9.   (1991) 3 sec 87.
   NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION v. 945
 VENUS PUBLIC EDUCATION SOCIETY [DIPAK MISRA, J.]

     the students who had taken admission in unrecognised            A
     institutions or the institutions which had not been granted
     affiliation by the examining body have the right to appear
     in the examination and whether the Court can issue a
     mandamus for declaration of the result of such students
     simply because they were allowed to provisionally appear        B
     in the examination in compliance with the interim orders
     passed by the High Court and/or this Court. An ancillary
     question, which would require consideration is, whether the
     students who had not completed the requirement of
     minimum teaching days were entitled to appear in the            c
     examination and a direction can be given for declaration
     of their result."

     31. Thereafter, the Bench referred to the pronouncements
in A.P. Christian Medical Educational Society v. Govt. of
A.P. 10, N.M. Nageshwaramma (supra), Vikas Sahebrao D
Roundale (supra) and St. John's Teachers Training Institute
(for Women) (supra) and eventually recorded its conclusions
in paragraph 87 by reiterating certain conclusions some of
which are apposite to be reproduced regard being had to the
fact situation of the present case: -                         E

     "87 ................ .

     (iv) The recognition granted by the Regional Committees
     under Section 14(3)(a) of the 1993 Act read with
                                                                     F
     Regulations 7 and 8 of the Regulations and permission
     granted under Section 15(3)(a) read with the relevant
     Regulations shall operate prospectively i.e. from the date
     of communication of the order of recognition or
     permission, as the case may be.
                                                                     G
             xxx                  xxx               xxx
     (x) In view of the mandate of Section 16, no examining
     body, as defined in Section 2(d) of the 1993 Act, shall grant
10. (1986) 2 sec 667.                                                H
    946        SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2012] 10 S.C.R.


A         affiliation unless the applicant has obtained recognition
          from the Regional Committee under Section 14 or
          permission for starting a new course or training under
          Section 15.

          (x1) While granting affiliation, the examining body shall
B
          be free to demand rigorous compliance with the
          conditions ccnlained in the statute like the University Act
          or the State Education Board Act under which it was
          established or the guidelines/norms which may have
          been laid down by the examining body concerned.
c
          (xii) No institution shall admit any student to a teacher
          training course or programme unless it has obtained
          recognition under Section 14 or permission under
          Section 15, as the case may be.
D
          (xiii) While making admissions, every recognised
          institution is duty-bound to strictly adhere to Paras 3.1 to
          3.3 of the Norms and Standards for Secondary/Pre-School
          Teacher Education Programme contained in Appendix 1
          to the Regulations.
E
          (xiv) ......... .

          (xv) The students admitted by unrecognised institution
          and institutions which are not affiliated to any examining
F         body are not entitled to appear in the examination
          conducted by the examining body or any other
          authorised agency."

                                                [emphasis supplied]

G        32. The direction contained in paragraph 88(ii), being
    relevant for the present purpose, is reproduced hereinbelow: -

          "(ii) The result of the students admitted by an
          unrecognised institution or by an institution which had not
H         been granted affiliation by the examining body shall not
  NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION v.      947
VENUS PUBLIC EDUCATION SOCIETY [DIPAK MISRA, J.]

     be declared. The result of the students who were admitted         A
     without qualifying the entrance examination shall also not
     be declared. In other words, the students admitted by the
     private institutions on their own shall not be entitled to
     declaration of their result. If any private institution had not
     complied with the requirements of completing the                  B
     prescribed training, then the result of students of such
     institution shall also not be declared."

                                              [underlining is ours)

      33. On a studied scrutiny of the statutory provisions, the       C
relevant Regulations of 2009 Regulations framed under section
32 of the 1993 Act and the pronouncements in the field, we are
disposed to think that the High Court has clearly erred in
misconstruing its earlier order passed in Writ Petition 4541 of
2011. True it is, there was some delay and, therefore, the High        D
Court was moved in another writ petition wherein the it had
granted liberty to file a contempt petition expecting that the
directions in the earlier order would be duly complied with.
Thereafter, as is manifest, letter of intent was issued but the
institution instead of complying with the same moved the High          E
Court for grant of recognition. As has been stated earlier, the
High Court in the initial order had directed to consider the case
of the respondent-institution for grant of recognition without
further inspection. Issuance of letter of intent was necessary
prior to grant of formal letter of recognition. However, the High      F
Court being moved directed for issuance of formal letter of
recognition which was issued with a postulate that the institution
shall only grant admission after obtaining affiliation from the
examining body in terms of clause 8(12) of 2009 Regulations.
The order of recognition clearly mentioned that it was meant           G
for'the academic session 2012-13.

     34. Adjudged in the aforesaid perspective the High Court
could not have directed the recognition to be retrospectively
operative because certain formalities remained to be complied
with. It could not have put the clock back. It needs no special        H
    948      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 10 S.C.R.


A emphasis to state that the High Court did not keep itself alive
  to the conceptual difference between "letter of intent" and
  "formal recognition". True it is, there was delay but that could
  not have enabled the High Court to issue a writ for treating the
  recognition to be effective for the year 2011-12 with intake of
B fifty students. That apart, the respondent-institution had not
  obtained affiliation from the university. Therefore, the direction
  of the High Court is contrary to the provisions of law and the
  interpretation of the Act and the Regulations made by this Court
  and, accordingly we are compelled to set aside the same, and
C we so direct.

         35. Now, to the last plank of submission of the learned
    counsel for the appellant. It is urged by him that the NCTE had
    procrastinated its decision at every stage and such delay was
    deliberate and, therefore, the society was compelled to admit
D   the students and impart education, regard being had to the fact
    that there were really no deficiencies. As has been laid down
    in many a pronouncement of this Court that without recognition
    from the NCTE and affiliation from the university/examining
    body, the educational institution cannot admit the students. An
E   educational institution is expected to be aware of the law. The
    students who take admission are not young in age. They are
    graduates. They are expected to enquire whether the institution
    has recognition and affiliation. If we allow ourselves to say so,
    the institution had given admission in a nonchalant manner.
F   Possibly, its functionaries harboured the idea that they had
    incomparable fertile mind. The students who had taken
    admission possibly immersed with the idea that ignorance is
    a bliss. It is also necessary to state that the institution had the
    anxious enthusiasm to commercialize education and earn
G   money forgetting the factum that such an attitude leads to a
    disaster. The students exhibited tremendous anxiety to get a
    degree without bothering for a moment whether their effort, if
    any, had the sanctity of law. Such attitudes only bring nemesis.
    It would not be wrong to say that this is not a case which put
H   the institution or the students to choose between Scylla and
  NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION v. 949
VENUS PUBLIC EDUCATION SOCIETY [DIPAK MISRA, J.]

charybdis. On the contrary, both of them were expected to be           A
Argus-eyed. The basic motto should have been "transparency".
Unfortunately, the institution betrayed the trust of the students
and the students, in a way, atrophied their intelligence. The
institution decidedly exhibited characteristics of carelessness.
It seems that they had forgotten that they are accountable to          B
law. The students, while thinking "vision of hope", chose to play
possum. The law does not countenance either of the ideas.
Hence, the plea propounded with anxiety, vehemence and
desperation on behalf of the appellant is not acceptable and,
accordingly we unhesitatingly repel the same.
                                                                       c
     36. Before parting with the case, we are obliged to state
that the NCTE should have acted in quite promptitude, for a
statutory authority which is conferred with the power, is required
to act within the parameters of law and the directions given by
the court and further not to create a feeling among the                D
educational institutions that they are harassed. This Court
expects that the NCTE shall function with propriety regard being
had to the statutory responsibility bestowed on it by the
Parliament. Its actions neither should show arbitrariness nor
should it reflect any indulgence. Objectivity, reliability and trust   E
are to be the motto of the NCTE and the committees working
under it. We say no more on this score.

     37. In view of our aforesaid premised reasons, the appeal
is allowed, the order passed by the High Court is set aside and
                                                                       F
that of the NCTE is restored. There shall be no order as to
costs.

K.K.T.                                           Appeal allowed.