Supreme Court of India
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION AND OTHERSversusSHRI SHYAM SHIKSHA PRASHIKSHAN SANSTHAN AND OTHERS ETC. ETC.
- Citation
- 2011 INSC 86
- Decided
- 31 January 2011
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- G S SINGHVI
Holding
The cut‑off dates prescribed in Regulation 5 are a reasonable classification with a rational nexus to the object of timely recognition and do not violate Article 14; the requirement of State Government/UT recommendation is mandatory.
Summary
The private institutions applied in late 2007‑2008 for NCTE recognition to start B.Ed. courses, but the Northern Regional Committee rejected them citing that the cut‑off dates for application submission (31 Oct) and decision communication (15 May) prescribed in Regulation 5 of the 2007 Regulations, as amended on 1 July 2008, had passed. The institutions claimed discrimination and a violation of Article 14. The High Court had held the cut‑off date arbitrary and ordered recognition, but the Supreme Court examined whether the dates constituted unreasonable classification. Relying on the principles of reasonable classification under Article 14 and on precedents, the Court held that the cut‑off dates are a rational means to ensure timely processing, inspection, and compliance with state‑government recommendations, and are not arbitrary or violative of equality. It affirmed the mandatory nature of Section 14 of the NCTE Act and the Regulations, directing the Council to adhere strictly to the prescribed timelines. The Court set aside the High Court’s order and allowed the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether the cut‑off dates specified in clauses (4) and (5) of Regulation 5 of the NCTE (Recognition, Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2007, are arbitrary, irrational or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
- Whether the requirement of State Government/UT recommendation under Section 14 of the NCTE Act and the Regulations is mandatory.
- Whether the High Court’s direction to grant recognition despite the cut‑off dates was legally valid.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 14
- National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993s. 14
- National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition, Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2007s. Regulation 5(4), s. Regulation 5(5)
Subjects
Teacher educationRecognition of institutionsCut‑off dateArticle 14EqualityReasonable classificationNCTE RegulationsState government recommendation
Judgment
[2011] 2 S.C.R. 291
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION AND A
·OTHERS
v.
SHRI SHYAM SHIKSHA PRASHIKSHAN SANSTHAN AND
OTHERS ETC. ETC.
(Civil Appeal Nos.1125-1128 of 2011) B
JANUARY 31, 2011
[G.S. SINGHVI AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.]
National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition, C
Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2007 (as amended by
Notification dated 1.7.2008): Regulation 5, clause (4) and (5)
- Cut off dates for submission of application to Regional
Committee, processing thereof and communication of the
final decision on the issue of recognition - Validity of - Held: D
The cut off dates are neither arbitrary/irrational nor violative
of Article 14 of the Constitution - Constitution of India, 1950
- Article 14 - Notification F.No.48-31(1)12008/NCTEIN&S
dated 1. 7.2008.
E
National council for Teacher Education Act, 1993: s. 14
- Role of State Government in granting recognition to the
institution offering course in teacher training - Requirement
of recommendation/suggestion by State Government/UT
Administration - Held: Provisions contained in s. 14 and the
Regulations framed for grant of recognition including the F
requirement of recommendation of the State Government!
Union Territory Administration are mandatory - Consultation
with the State Government/UT Administration and
consideration of the recommendations! suggestions made by
them are of considerableimportance - State Government/UT G
Administration sanctions· the posts keeping in view the
requirement of trained teachers and budgetary provisions
made for that purpose - By incorporating the provision for
291 H
i.
292 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011) 2 S.C.R.
A sending the applications to the State Government/UT
Administration and consideration of the recommendations/
suggestions, if any made by them, the Council made an
attempt to ensure that as a result of grant of recognition to
unlimited number of institutions to start B. Ed. and like
B courses, candidates far in excess of the requirement of trained
teachers do not become available - The Council is directed
to ensure that in future no institution is granted recognition
unless it fulfils the conditions laid down in the Act and the
Regulations and the time schedule fixed for processing the
c application by the Regional Committees and communication
of the decision on the issue of recognition is strictly adhered
to - National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition,
Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2007.
The private respondents submitted their applications
0 on 28.12.2007, 31.3.2008, 10.4.2008 and 17 .4.2008
respectively for grant of recognition for starting B.Ed.
course for the academic year 2008-2009. They also
applied to the State Government for grant of 'no objection
certificates'. After considering their applications, the
E Northern Regional Committee of the Council informed
the private respondents about the deficiencies in their
applications. After removal of the deficiencies, the
premises of the private respondents were inspected by
the teams constituted by the Northern Regional
F Committee. The inspection reports were considered in
the meeting of the Committee held on 21.9.2008 but
recognition was not granted to them on the ground that
the cut off date specified in the regulations was already
over.
G
Aggrieved, the private respondents filed writ
petitions alleging that they were discriminated vis-a-vis
other applicants and, in this manner, their right to equality
guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution was
H violated. By an Interim order dated 24.10.2008, the High
NATIONAL COUNCIL .FOR TEACHER EDUCATION v. 293
. S.S .. PRASHIKSHAN SANSTHAN
Court.directed that the a:p·plications made· by the. private A
respo'ndents for grant of. recognition should be
considered by the Committee. By another interim order
dated 27 .11.2008,. the High Court directed the Council to
issue approval letters '!nd allot students to the private
respondents. The High Court finatly held that the cut off B
date i.e. 31.8.2008 fixed by notification dated 1.7.2008 was
discriminatory, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution and dismissed the writ petitions. The instant
appeals were filed challenging the order of the High
Cour;t. ,...
,.,
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD :' 1.1. Article 14 ofthe· Constitution of India
forbids class legislation ·but permits reasonable
classification provided that itis founded on an Intelligible D
differentia which distinguishes persons or things- that are
grouped together from those that are leffout of the group
and .the differentia has a rational nexus to the object .
sought to be' achieved by the legislation in question. In
the light of this proposition, it is not possible to find ~my E
fault with the decision of the Council to prescribe 31st
October of the year preceding the academic session for
which recognition is sought as the last date for
submissionof application to the Regional Committee and·
15th May of the succP.ediQg year as the .date for F
communication of the decision about grant of ·recognition
or refusal thereof. The scheme of the 2007 Regulations
envisages the manner of making the application and the
time limit. The applications received for recognition are
required to be scrutinized by the office of the Regional
Committee to find out the deficiency, if any. In case any G
deficiency is found, the same is required to be brought
to the notice of the concerned applicant within 30 days
of the receipt of application and the latter is under an
obligation to remove the deficiency within next 90 days.
H
294 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 2 S.C.R.
A Simultaneously, a written communication is required to
be sent to the State Government/Union Territory
Administration. Within 60 days of the receipt of
communication from the Regional Committee, the
concerned State Government/Union Territory
B Administration has to' send its recommendations/
suggestions. After removal of the deficiency, if any, and
receipt of the recommendations/suggestions of the State
Government/Union Territory Administration, the Regional
Committee is required to constitute a team to inspect
c infrastructure, equipments and instructional facilities
made available by the applicant with a view to assess the
level of preparedness for commencement of the course.
Thereafter, the inspection is to be carried out by
associating the representative(s) of the concerned
institution. Upon receipt of the inspection report and after'
0
satisfying itself that the requirements enumerated in
clauses (10) and (11) of Regulation 7 have been fulfilled,
the Regional Committee has to take final decision on the
issue of grant of recognition to the applicant. This entire
E exercise is time consuming. Therefore, some date had to
be fixed for submission of application and some time
schedule had to be prescribed for taking final decision
on the issue of recognition. By fixing 31st October of the
preceding year, the Council has ensured that the
Regional Committee gets at least 7 months for scrutiny
F of the application, processing thereof, receipt of
recommendation/suggestion from the State Government/
Union Territory Administration, inspection of the
infrastructure, etc. made available by the applicant before
an objective decision is taken to grant or not to grant
G recognition. Likewise, by fixing 15th May of the year
succeeding the cut off date fixed for submission of
application, the Council has ensured that adequate time
is available to the institution to complete the course,
teaching as well as training and the students get an
. H opportunity to comply with the requirement of minimum
__ NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION v. 295
S.S. PRASHIKSHAN SANSTHAN
attendance. For academic session 2008-2009, the cut off A
date '{ias amended because the 2007 Regulations were
notified on 27.12.2007 and going by the cut off dates
specified in clauses (4) and (5) of Regulation 5, no
application could have been entertained and no
institution could have been recognized for B.Ed. course. B
[Paras 16, 21, 22) [320-G-H; 321-A; 337-G-H; 328-A-H; 329-
A-F] r-
In re the Special Courts Bill, 1978 (1979) 1 SCC 380;
Union of India v. Parameswaran Match Works (1975) 1 SCC
305; Louisville Gas Co. v. Alabama Power Co. (1927) 240 C
US 30; D. G. Gose and Co. (Agents) (P) Ltd. v. State of Kera/a
(1980) 2 SCC 410; State of Bihar v. Ramjee Prasad (1990) _
3 SCC 368; Uttar Pradesh Mahavidyalaya Tadarth Shikshak
Niyamitikaran Abhiyan Samiti, Varanasi v. State of U.P.
(1987) 2 SCC 453; Dr. SL1shma Sharma v. State of Rajasthan D·
(1985) Supp. SCC 45; University Grants Commission v.
Sadhana Chaudhary (1996) 10 SCC 536; Ramrao v. All India
Backward Class Bank Employees Welfare Association (2004)
2 SCC 76 and State of Punjab v. Amar Nath Goyal (2005) 6
SCC 754. - Relied on E
1.2. The cut off dates specified in ~he two clauses of
Regulation 5 of the 2007 Regulations and notification
dated 1.7.2008 are neither arbitrary nor irrational so as to
warrant a conclusion ~"at the same are violative of Article i;.
14 of the Constitution. The conclusion of the High Court
that 31.8.2008 fixed by notification dated 1.7.2008 is
discriminatory and violative of Article 14 appears to have
been influenced by the fact that some of the applicants,
- whose applications were considered in the meeting of the G
Regional_ Committee held after the cut off date were
granted recognition while others like the writ petitioners
were denied similar treatment on the pretext that decision
in their case could not be taken before the cut off date.
[Para 23] [329-G-H; 330-A-B]
H.
296 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 2 S.C.R.
A 1.3. The consultation with the State Government/
Union Territory Administration and consideration of the
recommendations/suggestions made by them are of
considerable importance. The Court can take judicial
notice of the fact that majority of the candidates who
B complete B.Ed. and similar courses aspire for
appointment as teachers in the government and
government aided educational institutions. Some of them
do get appointment against the available vacant posts,
but large number of them do not succeed in this venture
c because of non-availability of posts. The State
Government/Union Territory Administration sanctions the
posts keeping in view the requirement of trained teachers
and budgetary provisions made for that purpose. They
cannot appoint all those who successfully pass B.Ed.
D and like courses every year. Therefore, by incorporating
the provision for sending the applications to thP. State
Government/Union Territory Administration and
consideration of the reco_mmendations/suggestions, if
any made by them, the Council has made an attempt to
ensure that as a result of grant of recognition to unlimited
E number of institutions to start B.Ed. and like courses,
candidates far in excess of the requirement of trained
teachers do not become available and they cannot be
appointed as teachers. If, in a given year, it is found that
F adequate numbers of suitable candidates possessing the
requisite qualifications are already available to meet the
requirement of trained teachers, the State Government/
Union Territory Administration can suggest to the
concerned Regional Committee not to grant recognition
to new institutions or increase intake in the existing
G institutions. If the Regional Committee finds- that the
recommendation made by the State Government/Union
Territory Administration is based on valid grounds, it can
refuse to grant recognition to any new institution or
entertain an application made by an existing institution
H for increase of intake and it cannot be said that such
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION v. 297
S.S. PRASHIKSHAN SANSTHAN .
decision is ultra vires the provisions of the Act or the A
Rules. The provisions contained in Section 14 and the
Regulations framed for grant of recognition including the
requirement of recommendation of the State
Govern.mentlUnion Territory Administration are
mandatory and an institution is not entitled to recognition B
unless it fulfils the conditions specified in ·various
clauses of the Regulations. The Council is directed to
ensure that in future no institution is granted recognition
unless it fulfils the conditions laid down in the Act and
the Regulations and the time schedule fixed for c
processing the application by the Regional Committees
and communication of the decision on the issue of
recognition is strictly adhered to. [Paras 24, 29] [330-C-
H; 331-A; 337-B-E]
St. Johns Teachers Training Institute v. Regional D
Director, National Council For Teacher Education and another
(2003) 3 sec 321; State of Tamil Nadu and another v. S. V.
. Bratheep and others (2004) 4 sec 513; Govt. of AP. and
another v. J.B. Educational Society and another (2005) 3
SCC 212; State of Maharashtra v. Sant Dnyaneshwar E
.Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya and others (2006) 9 SCC
1 - relied on.
Case Law Reference:
(1979) 1 sec 380 Relied on Para 16 F
(1975) 1 sec 305 Relied on Para 17
(1927) 240 us 30 Relied on Para 17
(1980) 2 sec 410 Relied on Para
I
18 G
(1990) 3 sec 368 Relied on Para 19
(1987) 2 sec 453 Relied on Para 19
(1985) Supp. sec 45 Relied on Para 20
H
,I
298 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 2 S.C.R.
A (1996) 1o sec 536 Relied on Para 20
(2004) 2 sec 76 Relied on Para 20
(2005) 6 sec 754 Relied on Para 20
(2003) 3 sec 321 Relied on Para 25
B
(2004) 4 sec s13 Relied on Para 26
(2005) 3 sec 212 Relied on Para 27
(2006) s sec 1 Relied on Para 28
c
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
1125-1128 of 2011.
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.05.2009 of the
High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan at Jaipur in D.B. Civil
D Special Appeal (Writ) No. 182, 183, 184 and 186 of 2009.
Raju Ramachandran, Amitesh Kumar, Prgati Neekhra,
Suryanaryana Singh and Karan Dewan for the appearing
parties.
E
The Judgment of the Court was delviered by
G.S. SINGHVI, J. 1. Leave granted .
. 2. Whether the cut off dates specified in clauses (4) and
F (5) of Regulation 5 of the National Council for Teacher
Education (Recognition, Norms and Procedure) Regulations,
2007 (for short, "the 2007 Regulations") as amended by
Notification F. No.48-3/(1)/2008/NCTE/N&S. dated 1.7.2008
for submission of application for recognition and disposal
G thereof are mandatory and whether the learned Single Judge
of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench was justified in
issuing directions, which have the effect of obliterating the cut
off dates are the questions which arise for consideration in
these appeals filed by the National Council for Teacher
H Education and its functionaries (hereinafter described as "the
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION v. 299
S.S. PRASHIKSHAN SANSTHAN [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
appellants") against judgment dated 13.5.2009 of the Division A
Bench of the High Court affirming the order of the learned Single
Judge.
Scheme of the Act and the Regulations:
3. With a view to achieve the object of planned and B
coordinated development for the teacher education system
throughout the country and for regulation and proper
maintenance of norms and standards in the teacher education
system and for matters connected therewith, Parliament
enacted the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 C
(for short, "the Act"), which provides for the establishment of a
Council to be called the National Council for Teacher Education
(for short, "the NCTE") with multifarious functions, powers and
duties. Section 2(c) of the Act defines the term "Council" to
mean a Council established under sub-section (1) of Section D
3. Section 2(i) defines the term "recognised institution" to mean·
an institution recognised under Section 14. Section 20) defines
the term "Regional Committee" to mean a Committee
established under Section 20. Section 3 provides for
establishment of the Council which comprises of a Chairperson, - E
a Vice-Chairperson, a Member-Secretary, various functionaries
of the Government, thirteen persons possessing experience
and knowledge in the field of education or teaching, nine
members representing the States and Union Territories
Administration, three members of Parliament, three members F
to be appointed from amongst teachers of primary and
secondary education and teachers of recognised institutions.
Section 12 of the Act enumerates functions of the Council.
Section 14 provides for recognition of institutions offering
course or training in teacher education. Section 15 lays down G
the procedure for obtaining permission by an existing institution
for starting a new course or training. Section 16 contains a non
obstante clause and lays down that an examining body shall
not grant affiliation to any institution or hold examination for a
course or training conducted by a recognised institution unless
H
300 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 2 S.C.R.
A it has obtained recognition from the concerned Regional
Committee under Section 14 or permission for starting a new
course or training under Section 15. The mechanism for dealing
with the cases involving violation of the provisions of the Act or
the rules, regulations orders made or issued thereunder or the
B conditions of recognition by a recognised institution finds place
in Section 17. By an amendment made in July, 2006, Section
17-A was added to the Act. It lays down that no institution shall
admit any student to a course or training in teacher education
unless it has obtained recognition under S3ction 14 or
C permission under Section 15. Section 31(1) empowers the
Central Government to make rules for carrying out the
provisions of the Act. Section 31(2) specifies the matters in
respect of which the Central Government can make rules. Under
Section 32(1) the Council can m,ake regulations for
implementation of the provisions of the"Act subject to the rider
0
that the regulations shall not be inconsistent1with the provisions
of the Act and the rules made thereunder. Section 32(2)
specifies the matters on which the Council can frame
regulations. In terms of Section 33, the rules framed under
Section 31 and the regulations framed under Section 32 are
E required to be laid before the Parliament. By virtue of Section
34(1), the Central Government has been clothed with the power
to issue an order to remove any difficulty arising in the
implementation of the provisions of the Act. Sections 12, 14 to
16 and 17-A of the Act, which have bearing on the decision of
F these appeals read as under:
"12. Functions of the Council.- It shall be the duty of the
Council to take all such steps as it may think fit for ensuring
planned and coordinated development of teacher
G educatior:i and for the determination and maintenance of
standards for teacher education and for the purposes of
performing its functions under this Act, the Council may- ·
(a) undertake surveys and studies relating to various
aspects of teacher education and publish the result thereof;
H
•
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION v. 301
S.S. PRASHIKSHAN SANSTHAN [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
(b} make recommendations to the Central· and State A
Governments, Universities, University Grants Commission
and recognised institutions in the matter of preparation of
suitable plans and programmes in the field of teacher
education;
8
(c) coordinate and monitor teacher education and its -
development in the country;
(d} lay down guidelines in respect of minimum
qualifications for a person to be employed as a teacher
in schools or in recognised institutions; C
(e) lay down norms for any specified category of courses
or training in teacher education, including the minimum
eligibility criteria for admission thereof, and the method of
selection of canpidates, duration of the course, course 0
contents and mode of curriculum;
(f) lay down guidelines for compliance by recognised
institutions, for starting new courses or training and for
providing physical and instructional facilities, staffing
pattern and staff qualifications; ·E
(g) )()()( )()()( )()()(
(h) )()()( )()()( )()()(
(i) )()()( )()()( )()()( F
0) examine and review periodically the implementation of
the norms, guidelines and standards laid down by the
Council and to suitably advise the recognised institutions;
G
(k) )()()( xxx xxx
(I) xxx )()()( )()()(
(m)_ )()()( )()()( xxx
H
"
302 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 2 S.C.R.
A (n) perform such other functions as may be entrusted to it
by the Central Government.
14. Recognition of institutions offering course or ,
training in teacher education.-(1) Every institution
offering or intending to offer a course or training in teacher
B ·education on or after the appointed day, may, for grant of
recognition under this Act, make an application to the
Regional Committee concerned in such form and in such
manner as may be determined by regulations:
c Provided that an institution offering a course or training in
teacher education immediately before the appointed day,
shall be entitled to continue such course or training for a
period of six months, if it has made an application for
recognition within the said period and until the disposal of
D the application by the Regional Committee.
(2) The fee to be paid along with the application under sub-
section (1) shall be such as may be prescribed.
(3) On receipt of an application by the Regional Committee
E from any institution under sub-section (1), and after
obtaining from the institution concerned such other
particulars as it may consider necessary, it shall,-
(a) if it is satisfied that such institution has adequate
F financial resources, accommodation, library,
qualified staff, laboratory and that if fulfils such other
conditions required for proper functioning of the
institution for a course or training in teacher
education, as may be determined by regulations,
pass an order granting recognition to such
G
institution, subject to such conditions as may be
determined by regulations; or
(b) if it is of the opinion that such institution does
not fulfil the requirements laid down in sub-clause
H
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION v. 303
S.S. PRASHIKSHAN SANSTHAN [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
(a), pass an order refusing recognition to such A
institution for reasons to be recorded in writing:
Provided that before passing an order under sub-
clause (b), the Regional Committee shall provide
a reasonable opportunity to the concerned
8
institution for making a written representation .
.'
(4) )()()( )()()( )()()(
(5) Every institution, in respect of which recognition has
been refused shall discontinue the course or training in c
teacher education from the end of the academic session
next following the date of receipt of the order refusing
recognition passed under clause (b) of sub-section (3).
(6) Every examining body shall, on receipt of the order
under sub-section (4),-
0
(a) grant affiliation to the institution, where
recognition has been granted; or
(b) cancel the affiliation of the institution, where E
recognition has been refused.
15. Permission for a new course or training by
recognised institution.- (1) Where any recognised
institution intends to start any new course or training in
teacher education, it may make an application to seek F
permission therefor to the Regional Committee concerned
in such form and in such manner as may be determined
by regulations.
(2) The fees to be paid along with the application G
under sub-section (1) shall be such as may be
prescribed. ·
(3) On receipt of an application from an institution
under sub-section (1), and after obtaining from the H
304 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 2 S.C.R.
A recognised institution such other particulars as may
be considered necessary, the Regional Committee
shall,-
(a) if it is satisfied that such recognised institution has
adequate financial resources, accommodation, library,
B
qualified staff, laboratory, and that it fulfils such other
conditions required for proper conduct of the new course
or training in teacher education, as may be determined by
regulations, pass an order granting permission, subject to
such conditions as may be determined by regulation; or
c
(b) if it is of the opinion that such institution does not fulfil
the requirements laid down in sub-clause (a), pass an order
refusing permission to such institution, for reasons to be
rec:orded in writing:
D
Provided that before passing an order refusing permission
under sub-clause (b), the Regional Committee shall
provide a reasonable opportunity to the institution
concerned for making a written representation .
.E (4) )()()( )()()( )()()(
16. J\ffiliating body to grant affiliation after recognition
or permission- by the Council.- Notwithstanding
anything contained in any other law for the time being in
F force, no _examining body shall, on or after the appointed
day,-
(a) grant affiliation, whether provisional or
otherwise, to any institution; or
G (b) hold examination, whether provisional or
otherwise, for a course or training conducted by a
recognised institution,
unless the institution concerned has obtained
H recognition from the Regional Committee
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION v. 305
S.S. PRASHIKSHAN SANSTHAN [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
concerned, under section 14 or permission for a A
course or training under section 15.
17-A. No admission without recognition.- No institution
shall admit any student to a course or training in teacher
education, unless the institution concerned has obtained
8
recognition under section 14 or permission under section
15, as the case may be."
~ .
4. In exercise of the power vested in it under Section 32,
the Council has, from time to time, framed Regulations. In the
first place, such Regulations were framed in 1995 with the title C
"the National Council for Teacher Education (Application for
recognition, the manner for submission, determination of
conditions for recognition of institutLons and permissions to start
· new course or training) Regulations, 1995". In 2002, the Council
framed "the National Council for Teacher Education (Form of o
application for recognition, the time limit of submission of
application, determination of norms and stand13rds for
recognition· of teacher education programmes and permission
to start new course or training) Regulations, 2002". These
regulations were amended six times between 2003 and 2005 E
and were finally repealed by "the National Council for Teacher
Education (Recognition, Norms and Procedure) Regulations,
2005". The 2005 Regulations were repealed by the 2007
Regulations. The relevant provisions of the 2007 Regulations
are reproduced below:
F
"4. Eligibility
The following categories of institutions are eligible for
consideration of their applications under these regulations:
G
(1) Institutions established by or under the authority of
Central/State Government/UT Administration;
(2) Institutions financed by Central/State Government/
UT Adl'J'linistration;
H
306 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 2 S.C.R.
A (3) All universities, including institutions deemed to be
universities, so recognized under UGC Act, 1956.
(4) Self financed educational institutions established
and operated by 'not for profit', Societies and Trusts
registered under the appropriate law.
B
5. Manner of making application and Time Limit
(1) An institution eligible under Regulation 4, desirous
of running a teacher education programme may
c apply to the concerned Regional Committee of
NCTE for recognition in the prescribed form in
triplicate along with processing fee and requisite
documents.
(2) The form can be downloaded from the Council's
0 website www.ncte-in.org, free of cost. The said
form can also be obtained from the office of the
Regional Committee concerned by payment of
Rs.1000 (Rs. One thousand only) by way of a
demand draft of a Nationalized Bank drawn in
E favour of the Member Secretary, NCTE payable at
the city where the office of the Regional Committee
is located.
(3) An application can be submitted conventionally or
F electronically on-line. In the latter case, the requisite
documents in triplicate along with the processing
fee shall be submitted separately to the office of the
Regional Committee concerned. Those who apply
on-line shall have the benefit of not to pay for the
G
form.
(4) The cut-off date for submission of application to the
Regional Committee concerned shall be 31st
October of the preceding year to the academic
session for which recognition has been sought.
H
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION v. 307
S.S. PRASHIKSHAN SANSTHAN [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
(5) All complete applications received on or before A
31st October of the year shall be processed for the
next academic session and final decision, either
recognition granted or refused, shall be
communicated by 15th May of the succeeding year.
B
7. Processing of Applications
(1) The applicant institutions shall ensure submission
of applications complete in all respects. However,
in order to cover the inadvertent omissions or
deficiencies in documents, the office of the C
Regional Committee shall point out the deficiencies
within 30 days of receipt of the applications, which
the applicants shall remove within 90 days. No
application shall be processed if the processing '
fees of Rs.40,000/- is not submitted and such D
applications would be returned to the applicant
institutions.
(2) Simultaneously, on receipt of application, a written
communication alongwith a copy of the application
form submitted by the institution(s) shall be sent by E
the office of Regional Committees to the State
Government/U.T. Administration concerned.
(3) On receipt of the communication, the State
Government/UT Administration concerned shall F
furnish its recommendations on the applications to
the office of the Regional Committee concerned of
the National Council for Teacher Education within
60 days from receipt. If the recommendation is
negative, the State Government/UT Administration G
shall provide detailed reasons/grounds thereof with
necessary statistics, which shall be taken into
consideration by the Regional Committee
concerned while deciding the application. If no
communication is received from the State H
308 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 2 S.C.R.
A Government/UT Administration within the stipulated
60 days, it shall be presumed that the State
Government/UT Administration concerned has no
recommendation to make.
(4) After removal of all the deficiencies and to the
B satisfaction of the Regional Committee concerned,
the inspection of infrastructure, equipments,
instructional facilities etc, of an institution shall be
conducted by a team of experts called Visiting
Team (VT) with a view to assessing the level of
c preparedness of the institution to commence the
course. Inspection would be subject to the consent
of the institution and submission of the self-attested
copy of the completion certificate of the building.
Such inspection, as far as administratively and
D logistically possible, shall be in the chronological
order of the date of receipt of the consent of the
institution. In case the consent from more than one
institution is received on the same day, alphabetical
order may be followed. The inspection shall be
E conducted within 30 days of receipt of the consent
of the institution.
(5) xxx xxx xxx
(6) xxx xxx xxx
F
(7) xxx xxx xxx
(8) xxx xxx xxx
(9) The institution concerned shall be informed, through
G a letter, of the decision for grant of recognition or
permission subject to appointment of qualified
faculty members before the commencement of the
academic session. The letter issued under this
clause shall not be notified in the Gazette. The
H ..
;
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION. v. 309
S.S. PRASHIKSHAN SANSTHAN [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
faculty shall be appointed on the recommendations A
of the Selection Committee duly constituted as per
the policy of the State Govt/Central Govt/University/
UGC or the concerned affiliating body, as the case
may be. The applicant institution shall submit an
affidavit in the prescribed form that the Selection B
Committee has been constituted as stated above.
A separate staff list with the details would be
submitted in the prescribed form. The Regional
Committee would rely on the above affidavit and the
staff list before processing the case for grant of c
formal recognition.
(10) All the applicant institutions shall launch their own
website soon after the receipt of the letter from the
Regional Committee under Regulation 7(9)
covering, inter alia, the details of the institution, its D
location, name of the course applied for with intake,
availability of physical infrastructure (land, building,
office, classroorµs, and other facilities/amenities),
instructional facilities (laboratory, library etc.) and
/
the particulars of their proposed teaching and non- · E
teaching staff etc. with photographs, for information
of all concerned.
(11) The institution concerned, after appointing the
requisite faculty/staff as per Regulation 7(9) above F
and fulfilling the conditions under Regulation 7(10)
above shall formally inform the Regional. Committee
concerned alongwith the requisite affidavit and staff
list. The Regional Committee concerned shall then
I issue a formal recognition ·order that shall be G
notified as per provision of the NCTE Act.
(12) xxx xxx xxx
(13) xxx xxx xxx
H
310 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 2 S.C.R.
A 8. Conditions for grant of recognition
(1) An institution must fulfill all the prescribed
conditions related to norms and standards as
prescribed by the NCTE for cond .. .ting the course
8 or training in teacher education. These norms, inter
alia, cover conditions relating to financial resources,
accommodation, library, laboratory, other physical
infrastructure, qualified staff including teaching and
non-teaching personnel, etc.
c (2) In the first instance, an institution shall be
considered for grant of recognition for only one
course for the basic unit as prescribed in the norms
& standards for the particular teacher education
programme. An institution can apply for one basic
D unit of an additional course from the subsequent
academic !\ession. However, application for not
more than one additional course can be made in a
year.
E (3) An institution shall be permitted to apply for
enhancement of course wise intake in teacher
education courses already approved, after
completion of three academic sessions of running
the respective courses.
F (4) An institution shall be permitted to apply for
enhancement of intake in Secondary Teacher
Education Programme - 8.Ed. & 8.P. Ed.
Programme, if it has accredited itself with the
National Assessment and Accreditation Council
G (NAAC) with a Letter Grade 8 developed by
NAAC.
(5) An institution that has been granted additional
intake in 8.Ed. and 8.P. Ed. teacher training
H courses after promulgation of the Regulations, 2005
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION v. 311
S.S. PRASHIKSHAN SANSTHAN [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
i.e. 13.1.2006 shall have to be accredited itself with A
the National Assessment and Accreditation Council
{NAAC) with a Letter Grade B under the new
grading system developed by NAAC before 1st
April, 201 O failing which the additional intake
granted shall stand withdrawn w.e.f. the academic B
session 2010-2011.
(6) xxx xxx xxx
(7) No institution shall be granted recognition under
these regulations unless it is in possession of c
required land on the date of application. The land
free from all encumbrances could be either on
ownership basis or on lease from Government/Govt
institutions for a period of not less than 30 years.
In cases where under relevant State/UT laws the D
maximum permissible lease period is less than 30
years, the State Government/UT Administration law
shall prevail. However, no building could be taken
on lease for running any teacher training course.
E
(8) Xl()':' xxx xxx
(9) xxx xxx xxx
(10) At the time of inspection, the building of the
institution shall· be complete in the form of a F
permanent ~tructure on the land possessed by the
institution in terms of Regulation 8(7), equipped with
all necessary amenities and fulfilling all such
requirements as prescribed in the norms and
standards. The applicant institution shall produce G
the original completion certificate, approved
.building plan in proof of the completion of building
and ,built up area and other documents to the
Visiting Team for verification. No temporary
structure/asbestos roofing shall be allowed. H
312 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 2 S.C.R.
A (11) )()()( )()()( )()()(
(12) An institution shall make admission only after it
obtains order of recognition from the Regional
Committee concerned under Regulation 7(11 ), and
affiliation from the examining body.
B
(13) to (16) xxxxxxxxx"
5. Since the 2007 Regulations were notified on
10.12.2007 i.e. after the cut off date specified in Regulation 5(4)
c for submission of application for academic session 2008-2009
was over, the Council issued Notification F. No.48-3/(1)/2008/
NCTE/N&S dated 1. 7.2008 and fixed 31.8.2008 as the cut off
date for processing and disposal of all the pending applications.
Paragraph 4 of that notification reads as under:
D "4. Extent of Amendment.- Clause 5(5) of the NCTE
(Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2007, is
modified as under only for grant of recognition/permission
for starting various teacher training courses for current
academic session i.e. 2008-2009.
E
All complete applications pending with the Regional
Committees shall be processed for the current academic
session i.e. 2008-2009 in accordance with the provisions
of relevant Regulations and maintaining the chronological
F sequence and final decision, either recognition granted or
refused, shall be communicated by 31st August, 2008."
6. By Notification No.F.51-1/2009-NCTE (N&S) dated
31.8.2009, the 2007 Regulations were also repealed by the
G National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition, Norms
and Procedure) Regulations, 2009 (for short, "the 2009
Regulations"). The provisions contained in these Regulations
including the cut off dates specified in clauses (4) and (5) of
Regulation 5 are similar to the corresponding provisions of the
2007 Regulations.
H
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION v. 313
S.S. PRASHIKSHAN SANSTHAN [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
7. At this stage it will be apposite to notice the guidelines A
issued by NCTE vide letter dated 2.2.1996 for ensuring that the
teacher training institutions are established keeping in view the
requirement of trained teachers in the particular State or the
Union Territory. The same read as under:
8
"1. The establishment of teacher training institutions by the
Government, private managements or any other agencies
should largely be determined by assessed need for trained
teachers. This need should take into consideration the
supply of trained teachers from existing institutions, the
requirement of such teachers in relation to enrolment C
projections at various stages, the attrition rates among
trained teachers due to superannuation, change of
occupation, death, etc. and the number of trained teachers
on the live register of the employment exchanges seeking
employment and the possibility of their deployment. The D
States having more than the required number of trained
teachers may not encourage opening of new institutions
for teacher educatipn or to increase the intake.
2. The States having shortage of trained teachers may E
encourage establishment of new institutions for teacher
ePUcation and to increase intake capacity for various levels
of teacher education institutions keeping in view the
requirements of teachers estimated for the next 10-15
years.
F
1
3. Preference might be given to institutions which tend to
emphasise the preparation of teachers for subjects (such
as Science, Mathematics, English, etc.) for which trained
teachers have been in short supply in relation to
requirement of schools. G
4. Apart from the usual courses for teacher preparation,
institutions which propose to concern themselves with new
emerging specialities (e.g. computer education, use of
electronic media, guidance and counselling, etc.) should H
314 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 2 S.C.R.
A receive priority. Provisions for these should, however, be
made only after ensuring that requisite manpower,
equipment and infrastructure are available. These
considerations will also be kept in view by the institution
intending to provide for optional subjects to be chosen by
B students such as guidance and counselling, special
education, etc.
5. With a view to ensuring supply of qualified and trained
teachers for such specialities such as education of the
disabled, non-formal education, education of adults, pre-
c school education, vocational education, etc. special efforts
and incentives may be provided to motivate private
managements/voluntary organisations for establishment of
institutions, which lay emphasis on these areas.
D 6. With a view to promoting professional commitment
among prospective teachers, institutions which can ensure
adequate residential facilities for the Principal and staff of
the institutions as well as hostel facilities for substantial
proportion of its enrolment should be encouraged.
E
7. Considering that certain areas (tribal, hilly regions, etc.)
have found it difficult to attain qualified and trained
teachers, it would be desirable to encourage establishment
of training institutions in those areas.
F 8. Institutions should be allowed to come into existence
only if the sponsors are able to ensure that they have
adequate material and manpower resources in terms, for
instance, of qualified teachers and other staff, adequate
buildings and other infrastructure (laboratory, library, etc.),
G a reserve fund and operating funds to meet the day-to-day
requirements of the institutions, including payment of
salaries, provision of equipment, etc. Laboratories,
teaching science methodologies and practicals should
have adequate gas plants, proper fittings and regular
H supply of water, electricity, etc. They should also have
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION v. 315
S.S. PRASHIKSHAN SANSTHAN [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
adequate arrangements. Capabilities of the institution for A
fulfilling norms pr.epared by NCTE may be kept in view.
9. In the establishment of an institution preference needs
to be given to locations which have a large catchment area
in terms of schools of different levels where student
teachers can be e~posed to demonstration lessons and B
undertake practice teaching. A training institution which has
a demonstration school where innovative and experimental
approaches can be demonstrated could be given
preference."
c
8. The private respondents, namely, Shri Shyam Shiksha
Prashikshan Sansthan, Bhadra and Shri Shyam Sewa Samiti
(respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the appeal arising out of SLP(C)
No.17165 of 2009), Neelkanth Education Society (respondent
No.1 in the appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.17166 of 2009), D
Bhanwar Kanwar Sujan Shiksha Mahavidyalaya, lnderpura,
Udaipurwati and Dhamana Shekha Sewa Trust (respondent
Nos.1 and 2 in the appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.17167 of
2009) and Varsha Education Society (respondent No.1 in the
appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.17168 of 2009) submitted their E
applications on 28.12.2007, 31.3.2008, 10.4.2008 and
17.4.2008 respectively for grant of recognition for starting B.Ed.
course for the academic year 2008-2009. They also applied
to the State Government for grant of 'no objection certificates'.
After considering their applications, the Northern Regional F
Committee of the Council informed the private respondents
about the deficiencies in their applications. After the
deficiencies were removed, the premises of the private
- respondents were inspected by the teams constituted by the
Northern Regional Committee. The inspection reports were G
considered in the meeting of the Northern Regional Committee
held on 21.9.2008 but recognition was not granted to them
apparently on the ground that the cut off date specified in the
regulations was already over.
9. Feeling aggrieved by the alleged failure of the Northern H
I
316 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 2 S.C.R.
A Regional Committee to grant recognition, the private
respondents filed writ petitions in the Rajasthan High Court,
Jaipur Bench, with the allegation that they have been
discriminated vis-a-vis other applicants and, in this manner, their
right to equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution
B has been violated. By an interim order dated 24.10.2008, the
learned Single Judge of the High Court directed that the
applications made by the private respondents for grant of
recognition be considered by the Northern Regional
Committee. By another interim order dated 27.11.2008, the
c learned Single Judge directed the Council to issue approval
letters and allot students to the private respondents.
10. The appellants contested the writ petitions by relying
upon clauses (4) and (5) of Regulation 5 and notification dated
1.7.2008 and pleaded that recognition could not be given to
D the writ petitioners because their establishments were inspected
after 31.8.2008. The learned Single Judge then directed the
Council to file affidavit to show whether 80 similarly situated
institutions were granted recognition on the basis of decision
taken in the meeting of the Northern Regional Committee held
E on ~~0-21.9.2008. In compliance of that order, affidavit dated
25.2.2009 was filed on behalf of the Council, wherein it was
claimed that recognition was granted to some institutions after
31.8.2008 in compliance of the orders passed by the Delhi
High Court.
F
11. After considering the pleadings of the parties and
taking cognizance of order dated 12.12.2008 passed in S.B.
Civil Writ Petition No.13038 of 2008 - Bright Future Teacher
Training Institute v. State of Rajasthan, the learned Single Judge
G framed the following questions:
"(i) Whether once the respondents have granted
recognition to the thirteen Institutions whose
inspection has been carried out after 31.8.2008
then, it is permissible for the respondents to justify
H denial of the recognition to other Institutions on the
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION v. 317
S.S. PRASHIKSHAN SANSTHAN [GS. SINGHVI, J.]
ground that their inspections were carried out after A
31.8.2008 i.e. the cut off date?
(ii) Whether the respondents are justified in making
lame submission in the last additional affidavit dated
25.2.2009 that the NRC Jaipur has committed B -·
serious irregularities and therefore, the NRC has
been terminated vide notification dated 13.2.2009
and new Committee has been constituted vide
notification dated 17.2.2009 but no action has been
taken/proposed in the affidavit against the 13
institutions in whose cases inspection was carried c
out after 31.8.2008 and recognition was granted in
the 132nd meeting dated 20-2119/2008?
(iii) Whether the respondents who have not withdrawn
recognition order in respect of the thirteen D
institutions and allowed them to continue with the
result that the students have been admitted and the
stu'dies are going on and discrimination is
continuing against the petitioners and for removal
of discrimination, they are entitled for extension of E
the date i.e. 31.8.2008 till the meeting dated 20-21/
9/2008?
(iv) Whether fixing of the cut off date of inspection i.e.
.31.8.2008 by the N.C.T.E. by Annexure R-7 dated
1.7.2008 has no reasonable nexus with the aims F
and object of granting recognition in the meeting
dated 20-21.9.2008 or the same is a fortuitous
circumstance?
(v) When the concerned University has ad'!litted G
students up to 15.1.09 and submitted that 180
teaching days can be completed before the start of
next academic session, then the petitioners who are
not at fault, be allowed to suffer?"
H
318 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 2 S.C.R.
A 12. While dealing with the question of discrimination, the
learned Single Judge noted that large number of similarly
situated institutions were granted recognition despite the fact
that their cases were considered in the meeting of the Northern
Regional Committee held on 20-21.9.2008 and observed:
B
"It is true that two wrong cannot make one right. Here, in
the instant case, the present writ petitions have been
defended on the ground that since the inspection has been
carried out after 31.8.2008 i.e. the cut off date fixed by
Annexure R-7 dated 1.7.2008 the petitioners are not
c entitled for recognition. The respondents have granted
recognition to 13 Institutions in whose cases inspection
was carried out after 31.8.2008, therefore, they cannot be
permitted to say that although they have committed illegality
but the same cannot be allowed to be perpetuated by
D granting recognition to the petitioner Institutions. In my view,
the entire issue is to be examined with reference to the
decision dated 31.10.2008 when the recognition order was
issued in favour of petitioner Institutions in compliance to
the interim direction of this Court dated 24.10.2008 as in
E the meeting dated 20-21.9.2008 minor defects were
pointed out in case of recognition order passed in favour
of 80 colleges. The fixation of date - 31.8.2008 without
considering the applications and completion of formalities
is fortuitous and arbitrary. In view of the above, withholding
F recognition in the meeting dated 20-21/9/2008 and
31.10.2008 is not only discriminatory but arbitrary also and
the said action is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution
of India. I am of the further view that the respondents who
have not acted fairly cannot be allowed to contend that the
G petitioners are not entitled to recognition on account of
inspection being carried out after 31.8.2008 in the
aforesaid facts and circumstances."
13. On the issue of completion of minimum 180 teaching
H days, the learned Single Judge adverted to the order passed
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION v. 319
S.S. PRASHIKSHAN SANSTHAN [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
in the case of Bright Future Teacher Training Institute (supra) A
wherein it was held that the deficiency of teaching days could
be completed by holding extra classes on holidays and
overtime classes and held that similar mechanism could be
adopted in the case of the private respondents. The learned
Single Judge further held that the-cut off date i.e. 31.8.2008 B
fixed vide notification dated 1. 7.2008 is discriminatory, arbitrary
and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The appeals filed
against the order of the learned Single Judge were dismissed
by the Division Bench of the High Court.
14. Shri Raju Ramachandran, learned senior counsel C
appearing for the appellants fairly stated that this Court may not
interfere with the direction given by the learned.Single Judge
of the High Court, which has been confirmed by the Division
Bench, because in compliance thereof the Northern Regional
Committee has already granted recognition to the private D
respondents and by now they must have admitted/students
against the sanctioned intake. He, however, argued that the
reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge for striking down
the cut off date specified in clause (5) of Regulation 5 are legally
untenable and to that extent the order of the learned Single E
Judge and the judgment of the Division Bench are liable to be
set aside. Learned senior counsel emphasized that the cut off
dates have been prescribed for submission of application to
the Regional Committee and communication of the decision
regarding grant or refusal of recognition with a view to ensure F
that decision on the issue of recognition of the colleges is not
unduly delayed and the students admitted in the recognized
institutions are able to fulfil the requirement of attending at least
180 teaching days during the academic session. Learned
senior counsel further submitted that the cut off dates specified G
in clauses (4) and (5) of Regulation 5 have direct nexus with
the object of ensuring time bou.nd decision of the applications
submitted for grant of recognition so that the teaching and
training courses are completed by every institution well before
commencement of the examination and the candidates who H
320 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 2 S.C.R.
A fulfill the requirement of attending minimum classes and training
courses are able to take examinations. Shri Ramachandran
then submitted that the 2007 Regulations contain a
comprehensive mechanism for grant of recognition to eligible
applicants for starting courses and for increasing the intake and
B provision for consultation with the concerned State Government/
Union Territory Administration has been made with a view to
ensure that unduly large nlrJmber of institutions are not granted
permission to start the courses and the State may find. it
impossible to provide employment to the students successfully
c completing the courses every year. Learned senior counsel
made a pointed reference to letter dated 27.1.2009 sent by
Principal Secretary of the Council to the Regional Director,
Northern Regional Committee on the question of grant of
recognition for B.Ed., STC, Shiksha Shastri Courses in the
State of Rajasthan for academic session 2009-2010 to show
0
that decision was taken by the Council not to grant recognition
keeping in view the fact that there was virtually no requirement
of trained teachers in the State.
15. We have given serious thought to the arguments of the
E learned counsel. We shall first deal with the question whether
the cut off dates specified in clauses (4) and (5) of Regulation
5 for submission of application to the Regional Committee,
processing thereof and communication of the final decision on
the issue of recognition are arbitrary, discriminatory, irrational
F and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
16. Article 14 forbids class legislation but permits
reasonable classification provided that it is founded on an
intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that
G are grouped together from those that are left out of the group
and the differentia has a rational nexus to the object sougbt to
be achieved by the legislation in question. In re the Special
Courts· Bill, 1978 (1979) 1 SCC 380, Chandrachud, C.J.,
speaking for majority of the Court adverted to large number of
H
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION v. 321
S.S. PRASHIKSHAN SANSTHAN [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
judicial precedents involving interpretation of Article 14 and A
culled out several propositions including the following:
"(2) The State, in the exercise of its governmental power,
has of necessity to make laws operating differently on
different groups or classes of persons within its territory
8
to attain particular ends in giving effect to its policies, and
it must possess for that purpose large powers of
distinguishing and classifying persons or things to be
subjected to such laws.
(3) The constitutional command to the State to afford equal C
protection of its laws ~ets a goal not attainable by the
invention and applicatitjn of a precise formula. Therefore,
classification need not be constituted by an exact or
scientific exclusion or inclusion of persons or things. The
courts should not insist on delusive exactness or apply D
doctrinaire tests for determining the validity of classification
in· any given case. Classification is justified if it is not
palpably arbitrary.
(4) The principle underlying the guarantee of Article 14 is E
not that the same rules of law should be applicable to all
persons within the Indian territory or that the same
remedies should be made available to them irrespective
of differences of circumstances. It only means that all
persons similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike both
in privileges conferred and liabilities imposed. Equal laws
1
F
would have to be applied to all in the same situation, and
there should be no discrimination between one person and
another if as regards the subject-matter of the legislation
their position is substantially the same.
G
(5) By the process of classification, the State has the
power of determining.whp should be regarded as a class
for purposes of legisl<iitioljl and in relation to a law enacted
on a particular subject. ;This power, no doubt, in some
degree is likely to pfodyce some inequality; but if a law H
'
322 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 2 S.C.R.
A deals with the liberties of a number of well defined classes,
it is not open to the charge of denial of equal protection
on the ground that it has no application to other persons.
Classification thus means segregation in classes which
have a systematic relation, usually found in common
B properties and characteristics. It postulates a rational
basis and does not mean herding together of certain
persons and classes arbitrarily.
(6) The law can make and set apart the classes according
c to the needs and exigencies of the society and as
suggested by experience. It can recognise even degree
of evil, but the classification should never be arbitrary,
artificial or evasive.
(7) The classification must not be arbitrary but must be
D rational, that is to say, it must not only be based on some
qualities or characteristics which are to be found in all the
persons grouped together and not in others who are left
out but those qualities or characteristics must have a
reasonable relation to the object of the legislation. In order
E to pass the test, two conditions must be fulfilled, namely,
(1) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible
differentia which distinguishes those that are grouped
together from others and (2) that that differentia must have
a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by
F the Act."
17. In Union of India v. Parameswaran Match Works
(1975) 1 sec 305, this Court was called upon to examine
whether clause (b) of notification No.205/67-CE dated 4.9.1967
issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance
G prescribing concessional rate of duty in respect of units
engaged in manufacture of match boxes, which were certified
as such by the Khadi and Village Industries Commission or
units set up in the cooperative sector was discriminatory and
violative of Article 14 on the ground that the cut off date i.e.
H
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION v. 323
S:S. PRASHIKSHAN .SANSTHAN [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
21.7.1967 specified in the notification was arbitrary. The High A
Court of Madras allowed the writ petition filed by the
respondents and struck down the cut off date by observing that
the classification of the units engaged in the manufacturing of
match boxes was irrational and arbitrary. While reversing the
order of the High Court, this Court referred to the judgment in B
Louisville Gas Co. v. Alabama Power Co. (1927) 240 US 30
and held:
"We do not think that the reasoning of the High Court is
correct. It may be noted that it was by the proviso in the C
notification dated July 21, 1967 that it was made
necessary that a declaration should be filed by a
manufacturer that the total clearance from the factory
during a financial year is not estimated to exceed 75 million
matches in order to earn the concessional rate of Rs 3. 75
per gross boxes of 50 matches each. The proviso, D
however, did not say, when the declaration should be filed.
The purpose behind that proviso was to enable only bona
fide small manufacturers of matches to earn the
concessional rate of duty by filing the declaration. All small
manufacturers whose estimated clearance was less than E
75 million matches would have availed themselves of the
opportunity by making the declaration as early as possible
as they would become entitled to the concessional rate of
duty on their clearance from time to time. It is difficult to
imagine that any manufacturer whose estimated total F
clearance during the financial year did not exceed 75
million matches would have failed to avail of the
concessional rate on their clearances by filing the
declaration at the earliest possible date. As already stated,
the respondent filed its application for licence on G
September 5, 1967 and made the declaration on that
date. The concessional rate of duty was intended for small
bona fide units who were in the field when the notification
dated September 4, 1967 was issued; the concessional
rate was not intended to benefit the large units which had
324 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 2 S.C.R.
A split up into smaller units to earn the concession. The
tendency towards fragmentation of the bigger units into
smaller ones in order to earn the concessional rate of duty
has been noted by the Tariff Commission in its report [see
the extract from the report given at p. 500 (SCC, p. 431)
B in M. Match Works v. Assistant Collector, Central Excise].
The whole object of the notification dated September 4,
1967 was to prevent further fragmentation of the bigger
units into smaller ones in order to get the concessional
rate of duty intended for the smaller units and thus defeat
c the purpose which the Government had in view. In other
words, the purpose of the notification was to prevenUhe
larger units who were producing and clearing more than
100 million matches in the financial year 1967-68 and
who could not have made the declaration, from splitting
up into smaller units in order to avail of the concessional
D
rate of duty by making the declaration subsequently. To
achieve that purpose, the Government chose September
4, 1967, as the date before which the declaration should
be filed. There can be no doubt that any date chosen for
the purpose would, to a certain extent, be arbitrary. That
E is inevitable.
The concessional rate of duty can be availed of only by
those who satisfy the conditions which have been laid down
under the notification. The respondent was riot a
F manufacturer before September 4, 1967 as it had applied
for licence only on September 5, 1967 and it could not
have made a declaration before September 4, 1967 that
its total clearance for the financial year 1967-68 is not
estimated to exceed 75 million matches. In the matter of
G granting concession or exemption from tax, the
Government has a wide latitude of discretion. It need not
give exemption or concession to everyone in order that it
may grant the same to some. As we said, the object of
granting the concessional rate of duty was to protect the
H smaller units in the industry from the competition by the
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION v. 325
S.S. PRASHIKSHAN SANSTHAN [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
larger ones and that object would have been frustrated, A
if, by adopting the device of fragmentation, the larger units
could become the ultimate beneficiaries of the bounty.
That a classification can be founded on a particular date
and yet be reasonable, has been held by this Court in
several decisions. The choice of a date as a basis for B
classification cannot always be dubbed as arbitrary even
if no particular reason is forthcoming for the choice unless
it is shown to be capricious or whimsical in the
circumstances. When it is seen that a line or a point there
must be and there is no mathematical or logical way of c
fixing it precisely, the decision of the legislature or its
delegate must be accepted unless we can say that it is
very wide off the reasonable mark."
(emphasis supplied)
D
18. The ratio of the aforementioned judgment was
reiterated by the Constitution Bench in 0. G. Gose and Co.
(Agents) (P) Ltd. v. State of Kera/a (1980) 2 SCC 410. One
of ~he several issues considered in that case was whether the
tax imposed under Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 with E
retrospective effect from 1.4.1973 was discriminatory and
violative of Article 14. The Constitution Bench referred to the
judgment in Union of India v. Parameswaran Match Works
(supra) and observed:
"It has not been shown in this case how it could be said
F
that the date (April 1, 1973) for the levy of the tax was wide
of the reasonable mark. On the other hand it would appear
from the brief narration of the historical background of the
Act that the State legislature had imposed the building tax
under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1961, which came into
force on March 2, 1961, and when that Act was finally G
struck down as unconstitutional by this Court's decision
dated August 13, 1968, the intention to introduce a fresh
Bill for the levy was made clear in the budget speech of
;1979-71. It will be recalled that the Bill was published in
. \ ,H
326 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 2 S.C.R.
A June 1973 and it was stated there that the Act would be
brought into force from April 1, 1970. The Bill was
introduced in the Assembly on July 5, 1973. The Select
Committee however recommended that it may be brought
into force from April 1, 1973. Two Ordinances were
B promulgated to give effect to the provisions of the Bill. The
Bill was passed soon after and received the Governor's
assent on April 2, 1975. It cannot therefore be said with
any justification that in choosing April 1, 1973 as the date
for the levy of the tax, the legislature acted unreasonably,
c or that it was "wide of the reasonable mark."
19. In State of Bihar v. Ramjee Prasad (1990) 3 SCC 368,
this Court reversed the judgment of the Patna High Court which
had struck down the cut off date fixed for receipt of the
application. After adverting to the judgments in Union of India
D v. Parameswaran Match Works (supra) and Uttar Pradesh
Mahavidyalaya Tadarth Shikshak Niyamitikaran Abhiyan
Samiti, Varanasi v. State of U.P. (1987) 2 SCC 453, the Court
observed:
E "In the present case as pointed out earlier the past practice
was to fix the last date for receipt of applications a month
or one and a half months after the date of actual
publication of the advertisement. Following the past
practice the State Government fixed the last date for receipt
F of applications as January 31, 1988. Those who had
completed the required experience of three years by that
date were, therefore, eligible to apply for the posts in
question. The respondents and some of the intervenors
who were not completing the required experience by that
date, therefore, challenged the fixation of the last date as
G
arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It is
obvious that in fixing the last date as January 31, 1988 the
State Government had only followed the past practice and
if the High Court's attention had been invited to this fact it
would perhaps have refused to interfere since its
H
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION v. 327
S.S. PRASHIKSHAN SANSTHAN [G.S. SINGHVI, J.) .
interference is based on the erroneous belief that the past A
practice was to fix June 30 of the relevant year as the last
date for receipt of applications. Except for leaning on a
past practice the High Court has not assigned ;my reasons
for its choice of the date. As pointed out by this Court the
choice of date cannot be dubbed as arbitrary even if no B
particular reason is forthcoming for the same unless it is
shown to be capricious or whimsical or wide off the
reasonable mark. The choice of the date for advertising
the posts had to depend on several factors, e.g. the
number of vacancies in different disciplines, the need to C
fill up the posts, the availability of candidates, etc. It is
not the case of anyone that experienced candidates were
not available in sufficient numbers on the cut-off date.
Merely because the respondents and some others would
qualify for appointment if the last date for receipt of .·
applications is shifted from January 31, 1988 to June 30, 0
1988 is no reason for dubbing the earlier date as arbitrary
or irrational."
(emphasis supplied)
E
20. The same view was reiterated in Dr. Sushma Sharma
v. State of Rajasthan (1985) Supp. SCC 45, University Grants
Commission v. Sadhana Chaudhary (1996) 10 SCC 536,
Ramrao v. All India Backward Class Bank Employees Welfare
-Association (2004) 2 SCC 76 and State of Punjab v. Amar F
Nath Goyal (2005) 6 SCC 754.
21. If challenge to the cut off dates specified in clauses (4)
and (5) of Regulation 5 is examined in the light of the
propositions laid down in the above noted judgments, it is not
possible to find any fault with the decision of the Council to G
prescribe 31st October of the year preceding the academic
session for which recognition is sought as the last date for
submission of application to the Regional Committee and 15th
May of the succeeding year as the date for communication of
H
328 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 2 S.C.R.
A the decision about grant of recognition or refusal thereof. The
scheme of the 2007 Regulations envisages the following steps:
(1) The applications received for recognition are
scrutinized by the office of the Regional Committee to find
out the deficiency, if any.
B
(2) In case any deficiency is found, the same is required
to be brought to the notice of the concerned applicant
within 30 days of the receipt of application and the latter
is under an obligation to remove the deficiency within next
c 90 days.
(3) Simultaneously, a written communication is required
to be sent to the State Government/Union Territory
Administration. Within 60 days of the receipt of
communication from the Regional Committee, the
D
concerned State Government/Union Territory
Administration has to send its recommendations/
suggestions.
(4) After removal of the deficiency, if any, and receipt of
E the recommendations/suggestions of the State
GovernmenVUnion Territory Administration, the Regional
Committee is required to constitute a team to inspect
infrastructure, equipments and instructional facilities made
available by the applicant with a view to assess the level
F of preparedness for commencement of the course.
(5) The inspection is to be carried out by associating the
representative(s) of the concerned institution.
(6) Upon receipt of the inspection report and after
G satisfying itself that the requirements enumerated in
clauses (10) and (11) of Regulation 7 have been fulfilled,
the Regional Committee has to take final decision on the
issue of grant of recognition to the applicant.
H 22. This entire exercise is time consuming. Therefore,
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION v. 329
.S.S. PRASHIKSHAN SANSTHAN [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
some date had to be fixe.d for submission of application and A
some time schedule had to be prescribed for taking final
decision on the issae of recognition, which necessarily involves
scrutiny of the application, removal of deficiency, if any, receipt
of-recommendations/suggestions of the State Government/
Union Territory Administration, inspection of infrastructure, B
equipments and other facilities in the institution and
consideration of the entire material including report of the
inspection committee. By fixing 31st October of the preceding
year, the Council has ensured that the Regional Committee
gets at least 7 months for scrutiny of the application, processing c
thereof, receipt of recommendation/suggestion from the State
Government/Union Territory Administration, inspection of the
infrastructure, etc. made available by the applicant before an
objective decision is taken to grant or not to grant recognition.
Likewise, by fixing 15th May of the year succeeding the cut off D
date fixed for submission of application, the Council has
ensured that adequate time is avaiiable to the institution to
complete the course, teaching as well as training and the
students get an opportunity to comply with the requirement of
minimum attendance. For academic session 2008-2009, the E
cut off date was amended because the 2007 Regulations were
notified on 27 .12.2007 and going by the cut off dates specified
in clauses (4) and (5) of Regulation 5, no application could have
been entertained and no institution could have been recognized
for B.Ed. course.
F
23. In our view, the cut off dates specified ip the two
clauses of Regulation 5 of the 2007 Regulations and
notification dated 1. 7 .2008 are neither arbitrary nor irrational
so as to warrant a conclusion that the same are violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution. The conclusion of the learned G
Single Judge that 31.8.2008 fixed vide notification dated
1. 7.2008 is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 appears
to have been influenced by the fact that some of the applicants,
whose applications were considered in the meeting of the
Regional Committee held after the cut off date were granted H
l
330 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 2 S.C.R.
A recognition while others like the writ petitioners were denied
similar treatment on the pretext that decision in their case could
not be taken before the cut off date. Unfortunately, the Division
Bench of the High Court mechanically adopted the reasoning
of the learned Single Judge for holding that the said date was
B unconstitutional.
24. The consultation with the State Government/Union
Territory Administration and consideration of . the
recommendations/suggestions made by them are of
C considerable importance. The Court can take judicial notice of
the fact that majority of the candidates who complete B.Ed. and
similar courses aspire for appointment as teachers in the
government and government aided educational institutions. _
Some of them do get appointment against the available vacant
posts, but large number of them do not succeed in this venture
D because of non-availability of posts. The State Government/
Union Territory Administration sanctions the posts keeping in
view the requirement of trained teachers and budgetary
provisions made for that purpose. They cannot appoint all those
who successfully pass B.Ed. and like courses every year .
.·. E Therefore, by incorporating the provision for sending the
applications to the State Government/Union Territory
Administration and consideration of the recommendations/
suggestions, if any made by them, the Council has made an
attempt to ensure that as a result of grant of recognition to
F unlimited number of institutions to start B.Ed. and like courses,
candidates far in excess of the requirement of trained teachers
do not become available and they cannot be appointed as
teachers. If, in a given year, it is found that adequate numbers
of suitable candidates possessing the requisite qualifications
G are already available to meet the requirement of trained
teachers, the State Government/Union Territory Administration
can suggest to the concerned Regional Committee not to grant
recognition to new institutions or increase intake in the existing
institutions. If the Regional Committee finds that the
H recommendation made by the State Government/Union
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION v. 331
S.S. PRASHIKSHAN SANSTHAN [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
Territory Administration is based on valid grounds, it can refuse Ai
to grant recognition to any new institution or entertain an · I
application made by an existing institution for increase of intake
and it cannot be said that such decision is ultra vires the
provisions of the Act or the Rules.
B
25. The importance of the role of the State Government in
such matters was recognized in St. Johns Teachers Training
lnstitute-v. Regi/Jnal Director, National Council For Teacher
Education and another (2003) 3 sec 321. In that case, vires
of Regulation 5(e) and (f) of the 1995 Regulations was
challenged insofar as they incorporated the requirement of C
obtaining NOC from the State Government. A learned Single
Judge of the Karnataka High Court held that Regulation 5(e)
and (f) were ultra vires the provisions of the Act. The order of
the learned Single Judge was reversed by the Division Bench
of the High Court. This Court referred to Section 14 of the Act D
_ and two clauses of Regulation 5, which were impugned in the
writ petition filed by the appellant and observed:
"Sub-section (3) of Section 14 casts a duty upon the
Regional Committee to be satisfied with· regard to a large E
number of matters before passing an order granting
recognition to an institution which has moved an
application for the said purpose. The factors mentioned in
sub-section (3) are that the institution has adequate
finaridal resources, accommodation, library, qualified staff, F
laboratory and that it fulfils such other conditions required
for proper functioning of the institution for a course or
training in teacher education as may be laid down in the
Regulations. As mentioned earlier, there are only four
Regional Committees in the whole country and, therefore, G
each Regional Committee has to deal with applications for
grant of recognition from several States. It is therefore
obvious that it will not only be difficult but almost
impossible for the Regional Committee to itself obtain
complete particulars and details of financial resources,
H
332 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 2 S.C.R.
A accommodation, library, qualified staff, laboratory and other
conditions of the institution which has moved an application
for grant of recognition. The institution may be located in'
the interior of the district in a faraway State. The Regional
Committee cannot perform such Herculean task and it has
B . to necessarily depend upon some other agency or bQdy
for obtaining necessary information. It is for this reason that
the assistance of the State Government or Union Territory
in which that institution is located is taken by the Regional
Committee and this is achieved by making a provision in
c Regulations 5(e) and (f) that the application made by the
institution for grant of recognition has to be accompanied
with an NOC from the State or Union Territory concerned.
The impugned Regulations in fact facilitate the job of the
Regional Committees in discharging their responsibilities.
D After adverting to the guidelines issued by the Council on
2.2. 1996, the Court observed:
"A perusal of the guidelines would show that while
\ considering an application for grant of an NOC the State
E Government or the Union Territory has to confine itself to
the matters enumerated therein like assessed need for
trained teachers, preference to such institutions which lay
emphasis on preparation of teachers for subjects like
Science, Mathematics, English etc. for which trained
F teachers are in short supply and institutions which propose
to concern themselves with new and emerging specialities
like computer education, use of electronic media etc. and
also for speciality education for the disabled and vocational
education etc. It also lays emphasis on establishment of
institutions in tribal and hilly regions which find it difficult
G
to get qualified and trained teachers and locations which
have catchment area in terms of schools of different levels
where student teachers can be exposed to demonstration
lessons and can undertake practice teaching. Para 8 of
the guidelines deals with financial resources,
H
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION v. 333
S.S. PRASHIKSHAN SANSTHAN [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
accommodation, library and other infrastructure of the A
institution which is desirous of starting a course of training
and teacher education. The guidelines clearly pertain to the
matters enumerated in sub-section (3) of Section 14 of the
Act which have to be taken into consideration by the
Regional Committee while considering the application for B
granting recognition to an institution which wants to start
a course for training in teacher education. The guidelines
have also direct nexus to the object of the Act, namely,
planned and coordinated development of teacher
education system and proper maintenance of norms and c
standards. It cannot, therefore, be urged that the power
conferred on the State Government or Union Territory, while
considering an application for grant of an NOC, is an
arbitrary or unchannelled power. The State Government or
the Union Territory has to necessarily confine itself to the
0
guidelines issued by the Council while considering the
application for grant of an NOC. In case the State
Government does not take into consideration the relevant
factors enumerated in sub-section (3) of Sectio.n 14 of the
Act and the guidelines issued by the Council or takes into E
consideration factors which are not relevant and rejects the
application for grant of an NOC, it will be open to the
institution concerned to challenge the same in accordance .
with law. But, that by itself, cannot be a ground to hold that
the Regulations which require, an NOC from ·the State
Government or the Union Territo.Y are ultra vires or invalid." F
While dealing with the argument of the learned counsel for the
appellant that the impugned Regulations have the effect of
.- conferring the power of considering the application for grant of
recognition under Section 14 upon the State Government, the
'· Court referred to Regulation 6(ii) of the 2002 Regulations and
observed: ·
"Regulation 6(ii) of these Regulations provides that the
endorsement of the State Government/Union Territory
334 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 2 S.C.R.
A Administration in regard to issue of NOC will be
considered by the Regional Committee while taking a
decision on the application for recognition. This provision
shows that even if the NOC is not granted by the State
Government or Union Territory concerned and the same is
.B refused, the entire matter will be examined by the Regional
Committee while taking a decision on the application for
recognition. Therefore, the grant or refusal of an NOC by
the State Government or Union Territory is not conclusive
or bindihg and the views expressed by the State
c Government will be considered by the Regional Committee
while taking the decision on the application for grant of
recognition. In view of these new Regulations the challenge
raised to the validity of Regulations 5(e) and (f) has been
further whittled down. The role of the State Government
is certainly important for supplying the requisite data
D
which is essential for formation of opinion by the Regional
Committee while taking a decision under sub-section (3)
of Section 14 of the Act. Therefore no exception can be
taken to such a course of action."
E (emphasis supplied)
26. In State of Tamil Nadu and another v. S. V. Bratheep
and others (2004) 4 SCC 513, the Court interpreted the
provisions of the All India Council for Technical Education Act,
F 1987, referred to the Constitution Bench judgment in Dr. Preeti
Srivastava's case and observed that the State Government can
prescribe additional qualification to what has been prescribed
by AICTE for admission to engineering courses and no fault
can be found with such a provision.
G 27. In Govt. of A.P. and another v. J.B. Educational Society
and another (2005) 3 sec 212, this Court considered the
question whether the provision contained in Section 20(3)(a)(i)
of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 under which
obtaining of permission of the State Government was made
H sine qua non for starting an institution for Teacher Training
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION v. 335
S.S. PRASHIKSHAN SANSTHAN [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
Course was ultra vires the provisions of the All India Council A
for Technical Education Act, 1987 and the Regulations framed
thereunder. While rejecting the challenge, the Court referred to
Articles 245, 246 and 254(2) and Entries 66 of List-I and 25 of
List-Ill of Seventh Schedule to the Constitution and observed:
B
"The provisions of the AICTE Act are intended to improve
technical education and the various authorities under the
. Act have been given exclusive responsibility to coordinate
and determine the standards of higher education. It is a
general power given to evaluate, harmonise and secure
proper relationship to any project of national importance. C
Such a coordinate action in higher education with proper
standard is of paramount importance to national progress.
Section 20 of the A:P. Act does not in any way encroach
upon the powers of the authorities under the Central Act.
Section 20 says that the competent authority shall, from D
time to time, conduct a survey to identify the educational
needs of the locality under its jurisdiction notified through
the local newspapers calling for applications from the
educational agencies. Section 20(3)(a)(i) says that before ·
permission is granted, the authority concerned must be E
satisfied that there is need for providing educational
facilities to the people in the locality. The State authorities
alone can decide about the educational facilities and
. needs of the locality. If there are more colleges in a
particular area, the State would not be justified in granting F
permission to one more college in that locality. Entry 25
of the Concurrent List gives power to the State Legislature
to make laws regarding education, including technical
education. Of course, this is subject to the provisions of
Entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List I. Entry 66 of List I to which G
the legislative source is traced for the AICTE Act, deals
with the general power of Parliament for coordination,
determination of standards in institutions for higher
education or research and scientific and technical
educational institutions and Entry 65 deals with the union · H
336 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 2 S.C.R.
A agencies and institutions for professional, vocational and
technical training, including the training of police officers,
etc. The State has certainly the legislative competence to
pass the legislation in respect of education including
technical education and Section 20 of the Act is intended
B for general welfare of the citizens of the State and also in
discharge of the constitutional duty enumerated under
Article 41 of the Constitution.
The general survey in various fields of technical education
contemplated under Section 10(1)(a) of the AICTE Act is
c not pertaining to the educational needs of any particular
area in a State. It is a general supervisory survey to be
conducted by the AICTE Council, for example, if any llT is
to be established in a particular region, a general survey
could .be conducted and the Council can very much conduct
D a survey regarding the location of that institution and collect
data of all related matters. But as regards whether a
particular educational institution is to be established in a
particular area in a State, the State alone would be
competent to say as to where that institution should be
E established. Section 20 of the AP. Act and Section 10 of
the Central Act operate in different fields and we do not
see any repugnancy between the two provisions."
(emphasis supplied)
F 28. In State of Maharashtra v. Sant Dnyaneshwar
Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya and others (2006) 9 SCC
1, this Court considered the question whether, after grant of
recognition by NCTE, the State Government can refuse to issue
no objection certificate for starting B.Ed. colleges on the
G premise that a policy decision in that regard had been taken.
After adverting to the relevant provisions of the Constitution, the
Act and the Regulations and the judgment in St. John Teachers
Training Institute v. Regional Director, NCTE (supra), the Court
held that final authority to take decision on the issue of grant of
H recognition vests with the NCTE and it cannot be denuded· of
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION v. 337·.
S.S. PRASHIKSHAN SANSTHAN [G.S. SINGHVI, J.]
that authority on the ground that the State Government/Union A
Territory Administration has refused to issue NOC.
29. In the light of the above discussion, we hold that the
cut off dates specified in clauses (4) and (5) of Regulation 5 of
the 2007 Regulations as also the amendment made in 8
Regulation 5(5) vide notification dated 1. 7.2008 are not violative
of Article 14 of the Constitution and the learned Single Judge
and the Division Bench of the High Court were not right in
recording a contrary finding qua the date specified in
notification dated 1.7.2008. We further hold that the provisions C
contained in Section 14 and the Regulations framed for grant
of recognition including the requirement of recommendation of
the State Government/Union Territory Administration are
mandatory and an institution. is not entitled to recognition unless
it fulfils the conditions specified in various clauses of the
Regulations. The Council is directed to ensure that in future no D
institution is granted recognition unless it fulfils the·oonditions
laid down in the Act and the Regulations and the time schedule
fixed for processing the application by the Regional
Committees and communication of the decision on the issue
of recognition is strictly adhered to. E.
30. The appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated
above.
D.G. Appeals disposed of.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Teacher education"Sign in to search