SHRI MORVI SARVAJANIK KELAVNI MANDAL SANCHALIT MSKM B.ED. COLLEGEversusNATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHERS EDUCATION AND ORS.

               [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 555


      SHRI MORVI SARVAJANIK KELAVNI MANDAL                     A
          SANCHALIT MSKM B.ED. COLLEGE
                             v.
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHERS' EDUCATION AND
                        ORS.
          (Civil Appeal No. 11215 of 2011)                     B
                   DECEMBER 16, 2011
      [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND T.S. THAKUR, JJ.]

      National Council of Teachers' Education Act, 1993: s.17 C
- Withdrawal of recognition - Recognition granted to
appellant-institution for offering course of B.Ed. - Withdrawal
of recognition on the ground of inadequacy of built up area
available to the institution, the land underlying the structure
not being in the name of the institution, the institution being D
run in a building that was used by two other institutions and
the lecturers employed not having requisite qualifications -
Held: Inspection was conducted more than once and said
deficiencies were pointed out which seriously affected its
capacity to impart quality education and training to future E
teachers - However, deficiencies specifically pointed out were
not removed by the appellant-institution - Therefore,
withdrawal of recognition was justified - Prayer for permitting
the students to continue in the appellant-institution for session
2011-12 on sympathetic ground also rejected since F
recognition of the institution stood withdrawn on 20th July,
2011 which meant that while it had no effect qua admissions
for the academic session 2010-2011, it was certainly operative
qua admissions made for the academic session 2011-12
which commenced from 1st August, 2011 onwards - G
Education/Educational institutions.

    The appellant-trust established a college which was
granted recognition on 29.5.2007 under Section 14(3)(a)

                            555                                H
    556    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A of the NCTE Act for offering a B.Ed. with an intake of 100
  students. On 27.7.2008, the NCTE issued a notice to the
  appellant to show cause why the recognition should not
  be withdrawn in terms of Section 17 of the Act in view of
  the deficiencies pointed out in the notice like inadequacy
B of built up area available to the institution, the land
  underlying the structure not being in the name of the
  appellant-trust and the college being run in a building that
  was used by two other institutions. The recognition was
  withdrawn by the NCTE since the appellant did not
C respond to the show cause notice within the period
  stipulated for the purpose. The appellant filed a special
  civil application challenging the order of withdrawal of
  recognition. The High Court directed the appellant to
  remove the deficiencies pointed out by the NCTE and
  gave liberty to the NCTE to conduct fresh inspection and
0 pass appropriate orders. In compliance with the
  directions of the High Court, the inspection was
  conducted by the NCTE after receiving intimation from
  the appellant that the deficiencies were removed.
  However, NCTE sent a fresh notice pointing out several
E deficiencies. Meanwhile the appellant moved High Court
  for direction to the University to allot students to the
  appellant. The High Court directed the University to allot
  the students of the appellant for the academic session
  2011-12. In the meantime, the Western Regional
F Committee issued an order withdrawing the recognition
  granted to the appellant. The appellant filed writ petition
  before the High Court challenging the order of withdrawal
  of recognition which was dismissed. The instant appeals
  were filed challenging the order of the High Court.
G
          Dismissing the appeals, the Court
         HELD: 1. The present is one such case where the
    institution established by the appellant was inspected
    more than once and several deficiencies that seriously
H
 M.S.K MANDAL SANCHALIT MSK. B.ED. COLLEGE 557
              v. N.C.T.E. & ORS.
 affect its capacity to impart quality education and training A
to future teachers specifically were pointed out.
Inadequacy of space and staff, apart from other
 requirements stipulated under the provisions of the Act
 and the Regulations, is something which disqualifies any
 institution from seeking recognition. Such deficiencies B
were not disputed nor can the same be disputed in the
 light of the reports submitted by the inspecting teams
from time to time, including the report submitted on the
basis of the latest inspection that was conducted
pursuant to the directions issued by the High Court. It is c
difficult to appreciate how the institution could have
 reported compliance with the requirements of the
regulations and complete removal of the deficiencies
after the order passed by the High Court when the
institution had neither the land standing in its name nor 0
the building constructed in which it could conduct the
training programme. The fact that the institution was being
run in a building which was shared by two other colleges
was itself sufficient to justify withdrawal of the recognition
granted in its favour. It was also noted by the inspecting E
team that four lecturers employed by the appellant did not
have the requisite M.Ed. qualification. Therefore, the
institution was lacking in essential infrastructural facilities
which clearly justified withdrawal of the recognition earlier
granted to it. [Para 11] [565-D-H; 566-A]
                                                             F
     State of Maharashtra v. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale and
Ors. (1992) 4SCC 435: 1992 (3) SCR 792 - relied on.
    2. The recognition of the institution stood withdrawn
on 20th July, 2011 which meant that while it had no effect G
qua admissions for the academic session 2010-2011 it
was certainly operative qua admissions made for the
academic session 2011-12 which commenced from 1st
August, 2011 onwards. The fact that there was a
modification of the said order of withdrawal on 24th H.
    558   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A August, 2011 did not obliterate the earlier order dated
  20th July, 2011. The modifying order would relate back
  and be effective from 20th July, 2011 when the
  recognition was first withdrawn. Such being the position
  admissions made for the academic session 2011-2012
B were not protected under the statute. Secondly, students
  should not be allowed to continue in unrecognised
  institutions only on sympathetic considerations. [Para 12
  & 13] [566-G-H; 567-A]

C        Chairman, Bhartia Education Society and Anr. v. State
    of Himacha/ Pradesh and Ors. (2011) 4 SCC 527: 2011 (2)
    SCR 461; N. M. Nageshwaramma v. State of Andhra Pradesh
    and Anr. (1986) Supp. SCC 166; Andhra Kesari Educational
    Society v. Director of School Education (1989) 1 SCC 392:
    1988 (3) Suppl. SCR 893 - referred to.
D
       3. The institution established by the appellant was
  not equipped with the infrastructure required under the
  NCTE Act and the Regulations. It w::is not in a position
  to impart quality education, no matter admissions for the
E session 2011-2012 were made pursuant to the interim
  directions issued by the High Court. Therefore, the prayer
  for permitting the students to continue in the
  unrecognised institution of the appellant or directing that
  they may be permitted to appear in the examination is
F rejected. However, this order will not prevent the
  respondent-University from examining the feasibility of
  reallocating the students who were admitted through the
  University process of selection and counselling to other
  recognised colleges to prevent any prejudice to such
G students. Such re-allocation for the next session may not
  remedy the situation fully qua the students who may have
  to start the course afresh but it would ensure that if such
  admissions/reallocation is indeed feasible, the students
  may complete their studies in a recognised college
H instead of wasting their time in a college which does not
M.S.K MANDAL SANCHALIT MSK. B.ED. COLLEGE 559
             v. N.C.T.E. & ORS.
enjoy recognition by the NCTE. However, this aspect is           A
left entirely for the consideration of the University at the
appropriate level, having regard to its Rules and
Regulations and subject to availability of seats for such
adjustment to be made as also the terms and conditions
on which the same could be made. This order shall also           B
not prevent the affected students from seeking such
reliefs against the appellant college as may be legally
permissible including relief by way of refund of the fee
recovered from them. [Para 17] [569-G-H; 570-A-D]

     Managing Committee of Bhagwan Budh Primary                  c
Teachers Training College and another v. State of Bihar &
Ors. (1990) Supp. SCC 722; State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.
v. St. Joseph Teachers Training Institute and Anr. (1991) 3
SCC 87: 1991 (2) SCR 231 - relied on.
                                                                 D
                     Case Law Reference:
    1992 (3) SCR 792                 relied on    Para 10, 16
    2011 (2) SCR 461                 referred to Para 8, 16
    (1986) Supp. sec 166             referred to Para 8, 13      E

    1988 (3) Suppl. SCR 893          referred to Para 8
    (1990) Supp. sec 122             relied on    Para 14
    1991 (2) SCR 231                 relied on    Para 15        F

    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
11215 of 2011.

    From the Judgment & Order dated 07 .10.2011 of the High
Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Special Civil Application No.   G
9485 of 2011.
                              WITH
C.A. No. 11216 of 2011.

    K.V. Vlswanathan, Nikhil Goel, Prateek Y. Jasami, · H
    560 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A Marsook Bafaki for the Appellant.

         Ramesh P. Bhatt, Amitesh Kumat, Ravi Kant, Priti Kumar
    (for Navin Prakash), K.V. Sreekumar, Hematika Wahi,
    Satyabrut Pandu, R. Pradha for the Respondents.

B       The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

        T.S. THAKUR, J. 1. Leave granted.

       2. These appeals arise out of an order dated 7th October,
  2011 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad,
C whereby Special Civil Application No.9485 of 2011 has been
  dismissed and order dated 20th July, 2011 as modified by
  order dated 24th August, 2011 issued by the Western Regional
  Committee under Section 17 of the National Council of
  Teachers' Education (for short 'NCTE') Act, 1993 withdrawing
D the recognition of the B.Ed. College established by the appellant
  upheld.

       3. The appellant-Trust has established a college under the
  name and style Shri Morvi Sarvajanik Kelavni Mandal Sanchalit
E MSKM B.Ed. College, Rajkot. The college had the benefit of
  recognition granted in its favour in terms of an order dated 29th
  May, 2007 under Section 14 (3)(a) of the NCTE Act for offering
  a B.Ed. with an annual intake of 100 students. Shortly after the
  grant of the said recognition, the NCTE issued a notice dated
F 27th July, 2008 to the appellant to show cause why the
  recognition should not be withdrawn in terms of Section 17 of
  the Act in view of the deficiencies pointed out in the notice like
  inadequacy of built-up area available to the institution, the land
  underlying the structure not being in the name of the appellant-
G Trust and the college being run in a building that is used by two
  other institutions.
        4. The recognition was finally withdrawn by the NCTE on
  29th November, 2008 primarily because the appellant had
  failed to respond to the show cause notice within the period
H stipulated for the purpose. The withdrawal order was, however,
 M.S.K MANDAL SANCHALIT MSK. B.ED. COLLEGE 561
        v. N.C.T.E. & ORS. [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
successfully challenged before the High Court by the appellant        A
with the High Court issuing certain directions including a
direction to the appellant-college to remove the defects pointed
out by the NCTE and to offer the institution for a fresh inspection
by the NCTE. The High Court also directed that while
admissions for the current year shall not be affected by the          B
withdrawal of recognition, in the event of non-compliance with
the requirements of the Regulations, the institution shall not be
permitted to admit any student for the next year. The NCTE was
given liberty to have a fresh inspection conducted and pass
appropriate orders in accordance with law after issuing a             c
notice to the institution.

      5. In compliance with the directions of the High Court, the
appellant by its letter dated 20th December, 2010 intimated to
the NCTE that the deficiencies in question had been removed
and invited the NCTE to depute a team for a fresh inspection D
of the college. An inspection was accordingly conducted that
culminated in the issue of a fresh notice to the appellant again
pointing out several deficiencies in the institution including
inadequacy of space, staff and the fact that the college had no
land in its own name and that the institution was being run in a E
building which was being used by two other colleges. The
appellant appears to have sent a reply to the said show-cause
notice but before a final decision could be taken on the same,
the appellant filed Special Civil Appeal No.6507 of 2011 before
the High Court for a mandamus to the University to allot students F
to the appellant-college. By an order dated 14th June, 2011,
the High Court directed the University to allot the students to
the appellant-college for the academic session 2011-2012. In
the meantime, the Western Regional Committee issued an
order on 20th July, 2011 withdrawing the recognition granted G
to the appellant-college in exercise of its powers under Section
17 of NCTE Act. The order contained as many as nine different
grounds for the said withdrawal. Aggrieved, the appellant filed
Special Civil Application No.9485 of 2011 before the High
Court, inter a/ia, contending that the withdrawal of recognition H
    562     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A was on grounds that went beyond the show-cause notice issued
  to the institution. It was also contended that pursuant to the
  directions of the High Court the University had allotted 60
  students to the college who were on its rolls and whose future
  was likely to be adversely affected by the withdrawal order.
B
          6. While the writ petition filed by the appellant was still
    pending, Western Regional Committee issued a modified
    withdrawal order dated 24th August, 2011 relying upon the
    visiting team report which found the following deficiencies:

C         (i)     The Institution neither had land on the date of
                  submission of application as per Clause 7(0) of
                  the NCTE regulations 2002, nor does it have the
                  land even today.

0         (ii)    The Institution is running in a flat of Multi Storied
                  Residential Building.

          (iii)   Registered lease deed of the flat was executed on
                  18.03.2011, that is beyond the time limit of
                  31.12.2010 as prescribed by the Hon'ble High
E                 Court.

           (iv)   One of the lecturers was not qualified as on the date
                  of appointment.

F      7. The High Court was not happy with the above order as
  is evident from an interim order dated 30th August, 2011
  whereby the Regional Director, Western Regional Committee,
  National Council for Teacher Education, Bhopal, was directed
  to send a new team to inspect the institution and submit a fresh
  report regarding the defects and deficiencies in the
G infrastructure provided by the college. An inspection committee
  was accordingly deputed by the NCTE who filed a report before
  the High Court in a sealed cover. The report, inter alia, stated:

          "The team had done the inspection of infrastructure,
H         institutional facilities etc. The C.D. is enclosed. The
M.S.K MANDAL SANCHALIT MSK. B.ED. COLLEGE 563
       v. N.C.T.E. & ORS. [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
  videography had been in a continuous manner. The four               A
  corners of land and four corners of the buildings are
  prominently picturised. The photography of land, building,
  instructional facilities, staff is also done. (G.D. and album
  enclosed).
                                                                      B
   The Hon'ble High Court has directed to do the inspection
   with regards to the defects shown in the withdrawal order.

   The inspection is done accordingly following the orders of
   the Hon'ble High Court.
                                                                      c
   The observations of the visiting team regarding the
   defects/deficiencies are noted below:

   (i) It is true that the institution does not have the registered
   land document and is occupying the land belonging to Shri
   Uma Education Trust.                                               0

   (ii) It is true that the institution has submitted the building
   plan of Shri Uma Education Trust. This building plan was
   approved by Sarpanch, Vajdi (Virda). The approval of
   Rajkot Urban Development Authority is still not obtained           E
   by the Uma Education Trust.

   (iii) It is true that the land use certificate submitted by the
   Institution is about the land of Uma Education Trust.

   (iv) It is true that the Institution does not have its own land    F
   and building. The institution is running on the premises
   of the Uma Education Trust.

   (v) The teaching staff profile is approved by In-charge
   Vibhagiya Officer, Saurashtra University on 18.02.2009             G
   on 11.05.2011 and 13.05.2011. Four lecturers have no
   M.Ed. qualifications. One common observed that all lists
   were approved by in-charge, Vibhagiya Officer of the
   Unversity.
                                                                      H
    564     SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A         (vi) Uma a.Ed. college and Ja/aram a.Ed. College are
          being run on the same premises.

          (vii) It is true that the institution has submitted the building
          plan of Shri Uma Education Trust. This building plan was
B         approved by the Sarpanch, Vajdi (Virda). The approval
          of Rajkot Urban Development Authority is still not
          obtained by the Uma Education Trust.

          (viii) Morvi Sarvajanik Kelevani Mandal and Jalaram
          Education Trust are unilaterally merged with Uma
c         Education Trust without due authorisation of the competent
          authority and also without the approval of the WRC. The
          matter is still under correspondence.

          (ix) The institution/Morvi Sarvajanik Ke/avani Manda/ did
D         not possess adequate land or govt. land acquired on long
          terms lease basis or on ownership."

       8. The High Court upon a consideration of the relevant
  records including the inspection report placed before it,
E dismissed the writ petition relying upon the decisions of this
  Court in Chairman, Bhartia Education Society and Anr. v.
  State of Himacha/ Pradesh and Ors. (2011) 4 SCC 527, N. M.
  Nageshwaramma v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. (1986)
  Supp. SCC 166, Students of Dattatraya Adhyapak Vidya/ya
  v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. SLP (C) No.2067 of 1991,
F decided on 19.2.1991, Andhra Kesari Educational Society v.
  Director of School Education (1989) 1 SCC 392 and a few
  others. The High Court held that the appellant was not entitled
  to any relief in the writ proceedings filed on its behalf and
  accordingly dismissed the writ petition. Hence the present
G appeals, assail the said judgment and order.

        9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
    perused the record.

          10. Mushroom growth of ill-equipped, under-staffed and un-
H
 M.S.K MANDAL SANCHALIT MSK. B.ED. COLLEGE 565
        v. N.C.T.E. & ORS. [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
recognised educational institutions was noticed by this Court          A
in State of Maharashtra v. Vikas Sahebrao Rounda/e and Ors.
(1992) 4 SCC 435. This Court observed that the field of
education had become a fertile, perennial and profitable
business with the least capital outlay in some States and that
societies and individuals were establishing such institutions          B
without complying with the statutory requirements. The
unfortunate part is that despite repeated pronouncements of
this Court over the past two decades deprecating the setting
up of such institutions. The mushrooming of the colleges
continues all over the country at times in complicity with the         c
statutory authorities, who fail to check this process by effectively
enforcing the provisions of the NCTE Act and the Regulations
framed thereunder.

      11. The present is one such case where the institution
established by the appellant has been inspected more than D
once and several deficiencies that seriously affect its capacity
to impart quality education and training to future teachers
specifically pointed out. Inadequacy of space and staff, apart
from other requirements stipulated under the provisions of the
Act and the Regulations, is something which disqualifies any E
institution from seeking recognition. Such deficiencies have not
been disputed before us nor can the same be disputed in the
light of the reports submitted by the inspecting teams from time
to time, including the report submitted on the basis of the latest
inspection that was conducted pursuant to the directions issued F
by the High Court. It is difficult to appreciate how the institution
could have reported compliance with the requirements of the
regulations and complete removal of the deficiencies after the
order passed by the High Court when the institution had neither
the land standing in its name nor the building constructed in G
which it could conduct the training programme. The fact that the
institution was being run in a building which was shared by two
other colleges was itself sufficient to justify withdrawal of the
recognition granted in its favour. It was also noted by the
inspecting team that four lecturers employed by the appellant H
    566    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A did not have the requisite M.Ed. qualification. Suffice it to say
  that the institution was lacking in essential infrastructural
  facilities which clearly justified withdrawal of the recognition
  earlier granted to it.

          12. Confronted with the above position, learned counsel
8
    for the appellant argued that the students admitted to the
    college for the academic session 2011-2012 could be allowed
    to appear in the examination to avoid prejudice to them and to
    save their careers. A similar contention urged before the High
C   Court has been rejected by it relying upon the decisions of this
    Court in which decisions this Court has not favoured grant of
    such relief to students admitted to unrecognised institution on
    consideration of misplaced sympathy. The High Court has also
    noted that the students had been transferred to other
    recognised colleges and that in any case students admitted for
D   the academic session 2011-2012 could not be allowed to
    continue in an institution which did not have the requisite
    infrastructure prescribed under the NCTE Regulations and
    norms. It was argued on behalf of the appellants that the High
    Court was not right in observing that students had been
E   transferred to other institutions. At any rate the order
    withdrawing recognition could not, according to the learned
    counsel, affect students admitted to the institution for the
    academic session 2011-2012 as the withdrawal order could
    only be prospective in nature and having been passed in
F   August, 2011 was relevant only for the academic session 2012-
    2013. We do not think so, firstly, because the recognition of the
    institution stood withdrawn on 20th July, 2011 which meant that
    while it had no effect qua admissions for the academic session
    2010-2011 it was certainly operative qua admissions made for
G   the academic session 2011-12 which commenced from 1st
    August, 2011 onwards. The fact that there was a modification
    of the said order of withdrawal on 24th August, 2011 did not
    obliterate the earlier order dated 20th July, 2011. The modifying
    order would in our opinion relate back and be effective from
H   20th July, 2011 when the recognition was first withdrawn. Such
M.S.K MANDAL SANCHALIT MSK. B.ED. COLLEGE 567
       v. N.C.T.E. & ORS. [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
being the position admissions made for the academic session           A
2011-2012 were not protected under the statute.

    13. Secondly, because this Court has in a long line of
decisions rendered from time to time disapproved of students
being allowed to continue in unrecognised institutions only on
sympathetic considerations. In N.M. Nageshwaramma (supra)
                                                                      B
this Court while dealing with the prayer for grant of permission
to the students admitted to unrecognised institution observed:

    "3. xxxxxx
                                                                      c
    We are unable to accede to these requests. These
    institutions were established and the students were
    admitted into these institutes despite a series of press
    notes issued by the Government. If by a fiat of the court
    we direct the Government to permit them to appear at the
                                                                      0
    examination we will practically be encouraging and
    condoning the establishment of unauthorised institutions.
    It is not appropriate that the jurisdiction of the court either
    under Article 32 of the Constitution or Article 226 should
    be frittered away for such a purpose. The Teachers
    Training Institutes are meant to teach children of                E
    impressionable age and we cannot let loose on the
    innocent and unwary children, teachers who have not
    received proper and adequate training. True they will be
    required to pass the examination but that may not be
    enough. Training for a certain minimum period in a                F
    properly organised and equipped Training Institute is
    probably essential before a teacher may be duly
    launched. We have no hesitation in dismissing the writ
    petitions with costs.·
                                                                      G
                                            (emphasis supplied)

     14. To the same effect is the decision of this Court in
Managing Committee of Bhagwan Budh Primary Teachers
Training College and another v. State of Bihar & Ors. (1990)
                                                                      H
    568 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A Supp. SCC 722, where this Court observed:

        "2. It is not possible to grant any such permission as
        prayed for because the granting of such permission would
        be clearly violating the provisions of the Education Act
        (see the judgments in S.L.P. No. 12014 of 1987 decided
B       on November 25, 1987 and the AP. Christians Medical
        Educational Society v. Government of AP.) .... ".

       15. In State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. v. St. Joseph
  Teachers Training Institute and Anr. (1991) 3 SCC 87, this
C Court once again found fault with the grant of relief to students
  admitted to unrecognised institutions on humanitarian grounds.
  This Court said:

        "6. The practice of admitting students by unauthorised
        educational institutions and then seeking permission for
D
        permitting the students to appear at the examination has
        been looked with disfavour by this Court............. In AP.
        Christians Medical Educational Society v. Government
        of AP (1986) 2 SCC 667, a similar request made on
        behalf of the institution and the students for permitting
E       them to appear at the examination even though affiliation
        had not been granted, was rejected by this Court. The
        court observed that any direction of the nature sought for
        permitting the students to appear at the examination
        without the institution being affiliated or recognised would
F       be in clear transgression of the provision of the Act and
        the regulations. The court cannot be a party to direct the
        students to disobey the statute as that would be
        destructive of the rule of law. The Full Bench noted these
        decisions and observations and yet it granted relief to the
G       students on humanitarian grounds. Courts cannot grant
        relief to a party on humanitarian grounds contrary to law.
        Since the students of unrecognised institutions were
        legally not entitled to appear at the examination held by
        the Education Department of the government, the High
H
M.S.K MANDAL SANCHALIT MSK. B.ED. COLLEGE 569
       v. N.C.T.E. & ORS. [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
    Court acted in violation of law in granting permission to A
    such students for appearing at the public examination.
    The directions issued by the Full Bench are destructive
    of the rule of law. Since the Division Bench issued the
    impugned orders following the judgment of the Full
    Bench, the impugned orders are not sustainable in law." B

                                            (emphasis supplied)

     16. Reference may also be made to State of Maharashtra
v. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale and Ors. (supra) and Chairman,
Bhartia Education Society v. Himachal Pradesh & Ors.                 C
(supra). In the latter case this Court observed :

      "15. The practice of admitting students by unrecognised
      institutions and then seeking permission for the students
      to appear for the examinations has been repeatedly             o
      disapproved by this Court (see N.M. Nageshwaramma v.
      State of A.P, A.P. Christian Medical Educational Society
      v. Govt. of A.P. and State of Maharashtra v. Vikas
      Sahebrao Roundale1-). We, therefore, find no reason to
      interfere with the decision of the High Court rejecting the    E
      prayer of the students admitted in 1999 to regularise their
      admissions by directing the Board to permit them to
      appear for the JBT examination conducted by it. The two
      appeals (CAs Nos. 1228 and 1229 of 2011) filed by the
    · Society/Institute and the students in regard to the 1999       F
      admissions are therefore liable to be dismissed."

     17. There is no distinguishing feature between the cases
mentioned above and the case at hand for us to strike a
discordant note. The institution established by the appellant is
not equipped with the infrastructure required under the NCTE         G
Act and the Regulations. It is not in a position to impart quality
education, no matter admissions for the session 2011-2012
were made pursuant to the interim directions issued by the High
Court. We have, therefore, no hesitation in rejecting the prayer
for permitting the students to continue in the unrecognised          H
    570    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A institution of the appellant or directing that they may be pemiitted
  to appear in the examination. We, however, make it clear that
  this order will not prevent the respondent-University from
  examining the feasibility of reallocating the students who were
  admitted through the University process of selection and
B counselling to other recognised colleges to prevent any
  prejudice to such students. Such re-allocation for the next
  session may not remedy the situation fully qua the students who
  may have to start the course afresh but it would ensure that if
  such admissions/reallocation is indeed feasible, the students
c may complete their studies in a recognised college instead of
  wasting their time in a college which does not enjoy recognition
  by the NCTE. We, however, leave this aspect entirely for the
  consideration of the University at the appropriate level, having
  regard to its Rules and Regulations and subject to availability
  of seats for such adjustment to be made as also the temis and
0
  conditions on which the same could be made. This order shall
  also not prevent the affected students from seeking such reliefs
  against the appellant college as may be legally permissible
  including relief by way of refund of the fee recovered from them.

E       18. With the above observations, these appeals fail and
    are hereby dismissed with costs assessed at Rs.20,000/-.

    D.G.                                       Appeals dismissed.