Holding

Regulations 5(e) and (f) are intra vires the NCTE Act and valid.

Summary

St. Johns Teachers Training Institute applied to the Regional Director of the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) for recognition to start a teacher‑training course. The Regional Director refused to consider the application unless the institute obtained a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the State Government, as required by Regulations 5(e) and (f) of the NCTE (Application for Recognition) Regulations, 1995. The institute challenged the regulations as ultra vires the NCTE Act, 1993, arguing that only the Regional Committee should decide on recognition under Section 14(3). The Supreme Court held that the regulations are a valid exercise of the Council’s power under Section 32 of the Act, serving merely as an input to the Regional Committee and not delegating any essential legislative function to the State. The Court also noted that the Council has issued guidelines to the States for granting NOCs and that the NOC requirement does not bind the Regional Committee’s final decision. Consequently, the appeals and writ petitions were dismissed, and the State Governments were directed to decide pending NOC applications within four months, after which a NOC would be deemed granted.

Issues considered

Whether Regulations 5(e) and (f) of the NCTE (Application for Recognition) Regulations, 1995, requiring a No Objection Certificate from the State Government, are ultra vires the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993.

Legislation cited

National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993s. 14(3), s. 32

Subjects

NCTENo Objection Certificaterecognition of teacher training institutionsdelegated legislationultra viresregulationsregional committeeteacher education

Judgment

ST. JOHNS TEACHERS TRAINING INSTITUTE A
v.
,. "'"'(· REGIONAL DIRECTOR, NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHERS
EDUCATION AND ANR.

FEBRUARY 7, 2003
B
[S. RAJENDRA BABU, D.M. DHARMADHIKARI AND
G.P. MATHUR, JJ.)

National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993-Section 14(3)-
National Council for Teacher Education (application for recognition, the
c
manner for submission, determination of conditions for recognition of
institutions and permission to start new course or training) Reg-J/ation, I 995-
~- Regulations 5(e) and (/)-Requiring institution intending to offer course in
teacher education to submit application for recognition with No O~;ection
Certificate from State Governmen/ or Union Territory-Validity of-Held: D
Regulations are valid and intra vires the provisions of 1993 Act since the
main purpose of obtaining NOC is to get material and data on which Regional
Committee has to be satisfied before granting recognition.

The question which arose for consideration in these matters was
whether Regulations S(e) and (f) of the National Council for Teacher E
Education (application for recognition, the manner for submission,
determination of conditions for recognition of institutions and permission
to start new course or training) Regulation, 1995 requiring submission of
application for recognition with No Objection Certificate from State/Union
Territory; in which the institute is located are ultra vires the provisions of
F
National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993.
' >;.
Appellants contended that Section 14 of the Act lays down that every
institution intending to offer a course or training in teacher education shall
make an application to the Regional Committee which may pass an order
granting recognition to such institution if it is satisfied and this shows that G
the entire exercise has to be done by. the Regional Committee itself,
however, Regulations S(e) and (f) which require obtaining of a NOC from
the State Government also confer jurisdiction on the State Government
for grant of recognition, which is wholly outside the purview of the Act;
that the 1993 Act does not contemplate any role for the State Government
975 H
976 SUPREME COURT REPORTS r2003] I S.C.R.

A but by insisting for obtaining a NOC from the State or Union Territory,
Regulations have created another body to consider the application moved
by an institution for grant of recognition which is not at all contemplated
by the Act; that in \'iew of Section 14(3) of the Act, the satisfaction is to
be that of the Regional Committee alone and no other authority or body,
much less the State Government, can have any say in the matter which
B may have a bearing on the satisfaction of the Regional Committee; that
under the guise of framing the Regulations, the power of recognition itself
has been given to the State Government as in the event a NOC is not
granted by the State Government, the application made to the Regional
Committee is treated as incomplete and is not even considered on merits;
C that the power is an arbitrary or unchanelled power; that the impugned
Regulations have the effect of conferring the power of consideration of
the application for the grant of recognition upon the State Government,
as in the event of rejection of NOC the application is not even registered
by the Council; that in some cases the State Government for a very long
period has not taken any decision either to grant a NOC or declined to
D grant the same and thereby the right to establish an institution for
teachers' training or start a course was completely defeated; and that no
guidelines have been given in the impugned Regulations to indicate the
circumstances under which a NOC could be granted and, therefore, for
all these reasons the impugned· Regulations are wholly ultra vire~ and
E invalid.

Respondent-Council contended that it is not only desirable but
also essential for an institution to 'obtain a NOC from the concerned State
Government or Union Territory where it is situate; that there are only
four Regional Committees in the whole country and it is physically not
F possible for them to obtain the relevant data which has to be appraised
and considered before grant of recognition and this exercise can only be ;-<·'
performed by the concerned State Government; that the main purpose of
obtaining a NOC from the State Government is to get the material and
data on which the Regional Committee has to be satisfied before taking a
G decision on the question of grant of recognition; that there is no abdication
of responsibility by the Regiona~ Committee which alone shall pass an
order either granting or refusing recognition to an institution; that no
arbitrary power has been conferred on the State Government as the
Council has issued guidelines for establishment of Teachers Training •
Institutes and introduction of new programmes and the State Governments
H are required ~o consider the matter in the light of the aforesaid guidelines
ST. JOHNS TEACH TRAIN. INST r. REG DIR. NATIONAL COUN FOR TEACH. EDLICATION 977

while giving a NOC, therefore, the impugned Regulations are perfectly A
; --+ valid and intra vires.

Dismissing the appeals and writ petitions, the Court

HELD: I.I. The preamble of the National Council for Teacher
Education Act, 1993 shows the main object for enacting the Act is to B
achieve planned and coordinated development of the teacher education
system and also the regulation and proper maintenance of norms and
standards therein. Section 14(3) of the Act casts a duty upon the Regional
Committee to be satisfied with regard to large number of matters before
passing an order granting recognition to an institution which has moved C
an application for the said purpose. There are only four Regional
Committees in the whole country and each Regional Committee has to deal
with applications for grant of recognition from several States. Therefore,
it will not only be difficult but almost impossible for the Regional
Committee to itself obtain complete particulars and details of financial
resources, accommodation, library, qualified staff, laboratory and other D
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 far away State. The Regional Committee has to necessarily depend
upon some other agency or body for obtaining necessary information.
Therefore the assistance of the State Government or Union Territory in
which that institution is located is taken by the Regional Committee and E
this is achieved by making a provision in Regulations S(e) and (I) that the
application made by institution for grant of recognition has to be
accompanied with a NOC from the concerned State or Union Territory.
Thus the impugned Regulations facilitate the job of the Regional
Committees in discharging their responsibilities. 1988-D, F-H; 989-A-Bf F
·-..,..;.
1.2. The Regulations do not contravene any one of the conditions
inasmuch as Section 32 of the Act empowers the Council to make
Regulations generally to carry out the provisions of the Act and thus they
come within the scope and purview of the power of the authority framing
the Regulations. The Regulations also conform to the provisions of the Act G
and are not in excess of the authority of the Council as no essential
legislative function has been delegated to the State Government. 1993-F, GI

1.3. Council has issued guidelines to the State Government for the
issuance of a NOC. The submission that there are no guidelines and
consequently the State Governments may refuse to grant a NOC on wholly H
978 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) I S.C.R.

A irrelevant considerations is without substance. A perusal of these guidelines
would show that while considering an application for grant of a NOC the
State Government or the Union Territory has to confine itself to the
various matters enumerated therein. These guidelines pertains 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
B considering the application for 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 standards. Therefore the submission that the
C power conferred on the State Government or Union Territory, while
considering an application for grant of a NOC, is an arbitrary or
unchanelled power cannot be accepted. The State Government or the
Union Territory has to necessarily confine itself to the guidelines issued t
by the Council while considering the application for grant of a NOC. In
case the State Government does not take into consideration the relevant
D factors enumerated in sub-section (3) of Section 14 of the Act and the
guidelines issued by the Council or takes into consideration factors which
are not relevant and rejects the application for grant of a 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 Regulati('ns
E which require a NOC from the State Government or the Union Territory
are ultra vires or invalid. 1989-8-C; 991-A-Gl

1.4. The submission that the impugned Regulations have the effect
of conferring the power of consideration of the application for the grant
of recognition under Section 14 of the Act upon the State Government, as
F in the event of rejection of a NOC the application is not even registered
by the Council no longer survives on account of a subsequent development
that the Council has made fresh Regulations which are known as the
NCTE (Form of application for recognition, the time of submission of
application, determination of norms and standards for recognition of
G teacher education programmes and permission to start new course or
training) Regulations, 2002. Regulation 6(ii) shows that even if the NOC
is not granted by the concerned State Government or Union Territory and
the same is 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 a NOC by the State Government _or
H Union Territory is not conclusive or binding and the views expressed by
ST IOHNSTEACH_ TRAIN INST v_REG.DIR.NATIONALCOUN.FORTEACH.EDUCATION 979

the State Government will be considered by the Regional Committee while A
taking the decision on the application for grant of recognition. In view of
• --. these new Regulations the challenge raised ·lo the validity of Regulations
S(e) and (f) has been further whittled down. The role of the State
Government is certainly important for supplying the requisite data which
is essential for formation of opinion by the Regional Committee while B
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.
1991-H; 992-A, B; 993-F, Gf

J.S. There can be no manner of doubt that the State Government
must take a decision on the application moved by an institution for grant C
of a NOC within a reasonable time. If the State Government does not take
a decision within a reasonable time it will obviously defeat the right of an
institution to have its application considered by the Regional Committee.
It will, therefore, be proper that the Council frames appropriate
Regulations fixing the time limit within which a decision should be taken
by the State Government on the application moved by an institution for D
grant of a NOC. However, it is directed that the State Governments/Union
Territories shall pass final order on the applications which are pending
before it for grant of a NOC within four months of the presentation of
certified copy of this order, failing which it will be deemed that a NOC
. >
has been granted. (994-B-El
E
Kun} Behan· Lal Butail and Ors. v. State of H.P. and Ors., (2000( 3
sec 40, referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1068 of2003.

From the Judgment and Order dated 9. I0.2000 of the High Court of F
·~ Kamataka in W..P. No. 3143S/99.

WITH

Civil Appeal Nos. 1069-1097/2003 and 1098-1109/2003, W.P. ©Nos.
S22, SS3, SS4, SSS, SS6, SS7, SS8, 559, S62, S66, S91, 592, 593, 594, 595, G
S96, S98, S99, 602, 613, 614, 61S/2002.

K. Subramanian, L. Nageshwar Rao, Mahesh Agarwal, Rishi Agarwal,
Rabu Manohar, E.C. Agrawala, K.V. Viswanathan, Kunwar Ajit Mohan Singh,
K.V. Venkataraman, P. Chandrasekaran, Arvind Nayar, Ms. Promila, T. Raja,
Ms. Kiran Suri, B. Partha Sarthy, S. Nanda Kumar, V. Vijayan, Yogesh H
980 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] I S.C.R.

A Khanna. and Rakesh K. Sharma, for the Appellants.
S. Balakrishna, M.N. Krishnamani, Mrs. Revathy Raghavan, T.V.
+- •
Ratnam, Radha Shyam Jena, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Ms. Anu Dubey, Ms.
Rachna Srivastava, Ms. A. Subhashini, Mrs. V.D. Khanna, S.K. Shandilya,
V.G. Pragasam, R.K. Singh, K.V. Moha~, Ms. Deepa Rai, Ashok Mathur,
B P.N. Ramalingam, Krishna Sarma, M(. Asha G. Nair and V.K. Sidatharan,
for M/s. Corporate law Group, Gopal Singh, A. Mariarputham, Ms. Aruna
Mathur, Satinder S. Gulati, Sanjay R. Hegde and Satya Mitra for the
Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
c
G.P. MATHUR, J. Leave granted.

The question which requires consideration in this bunch of special
leave petitions and writ petitions is whether Regulations 5 (e) and (f) framed
D by National Council for Teachers Education (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Council') are ultra vires the provisions of National Council for Teachers
Education Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

We will briefly refer to the facts of SLP No. 2421 of 200 I which is the
leading case. The appellant claims to be a Christian Minority Teacher Training
E Institute and is run and managed by the Tamilnadu Educational Trust which
is engaged in the field of education since 1989. The petitioner made an
application to the Regional Director, National Council for Teachers Education
(Southern Committee) Bangalore, seeking permfssion for starting a course in
Elementary Education Training in the year 1999-2000. The respondents sent
a letter dated August 18, 1999 stating that unless the State Government
F issued a "No Objection Certificate" (hereinafter referred as 'NOC') the
application of the petitioner shall be treated as incomplete and shall not be
considered. The petitioner then filed a writ petition before the High Court of
Karnataka praying that a writ of certiorari be issued for quashing the order
dated August 18, 1999 issued by Regional Committee and further that
G Regulations 5(e) and (f) in so far as they direct obtaining of a NOC from the
State Government be struck down as unconstitutional and a direction be
issued to the Regional Director to consider the application of the appellant
without insisting upon a NOC from the State Government. A Single Judge of
the Karnataka High Court had held that Regulations 5 (e) and (f) were ultra
vires in another matter and against the said judgment the Council had preferred
H an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. The writ petition
ST.JOHNS TEACH TRAIN INST 1·. REG DIR, NATIONALCOUN FOR TEACH EDUCATION (MATHUR.I: 981

preferred by the appellant was heard along with the aforesaid appeal. After A
hearing the panies the Division Bench allowed the appeal filed by the Council
' -+ and set aside the order of the learned Single Judge by which the Regulations
were held to be ultra vires and invalid. Consequently, the writ petition filed
by the appellant was also dismissed. The connected writ petitions have been
filed under Anicle 32 of the Constitution praying that the Regulations 5(e) B
and (f) be declared as unconstitutional and invalid and a direction be issued
to the respondents to consider the application moved by the petitioners for
grant of recognition for staning a teacher training course without insisting
upon a NOC from the State Government as provided in the aforesaid
Regulations.

Shri K. Subramanian, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
c
appellants, has submitted that Section 14 of the Act lays down that every
institution intending to offer a course or training in teacher education shall
make an application to the Regional Committee concerned and the Regional
Committee may pass an order granting recognition to such institution if it is
satisfied that the institution has adequate financial resources, accommodation, D
library, qualified staff, laboratory and that it fulfils such other conditions
required for proper functioning of the institution and this shows that the
entire exercise has to be done by the Regional Committee itself. However,
Regulations 5 (e) and (f) which require obtaining of a NOC from the State
Government also confer jurisdiction on the State Government in the matter E
of grant of recognition, which is wholly outside the purview of the Act. It is
urged that the Act does not contemplate any role for the State Government
but by insisting for obtaining a NOC from the State Government or Union
Territory in which the institution is located, the Regulations have created
another body to consider the application moved by an institution for grant of
recognition which is not _at all contemplated by the Act. Learned Counsel has F
submitted that in view of the express language used in Sub-section (3) of
Section 14 of the Act, the satisfaction is to be that of the Regional Committee
alone and no other authority or body, much less the State Government, can
have any say in the matter which may have a bearing on the satisfaction of
the Regional Committee. It is contended that under the guise of framing the G
Regulations, the power of recognition _itself has been given to the State
Government as in the event a NOC is not granted by the State Government,
the application made to the Regional Committee is treated as incomplete .and
is not even considered on merits. Lastly it has been urged that no guidelines
have been given in the impu_gned Regulations to indicate the circumstances
under which a NOC could be granted and therefore the impugned Regulations H
982 SUPREME COURT REPORTS f2003] I S.C.R.

A are wholly ultra vires and invalid. In support of his submission learned counsel
has placed strong reliance on a decision of this Court in Kunj Behari Lal
Butail and Ors. v. State of H.P. and Ors., (2000] 3 SCC 40. ~ "'

Shri MN Krishnamani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Council
has submitted that having regard to the objects for which the Act has been
B enacted and the responsibility cast upon the Regional Committee under Sub-
section (3) of Section 14 of the Act to be satisfied about the matters enumerated
·therein, namely, that the institution has adequate financial resources, !t--
accommodation, library, qualified staff, laboratory and that it fulfills other
conditions required for proper functioning of the institution for a course or
C training in teacher education, it is not only desirable but also essential for an
institution to obtain a NOC from the concerned State Government or Union
Territory where it is situate. Learned counsel has submitted that there are
only four Regional Committees in the whole country and it is physically not
possible for them to obtain the rele•;ant data which has to be appraised and
considered before grant of recognition and this exercise can only be performed
D by the concerned State Government which is in a far better position to do so.
The main purpose of obtaining a NOC from the State Government, it is
contended, is to get the material and data on which the Regional Committee
has to be satisfied before taking a decision on the question of grant of
recognition under Sub-section (3) of Section 14 of the Act and this is more
E in the nature of an input. Learned counsel has also submitted that no arbitrary
power has been conferred on the State Government as the Council has issued
guidelines for establishment of Teachers Training Institutes and introduction
of new programmes and the State Governments are required to consider the
matter in the light of the aforesaid guidelines while giving a NOC. It has thus ·
been urged that as the function to be performed by the State Government is
F more in the nature of collection of relevant facts and material, there is no
abdication of responsibility by the Regional Committee which alone shall
pass an order either granting or refusing recognition to an institution and
therefore the impugned Regulations are perfectly valid and intra vires.

In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Council it is averred that
G for long the need for ensuring certain standards and excellence of education
in teachers' training institutes, and establishing institutes with the high
objectives of training teachers and educationists who have upon them the
task of moulding the future of the nation was being felt.· The life-less ~
stereotyped and dull teaching methods had to be replaced with a system that
H infuses dynamism and vibrance in the methods of imparting education. To
ST JOHNS TEACH TRAIN INST •· REG. DIR. NATIONAL COUN. FOR TE..\CH EDUCATION (MATHUR. lJ 983

achieve this it is necessary that only such institutes which are equipped with A
all the necessary inputs to train and produce teachers who are capable of
instilling aesthetic excellence in the life of their pupil be established and
pennitted to run the teachers' training course. It was towards this end that the
National Council for Teacher Education came to be established under the Act
in the year 1993. In para 6 it is averred that the requirement of a NOC from
the State Government was one of the issues that was deliberated upon by the B
members of the Council, including the experts from the field of education
and academics. The State Governments have been assigned an important role
in the task of development and improvement of teacher education and also·
in the matter for grant of recognition and permission. The States are also
vitally interested in education and especially the professional courses. It is C
further averred· that it is only the States which could correctly assess and
know the extent ofrequirement of trained manpower and the supply of trained
teachers keeping in view retirements, change of occupation etc. The State
Government would also keep a track of number of trained teachers registered
with the Employment Exchanges awaiting employment and the possibility of
their deployment in the near future. It is for this reason ihat the Council D
insists on a NOC from the State Government, both when a fresh institution
wants to start teacher training courses or when the recognised ones want to
increase the intake of the students in the course. The States having trained
teachers more than they are able to absorb may not want to be further burdened
while those having shortage of trained teachers may encourage establishment E
of more institutions. Therefore, the input from the State Government by way
of a NOC is vital for enabling the Council tu discharge its functions of
regulating the standards of teacher education since State Governments are the
principal stakeholders in the field of teacher education. Without the
involvement of the State Governments and availability of this vital input
from the State Governments the Council would be greatly handicapped in F
discharging its ti.mctions. In para 9 it is averred that surplus of trained teachers
without there being any possibility of absorbing them as teachers would lead
to unnecessary drain on the state economy. In such a situation it would be
wholly unjust to increase the burden on the State Government by training and
throwing in market more trained teachers without there being any adequate G
avenues for their employment. The training of teachers cost both the State
Governments and the trainees huge amount of m.oney by way of fees and
grants without there being any adequate scope for utilising their skills to
compensate the costs involved in their training. The State Government is
vitally interested in the development of its education system and therefore it
must be given a decisive role and a voice in the overall development of H
984 SUPREME COURT REPORTS f2003] I S.C.R.

A teacher education system in the country. It is only to prevent the undesirable
situation wherein the Government is faced with the problem of having surplus·
J-- ~
trained teachers with no or little chance of their getting employment in the
near future that the requirement of a NOC from the State Government has
been incorporated. It is further averred that it is an enabling provision under '..-
the Act and does not pose any impediment or any disability in the effective
B discharge of the statutory responsibilities by the Council as the State
Government has only been given the responsibility of determining the extent
.,,,- _,..
to which trained manpower is required in a particular State.

Before examining the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the
c parties, it will be convenient to briefly notice the relevant provisions of the
Act. Section 2(c) defines the "Council" and it means the National Council for
Tec...:hers Education established under sub-section (l) of Section 3. Section
2(e) defines "institution", which means an institution which offers courses or
training in teacher education. Section 2U) defines "Regional Committee"
+-
which means a Committee established under Section 20. Section 2(k) defines
"'
D "regulations" which means regulations made under Section 32. Section 2(1)
defines "teacher education" which means programmes of education, research
or traiiting of persons for equipping them to teach at pre-primary, primary,
secondary and senior secondary stages in schools and includes non-formal
education, part-time education, adult education and correspondence education.
....
--<.
Section 3 provides for establishment by the Central Government, of a Council,
E
called the National Council for Teachers Education and Section 12 provides
for the functions of the Council. Section 14 lays down that every institution
offering or intending to offer a course or training in teacher education on or
after the appointed day, may, for grant of recognition under the Act, make
an application to the Regional Committee concerned in such form and in
F such manner as may be determined by Regulations. Section 15 contains a
similar provision where under any recognised institution intending to start
any new course or training in teacher education, has to make an application
seeking permission therefor to the Regional Committee concerned. Section
16 · 1ays down that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for
the time beil)g in force no examining body shall, on or after the appointed
G day, grant affiliation, whether provisional or otherwise, to any institution or
hold examination, whether provisional or otherwise for a course or training·

H
conducted by a recognised institution unless the institution concerned has
obtained recognition from the Regional Committee concerned under Section
14 or permission for a course or training under Section 15. Section 17 gives
power to Regional Committee to withdraw the recognition of such recognised
•
ST. JOHNS TEACH TRAIN. INST.,, REG. DIR, NATIONAL COLIN. FOR TEACH. EDUCATION [MATHUR. J.J 985

institutions if it is satisfied that some provisions of the Act or the rules or A
regulations or any condition subject to which recognition was granted has
been contravened. Section 20 lays down that there will be four Regional
Committees, namely, Eastern, Western. Northern and Southern Regional
Committees. Section 31 confers power on the Central Government to make
rules to carry out the provisions of the Act and sub-section (2) thereof
enumerates the matters on which rules may be framed. Section 32 is important B
for the controversy in hand and the relevant part thereof is being reproduced
below:-

"Section 32 (1) The Council may, by notification in the Official
Gazette, make regulations not inconsistent with the provisions of this C
Act and the rules made thereunder, generally to carry out the provisions
of this Act.

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

(b)
(c)

(d) E
(e) the form and the manner in which an application for recognition
is to be submitted under sub-section (I) of section 14;
(I) conditions required for the proper functioning of the institution
and conditions for granting recognition under clause (a) of sub- F
secti9n (3) of section 14;
(g) the form and the manner in which an application for.permission
is to be made under sub-section (I) of section 15;

"
••
In exercise of powers conferred by Section 32 of the Act the Council G
has framed Regulations known as National Council for Teachers Education
(application for recognition, the manner for submission, determination of
conditions for recognition of institutions and permission to start new course
or training) Regulations, 1995 on December 29, 1995. Regulation 5 deals
with the manner of making application and Regulation 8 deals with condition H
986 SUPREME COURT REPORTS f2003l I S.C.R.

A for recognition. Regula~ions 5 (e) and (t) and 8 read as under:
"(e) Every institution intending to offer a course or training in teacher
education but was not functioning immediately before 17th August.
1995. shall submit application for recognition with a no objection
certificate from the State or Union Territory in which the institution
B is located.

(t) Application for permission to start new course or training and/or
to increase intake by recognised institutions under Regulation 4
above shall be submitted to the Regional Committee concerned
with no objection certificate from the State or Union Territory in
c which the institution is located.

8. Condition for recognition

(a) Regional Committee shall satisfy itself on the basis of scrutiny •
and verification of facts as contained in the application for
D recognition and or recognition of the institution where considered
necessary of any other manner deemed fit, that the institutions
has adequate financial resources, accommodation, library, qualified
staff, laboratory and such other conditions required for the proper
functioning of the institutions for the course of training in teacher
education which are being. offered or intending to offer.
E
(b) Regional Committee shall ensure that every institution applying
for recognition fulfil the conditions given in Appendix-Ill."

The provision in the above quoted Regulations for submitting the
application for recognition with a NOC from the State Government or Union
F Territory in which the institution is located is challenged as ultra vires and
invalid.

A Regulation is a rule or order prescribed by a superior for the
management of some business and implies a rule for general course of action.
Rules and Regulations are all comprised in delegated legislations. The power
G to make subordinate legislation is derived from the enabling Act and it is
fundamental that the delegate on whom such a power is conferred has to act
within the limits of authority conferred by the Act. Rules cannot be made to
supplant the provisions of the enabling Act but to supplement it. What is
permitted is the delegation of ancillary or subordinate legislative functions,
·H or, wh.at is fictionally called, a power to fill up details. The legislature may,
ST.JOHNSTEAClf TR..\IN. INST,. REG DIR !\ATIONALC'OllN FOR TEACH EDUCATION {MATHUR.I.) 987
after laying down the legislative policy confer discretion on an administrative A
agency as to the execution of the policy and leave it to the agency to work
out the details within the frame work of policy. The need for delegated
legislation is that they are framed with care and minuteness when the statutory
authority making the Rule. after coming in to force of the Act. is in a better
position to adapt the Act to special circumstances. Delegated legislation permits
utilisation of experience and consultation with interests affected by the practical B
operation of statutes: Rules and Regulations made by reason of the specific
power conferred by the Statutes to make Rules and Regulations establish the
pattern of conduct to be followed. Regulations are in aid of enforcement of
the provisions of the Statute. The process of legislation by departmental
Regulations saves time and is intended to deal with local variations and the C
power to legislate by statutory instrument in the form of Rules and Regulations
is conferred by Parliament. The main justification for delegated legislation is
that the legislature being over burdened and the needs of the modem day
society being complex it can not possibly foresee every administrative difficulty
that may arise after the Statute has begun to operate. Delegated legislation
fills those needs. The Regulations made under power conferred by the Statute D
are supporting legislation and have the force and affect, if validly made, as
the Act passed by the competent legislature. (See Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram,
AIR (1975) SC 1331.
>
It will be useful to reproduce here a passage from Administrative Law E
by Wade & Forsyth (Eighth Edition 2000 at page 839) :

"Administrative legislation is traditionally looked upon as a
necessary evil, an unfortunate but inevitable infringement of the
separation of powers. But in reality it is no more difficult to justify
it in theory than it is possible to do without it in practice. There is F
only a hazy borderline between legislation and administration, and
the assumption that they are two fundamentally different forms of
power is misleading. There are some obvious general differences. But
-, the idea that a clean division can be made (as it can be more readily
in the case of the judicial power) is a legacy from an older era of G
political theory. It is easy to see that legislative power is the power
to lay down the law for people in general, whereas administrative
power is the power to lay down the law for them, or apply the law
to them, in some particular situation ................ "

The question whether any particular legislation suffers from excessive H
988 SUPREME COURT REPORTS r2003] I S.C.R.

A delegation has to be decided having regard to the subject matter, the scheme,
the provisions of the Statutes including its preamble and the facts and
circumstances in the background of which the Statute is enacted. (See Registrar
~-
I
.
Co-operative Societies v. K. Kanjabmu, AIR ( 1980) SC 350 and State C?f
Nagaiand v. Ratan Singh, Al R 1967 SC 212. It is also well sen led that in
B considering the vires of subordinate legislation one should start with'. the
presumption that it is intra vires and if it is open to two constructions, one
of which would make it valid and other invalid, the courts must adopt that
construction which makes it valid and the legislation can also be read down
to avoid its being declared ultra vires;

C The preamble of the Act is as under.:-

To provide for the establishment of National Council for Teachers
Education with a view to achieving planned and coordinated
development of the teacher education system throughout the country,
the regulation and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the
D teacher education system and for matters connected therewith."

As the preamble shows the main object for enacting the Act is to
achieve planned and coordinated development of the teacher education system
and also the regulation and proper maintenance of norms and standards therein.

E Sub-section (3) of Section 14 casts a duty upon the Regional Committee
to be satisfied with regard to large 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 financial resources, accommodation, library, qualified staff,
laboratory and that it fulfils such other conditions required for proper
F 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, 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 .i:

G impossible for the Regional Committee to itself obtain complete particulars
and details of financial resources, accommodation, library,, qualified staff,
· Jabor~tory ·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 far away State. The Regional Committee cannot
perform such herculean task and it has to necessarily depend upon some
H other agency or body for obtaining necessary information. It is for this reason
ST JOHNS TEACH TRAIN. INST 1·. REG. DIR. NATION .... L COLIN FOR TEACH_ EDUCATION (MATHUR.J) 989

that the assistance of the State Government or Union Territory in which that A
institution is located is taken by the Regional Committee and this is achieved
by making a provision in Regulations 5(e) and (f) that the application made
· by institution for grant of recognition has to be accompanied with a NOC
from the concerned State or Union Territory. The impugned Regulations in
fact facilitate the job of the Regional Committees in discharging their
responsibilities.
B

The contention that there are no guidelines for the State Governments
regarding grant of a NOC and consequently the State Governments may
refuse to grant a NOC on wholly irrelevant considerations is without substance.
It is averred in para 7 of the counter-affidavit filed by the Council that it has C
issued certain guidelines to the State Governments on February 2, 1996 for
issuance of a NOC and a copy whereof has also been annexed. The relevant
part of the guidelines is being reproduced below:-

"I. The establishment of Teacher Training Institutions by Government,
private managements or any other agencies should largely be D
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
projections at various stages, the attirition rates among trained teachers
due to superannuation, change of occupation, death etc. and the number E
of trained teachers on the live register of the employment exchanges
seeking employment and the possibility of their deployment. The
States having more than the required number of trained teachers may
not encourage opening of new institutions for teacher education or to
increase the intake.
F
2. States having shortage of trained teachers may encourage
establishment of new institutions for teacher education and to increase
intake capacity for various levels of teacher education institutions
keeping in view the requirements of teachers estimated for the next
IO- I 5 years.
G
3. Preference might be given to institutions which tend to emphasize
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.

4. Apart from the usual courses for teacher preparation, institutions H
990 SUPREME COURT REPORTS f2003l I S.C.R.

A which propose to concern themselves with new emerging specialities
(e.g. computer education. use of electronic media, guidance and
counselling etc.) should receive priority. Provisions for these should +- 1
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
B subjects to be chosen by students such as guidance and counselling
special education etc.
x- r
5. With a view to ensuring supply of qualified and trained teachers
for such specialities education of the disabled nonformal education,
education of adults, preschool education, vocational education etc.
c special efforts and incentives may be provided to motivate private
managements/voluntary organisations for establishment of institutions,
which lay emphasis on these areas.

6. With a view to promoting professional commitment among
prospective teachers, institutions which can ensure adequate residential
D
facilities for the Principal and staff of the institutions as well as hostal
facilities for substantial proportion of its enrolment should be
encouraged.

7. Considering that certain areas (tribal, hilly regions etc.) have found
it difficult to attain qualified and trained teachers, it would be desirable
E
to encourage establishment of trained institutions in those areas.

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
F other staff, adequate buildings and other infrastructure (laboratory,
library, etc.) a reserve fund and operating funds to meet the day to
day requirement of the institution, including payment of salaries,
provision of equipment etc. Laboratories, teaching science
methodologies and practicals should have adequate gas plants, proper
fittings and regular supply of water, electricity, etc. They should also
G have adequate arrangements. Capabilities of the institution for filling
norms prepared by NCTE may be kept in view.

9. In the establishment of an institution preference need to be given
~
to locations which have large catchment area in terms of schools of \

different levels where student teachers can be exposed to demonstration
H lessons and undertake practice teaching. A training institution which
ST JOHNS TEACH. TRAIN INST 1·. REG DIR. NATIONALC'DUN. FOR TEACH EDUCATION [M ..i.THL'R.J] 991

has a demonstration school where innovative and experimental A
approaches can be demonstrated could be given preference.··

A perusal of the guidelines would show that while considering an
application for grant of a NOC the State 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 B
preparation of teachers for subjects like Science, Mathematics, English etc.
for which trained 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 C
establishment of institutions in tribal and hilly regions which find it difficult
to get qualified and trained teachers and locations which have cat.chment area
in tenns 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, accommodation, library and other
infrastructure of the institution which is desirous of starting a course of D
training and teacher education. The guidelines clearly pertain to the matters
enumerated in sub-section (3) of Section 14 <if the Act which have to be
taken into consideration by the Regional Committee while considering the
application for granting recognition to an institution which wants to start a
course for training in teacher education. The guidelines have also direct E
nexus to the object of the Act namely, planned and coordinated development
of teacher education system and proper maintenance of norms and standards.
It cannot, therefore, be urged that the power conferred on the State Government
or Union Territory, while considering an application for grant of a NOC, is
an arbitrary or unchanelled power. The State Government or the Union
Territory has to necessarily confine itself to the guidelines issued by the F
Council while considering the application for grant of a NOC. In case the
State Government does not take into consideration the relevant factors
enumerated in Sub-section (3) of Section 14 of the Act and the guidelines
issued by the Council or takes into consideration factors which are not relevant
and rejects the application for grant of a NOC, it will be open to the institution G
concerned to challenge the same in accordance with law. But, that by itself,
cannot be a ground to hold that the Regulations which require a NOC from
the State Government or the Union Territory are ultra vires or invalid.

Learned counsel for the appellants has also submitted that the impugned
Regulations have the effect of conferring the power of consideration of the H
.. •.:.. .
992 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] I S.C.R.

A application for the grant of recognition under Section 14 of the Act upon Jhe
State Government, as in the event of rejection of a NOC the applicatiqn, is
not even registered by the Council. This contention no longer surviv.ef on +
account of a subsequent development. Shri MN Krishnamani, teamed senior
counsel ·appearing for the respondents, has submitted that the Council has
B made fresh Regulations on November 13, 2002 which are known as the
NCTE (Form of application for recognition, the time of submission of
application, determination of norms and standards for recognition of teacher
education programmes and permission to start new course or training)
Regulations, 20~2. Regulation 6 thereof reads as under:

c "Regulation 6
. Requirement of No Objection Certificate from the State Government!
U. T. Administration
........
(i) Application from every institution seeking recognition to start a
course or training in teacher education or from an existing
D
institution seeking permission to start a new course or training
and/or increase in intake shall be accompanied by a No Objection
Certificate (NOC) from the State or Union Territory in which the
institution is located.
(ii) The endorsement of the State Government/UT Administration in
E regard to issue of No Objection Certificate (NOC) will be
considered by the Regional Committee while taking a deci!'ion on
the application for recognition.
(iii) If the NOC issued by the State Government/UT Administration
does not indicate the intake, it will be for the Regional Committee
F to determine the intake taking into account the infrastructural and
instructional facilities available in the institution and other relevant ~
.,,..
provisions in the Norms and Standards applicable to the relevant
teacher training programme.
(iv) The NOC issued by the State Government/UT Administration
G will remain valid till such time the State Government/UT
Administration withdraws/cancels it.
(v) The NOC will be deemed to have lapsed if the institution fails to
get recognition within three years from the date of its issue.
-</'....,,.
H (vi) Requirement of NOC shall not apply to Government Institutions.
ST.JOHNS TEACH. TRAIN. INST. i·. REG.DIR. NATIONALCOl'N FOR TEACH.EDUCATION [MATlll'R.J.J 99)

(vii) Requirement for NOC shall not apply to University Department A
for taking up innovative teacher education programme for a
maximum intake of 50 (fifty only). The question as to whether a
programme is innovative will be decided by the concerned
Regional Committee."

Regulation 6(ii) of these Regulations provides that the endorsement of B
the State Government/Union Territory 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 shews that even ifthe NOC
is not granted by the concerned State Government or Union Territory and the
same is refused, the entire matter will be examined by the Regional Committee C
while taking a decision on the application for recognition. Therefore, the
grant or refusal of a NOC by the State Government or Union Territory is not
conclusive cir binding and the views expressed by the State 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 D
whittled down. The role of the State Government is certainly important for
supplying the requisite data 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.

In Kunj Behari Lal Butail and Ors. v. State of H.P. and Ors., (supra)
E
cited by learned counsel for the appellant, it has been held that a delegated
legislation must conform to the provisions of the Statute under which it is
framed and that it must also come within the scope and purview of the rule
making power of the authority framing the rule and in the event either of
these two conditions are not fulfilled, the rule so framed would be void. As F
discussed earlier, the impugned Regulations do not contravene any one of the
conditions inasmuch as Section 32 of the Act clearly empowers the Council
to make Regulations generally to carry out the provisions of the Act and thus
they come within the scope and purview of the power of the authority framing
the Regulations. The Regulations also conform to the provisions of the Act
and are not in excess of the authority of the Council as no essential legislative G
function has been delegated to the State Government.

Learned counsel for the appellant has strongly urged that in some cases
the State Government has sat over the matter for very long period without
taking any decision either to grant a NOC or declining to grant the same and H
994 SUPREME COURT REPORTS . f2003] I S.C.R.

A on account of this inaction of the State Government the application moved
by the institutions before the Regional Committee was not even registered for
consideration and thereby the right of the appellants to establish an institution
for teachers' training or starting a course in teacher education was completely
defeated. There can be no manner of doubt that the State Government must
B take a decision on the application moved by an institution for grant of a NOC
within a reasonable time. If the State Government does not take a decision·
within a reasonable time it will obviously defeat the right of an institution to
have its application considered by the Regional Committee. It will therefore
be proper that the Council frames appropriate Regulations fixing the time
limit within which a decision should be taken by the State Government on
C the application moved by an institution for grant of a NOC. In the present
cases, we are of the opinion that till such Regulations are made the. decision
should be taken by the State Governments within four months, failing which
it shall be deemed that the NOC has been granted.-

For the reasons mentioned above, we are of the opinion that the
D impugned Regulations are perfectly valid and intra vires the Act. The appeals
and writ petitions are consequently dismissed. It is however directed that the
State Governments/Union Territories shalt pass final order on the applications
which ate pending before it for grant of a NOC within four months of the
presentation of certified copy of this order, failing which it will be deemed
E that a NOC has been granted.

N.J. Appeals/Petitions dismissed.