STATE OF U.P. & ORS.versusBHUPENDRA NATH TRIPATHI & ORS.

             (2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 483


                   STATE OF U.P. & ORS.                             A
                              v.
           BHUPENDRA NATH TRIPATHI & ORS.
           (Civil Appeal Nos. 9481-9483 of 2010)
                     OCTOBER 29, 2010
                                                                    B
   [S. SUDERSHAN REDDY AND SURfNOER SINGH
                  NIJJAR, JJ.]

    NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHER EDUCATION
ACT, 1993:                                                          C

    s. 14 - Recognition of Institutions offering course/training
in teacher education - Special B TC Course in State of Uttar
Pradesh - Eligibility - Order dated 10. 7. 2007 specifying
conditions for Special BTC course 2007 as B. Ed. from any           0
recognized college run by State/Central Government and
approved by NCTE - Some of the candidates selected, but
not sent for training on the ground that the institution from
which they secured B. Ed degree were not recognized by
NCTE - HELD: NCTE Act provides for the recognition of the
institution offering course or training in teacher education and    E
does not speak about recognition of the degrees granted by
the institution prior to the Act coming into force - Thus,
degrees granted by the institutions already in existence
offering a course or training in teacher education shall be
deemed to be at par with the degrees or certificates granted        F
by the recognized institutions after the commencement of the
Act provided those institutions in f3Xistence offering the course
also received recognition under the Act - State Government
can not make any distinction between the degrees obtained
from existing institutions prior to the Act coming into force but   G
received recognition after the commencement of the Act aI?d
the degrees obtained from the recognized institutions after the
Act comes into force - The impugned action of the State
results in the classification or division of numbers of a
                               483                                  H
    484    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A homogenious group and subjecting them to differential
  treatment without any rhyme or reason - Once the recognition
  is granted by the Regional Committee to the Institution
  offering a course or training in teacher education, the same
  shall relate back to the date of filing of the application -
B However, the candidates who had received degrees from the
  institutions whose applications for recognition wen~ ultimaffJIY
  rejected by NCTE stand entirely on a different footing -
  Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14 and 16 rlw 21-A -
  Government of Uttar Pradesh Order dated 11. 7. 2007.
c         Constitution of India, 1950:

       Articles 14 and 16 rlw Article 21-A - Right to education -
  HELD: State is bound to create necessary infrastructure and
  effective machinery, which includes appropriate and adequate
D training to teachers from a duly recognized institute, for
  implementation of the right - National Council for Teacher
  Education Act, 1993.

      In order to fill up a large number of vacancies of
E Assistant Teachers in primary institutions, the State
  Government of Uttar Pradesh formulated a scheme for
  imparting the Special 8TC course in District Institutes of
  Education and Training (DIET) to such of·those
  candidates who had the degree of 8.Ed. The State
  Government issued the order dated 10.7.2007; specifying
F guidelines and conditions for the Special BTC Course,
  2007, and providing, inter alia, minimum educational
  qualification as graduation with 8.Ed. from any
  recognized College run by State/Central Government and
  approved by National Councit for Teacher Education
G (NCTE) under the provisions of the National Council for
  Teacher Education Act, 1993 (NCTE Act). Some of the
  candidates who had been selected and called for training
  received letters from the DIET, at the instance of th.e
  Director, NCTE, intimating them that in the relevant year,
H the institutions from which they obtained the 8.Ed.
   STATE OF U.P. & ORS. v. BHUPENDRA NATH                485
                TRIPATHI & ORS.
degree was not duly recognized by NCTE and, therefore,          A
they were not eligible and could not be sent for Special
BTC course. The candidates filed writ petitions and,
ultimately, the Full Bench of the High Court held that
exclusion of candidates from the field of eligibility for the
said course who obtained B.Ed. degree prior to                  B
enforcement of the NCTE Act or thereafter during the
period when the application of any institution or
University was pending consideration was arbitrary,
unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India.                                          c
    In the instant appeals filed by the State Government,
the question for consideration before the Court was:
whether only those candidates who obtained B. Ed.
degree after grant of recognition by NCTE or those
candidates who obtained their degree when the                   D
application of the institution for recognition was pending
as also such of those candidates who obtained B.Ed.
degree prior to commencement of the Act on 1. 7.1995
were also eligible to join the Special BTC course.
                                                                E
    Dismissing the appeals, the Court
     HELD: 1. Right to Education is now a guaranteed
fundamental right under Article 21-A of the Constitution
of India. It commands that the State shall provide free and
compulsory education to all children of the age of 6 to         F
14 years in such manner as the State may, by law,
determine. The State by virtue of Article 21-A is bound to
provide free education, create necessary infrastructure
and effective machinery for the proper implementation of
the right and meet total expenditure of the schools to that     G
extent. Right to education guaranteed by Article 21-A
would remain illusory in the absence of State taking
adequate steps to have required number of schools
manned by efficient and qualified teachers. Before
teachers are allowed to teach the children, they are            H
    486    SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A required to receive appropriate and adequate training
  from a duly recognized training institute. The provision
  intends a systematic change to empower the marginal
  and deprived sections of the society. [para 11) [495-B-E;
  496-B-C]
B
          L. Muthukumar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu 2000 ( 7 ) SCC
    618 - relied on.
       2. It is to be borne in mind in the instant case, that
  on the date of notification all the colleges from which the ·
C writ petitioners obtained their degrees were recognized
  by N<;:;TE. The candidates securing the degrees from
  those institutions whose applications were ultimately
  rejected by NCTE stand entirely on a different footing.
  [para 14] [498-A-B]
D
       3.1. On a plain reading of the provisions of the NCE
  Act, it is evident that on and from the date of enforcement
  of the Act, every institution offering or intending to offer
  the course or training in teacher education, was required
  to make application to the Regional Committee in such
E form and manner as may be determined by the
  regulations as provided in s. 14 of the Act. The proviso
  to s. 14(1) states that an institution offering a course or
  training in teacher education immediately before the
  appointed day, shall be entitled to continue such course
F or training for a period of six months, if it has made an
  application for recognition within the said period and until
  disposal of the application by the Regional Committee.
  [para 18] [501-E-G]
G        Ekta Shukla & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. 2006(1) ESC 531
    - referred to.
       3.2. The provisions further suggest that all such
 ·institutions offering a course or training in teacher
  education prior to the Act coming into force, are entitled
H to continue such course or training until the application
     STATE OF U.P. & ORS. v. BHUPENDRA NATH              487
                  TRIPATHI & ORS.
  is disposed of, provided such an application has been         A
  made within six months from the appointed day. The
  consequence of not being able to gain recognition is the
. discontinuance of the course. Once an application
  seeking recognition has been filed by the institution
  within the prescribed period of six months the institution    B
  is entitled to continue offering a course or training in
  teacher education until the disposal of the application by
  the Regional Committee. Once the recognition is granted
  by the Regional Committee to the institution offering a
  course or training in teacher education, the same shall       c
  relate back to the date of filing of the application. (para
  19] [502-B-E]
      3.3. Section 14(5) read with s.14(1) enables the
 institution offering a course or training in teacher
 education on the appointed day to continue the course          D
 or training, as the case may be, during the pendency of
 the application seeking recognition and even in case of
 refusal of recognition, the course may have to be
 discontinued, only at the end of academic session. The
 institution offering training or course is entitled to award   E
 degree or certificate, as the case may be. [Para 19] [502-
 E-F]
      3.4. Prior to the enactment of NCTE Act, the degrees
 such as B.Ed. course for teacher education were being
                                                                F
 awarded by the Universities or by the institutions
  recognized by the University Grants Commission or by
 such bodies as authorized by the University Grants
 Commission. It is unreasonable to hold that all those
 degrees granted by the Universities or the bodies
 authorized by the University Grants Commission, as the         G
 case may be, were of sub-standard in nature in
 comparison to those degrees granted by the recognized
 i.nstitutions after the NCTE Act came into force. Such a
 view may amount fo undermining the importance of the
 university education . and the role played by the              H
    488   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A Universities in promoting the education and educational
  standards. The NCTE Act in no manner makes any
  distinction between the degrees granted by the
  Universities or authorized bodies recognized by the
  University Grants Commission prior to the enactment of
B the Act and the degrees granted by the recognized
  institutions after the Act has come into force. [Para 21)
  [503-C-H]

       3.5. NCTE Act provides for the recognition of the
  institution offering course or training in teacher
C education and does not speak about recognition of the
  degrees granted by the institution prior to the Act coming
  into force. Thus, degrees granted by the institutions
  already in existence offering a course or training in
  teacher education shall be deemed to be at par with the
D degrees or certificates granted by the recognized
  institutions after the commencement of the Act provided
  those institutions in existence offering the course also
  received recognition under the Act. [Para 21] [503-F-H;
  504-A]
E
       3.6. The State Government cannot make any
  distinction between the degrees obtained from the
  existing institutions prior to the Act coming into force but
  received recognition after the commencement of the Act
F and the degrees obtained from the recognized
  institutions after the Act coming into force. It is not shown
  how such a classification is based on an intelligible
  differentia and on a rational consideration and further
  how it bears a nexus to the purpose and object thereof.
G The impugned action of the State results in the
  classification or division of members of a homogeneous
  group and subjecting them to differential treatment
  without any rhyme or reason. [Para 22) [504-8-0)

      3.7. It is true that the State in its discretion is entitled
H to prescribe such qualifications as it may consider
    STATE OF U.P. & ORS. v. BHUPENDRA NATH                489
                 TRIPATHI & ORS.
appropriate for candidates seeking admission to BTC              A
course so long as the qualifications so prescribed are not
lower than those prescribed by or under the NCTE Act.
The State can always prescribe higher qualification, but
there is no rational basis for the assumption that B.Ed.
qualification obtained from only such of those                   B
institutions established and recognized by NCTE after
the Act coming into force is higher or superior than the
B.Ed. qualification obtained from the Universities or
affiliated colleges duly recognized by the University
Grants Commission prior to the Act coming into force.            c
This fact assumes significance, particularly, in the light
of the fact that all the institutions from where the
candidates obtained their B.Ed. qualification have
themselves received recognition from the Regional
Council after the NCTE Act came into force. The                  0
impugned judgments do not suffer from any infirmities
requiring any interference. [Para 24 and 25] [504-G; 505-
A-D]

     State of A.P. and Ors. Vs. Lavu Narendranath & ors. etc.
(1971) 3 SCR 699; Dr. Preeti Srivastava & Anr. Vs. State of      E
M.P. & Ors. 1999 (1) Suppl. SCR 249 = 1999 (7) SCC 120
and State of TN. & Anr. Vs. S. V. Bratheep (Minor) & Ors. 2004
(2) SCR 1218 = 2004 (4) SCC 513, referred to .

                     Case Law Reference:                         F
    2006 (1) ESC 531             Referred to       para 6
    (1971) 3 SCR 699             Referred to       para 23
    1999 (1) Suppl. SCR 249 Referred to            para 23
                                                                 G
    2004 (2f SCR 1218            Referred to       para 23
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.
9481-9483 of 2010.

    From the Judgment & Order dated 6.1.2009 of the High         H
    490    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A   Court of Allahabad in Special Appeal No. 858, 561, 901 of
    2008.

                                   WITH

    C.A. No. 9484 of 2010 & Writ Petition (C) No. 573 of 2009.
B
         P.P. Rao, Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, P.S. Narsihma,
    Shail Kr. Dwivedi, AAG, Garvesh Kabra, Shirish Kr. Mishra, P.S.
    Tripathi, Utsav Sidhu, Filza Moonis, Apeksha Sharan, Shrish
    Kumar Misra, Santosh Kumar Tripathi, Vineeta, A.S. Pundir,
c   Hari Om Sharma, K.K. Misra, P.K. Jain, R.K. Singh, Kumar
    Gaurav, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Gopal Singh, Neeraj
    Kumar Sharma, Vivek Sharma, Purnima Jauhari, Amitesh
    Kumar, Ravi Kant for the appearing parties.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D
          B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J. 1. Leave granted.

       2. The State of Uttar Pradesh and its authorities are in
  appeal before us challenging the correctness of the judgment
E rendered by a Full Bench of the High Court of Judicature at
  Allahabad whereby and whereunder the High Court held that
  the restriction as contained in the Government Order dated 10th
  July, 2007 limiting the eligibility to apply for Special Basic
  Training Course 2007 only to such of those candidates who
F have passed B.Ed. from the institutions recognized by the
  National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) as arbitrary and
  unreasonable. The High Court held that the exclusion of
  candidates from the field of eligibility for the said course who
  have obtained B.Ed. degree prior to enforcement of National
G Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (for short 'the Act') or
  after the enforcement of the Act during the period when the
  application of any institution or University was pending
  consideration is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Articles
  14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

H         3. In order to appreciate as to whether the impugned
      STATE OF U.P. & ORS. v. BHUPENDRA NATH                     491
      TRIPATHI. & ORS. [B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.]
  judgment rendered by the Full Bench suffers from any infirmities       A
  requiring our interference, few relevant facts may have to be
  noticed:

  BACKGROUND FACTS

         Although appalling and almost unbelievable, but the fact        B
    remains that in State of Uttar Pradesh, more than 60,000 posts
    of Assistant Teacher in primary institutions run by Uttar Pradesh
    Basic Shiksha Parishad are lying vacant and unfilled for a long
    time for whatever be the reasons thereof. The appointment of
    teachers in primary institutions is governed and regulated by        C
· · the statutory rules known as U.P. Basic Education (Teachers)
    Service Rules, 1981 framed by the Government of Uttar
    Pradesh in exercise of its power under U.P. Basic Education
    Act, 1972. The rules provide that for appointment of Assistant
    Master and Assistant Mistress in Junior Basic Schools, one is        D
    required to possess a bachelor's degree from a University
    established by law in India together with Basic Teacher's
    Training Certificate (BTC) or any other training course
    recognized by the Government as equivalent thereto. The BTC
    course in the State of U.P. is imparted by District Institute of     E
    Education and Training (DIET) run by the State in different
    Districts with limited intake capacity on account of which a large
    number of posts remain vacant as suitable candidates were
    not available for being appointed as Assistant Teachers.
             .               .             .          .   .

       4; It is under those circumstances, the State had formulated      F
  a scheme for the imparting of the Special BTC course to such
  of those candidates who were already holding the Degree of
  B.Ed. Such an exercise was undertaken in the year 1998, 2004
  and 2007. We are concerned in the present case with the
  Special Basic Training Course 2007. The State submitted                G
  proposals to the Regional Committee of the National Council
  for Teacher Education seeking appropriate permission to
  impart Special Basic Training Course in recognized DIETs of
  U.P. to the candidates who are already holders of B.Ed.
                                                                         H
    492    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A qualification. Such permission is required for starting any new
  course or training in teacher education by any recognized
  institution under the provisions of the Act. The NCTE vide its
  order dated 27th June, 2007 granted permission for imparting
  Special BTC Course as requested by the State. The State
B Government issued an order specifying guidelines and
  conditions for imparting Special BTC Course, 2007 which, inter
  alia, provide minimum educational qualification for Special
  BTC Course, 2007 as Graduation with B.Ed. from any
  recognized college run by State/Central Government and
c approved by the NCTE under the provisions of the said Act. In
  pursuance of the Government Order dated 10th July, 2007,
  advertisement was issued which was published in various
  newspapers on 18th July, 2007 inviting applications from the
  eligible candidates for Special BTC Course, 2007.

D        5. The writ petitioners possess B.Ed. degrees (Shiksha
  Shastri Pariksha) having obtained the same from institutions
  affiliated to Sampurnand Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Varanasi
  and from Purvanchal Vishwavidyalaya, Jaunpur. They have
  passed their B.Ed. in different years between 1993 and 1998.
E Minor details, if any, with regard to other candidates are not
  really material for our present purpose. Suffice it to note that
  all the writ petitioners submitted their applications to DIETs and
  were called for counselling in November, 2007. That a list was
  prepared and published revealing that they have beeri selected
F for counseling and after counselling, they were called for training
  and their names were accordingly included .in the final selection
  list.

        6. It is at this juncture, the controversy begins. Before the
G writ petitioners were actually sent for training, the Director, State
  Council for Research and Training put the.DIETs on notice of
  a Division Bench judgment in Smt. Sunita Upadhyay Vs. State
  of UP. & Ors. requiring all the Principals of DIETS to act in'
  accordance with the said Judgment. This was followed by the
  letters issued by DIETs duly intimating the writ petitioners that
H
     STATE OF U.P. & ORS. v. BHUPENDRA NATH                    493
     TRIPATHI & ORS. [B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J]
in the year when they have passed the B.Ed., the institutions         A
from which they have obtained the Degree were not duly
recognized by NCTE and therefore, they were not eligible and
cannot be sent for Special BTC Course. The same were
challenged by the writ petitioners on various grounds. The writ
petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge declaring            B
that it was always open to the State Government to provide a
further higher qualification for admission into the course in
addition to the qualifications which have been duly prescribed
by the NCTE. The learned Singie Judge while relying on
judgments of Division Bench in Sanjai Kumar & Ors. Vs. State          c
of UP. & Ors. and Sunita Upadhyaya (supra) distinguished
the judgment rendered by another Division Bench in Ekta
Shukla & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. 1 •

     7. Aggrieved by the same, the writ petitioners preferred
Special Appeal against the judgment of the learned Single             D
Judge. The Division Bench noticed the apparent conflict
between the decisions rendered by Division Benches in Sunita
UPadhyaya and Sanjai Kumar. The Division Bench, after
considering the issues raised in the appeal, referred the matter
for consideration by a larger Bench. That is how the matter has       E
been placed before the Full Bench of the High Court resulting
in the impugned judgment.

    8. The Full Bench, after an elaborate consideration of the
matter, held:                                                         F
      (a) The candidates who have B.Ed. degree obtained from
      an institution or University during the period when the
      application of the institution or the University for grant of
      recognition under Section 14 of the National Council for
      Teacher Education Act, 1993 was pending, are eligible for       G
      Special BTC Course 2007 as laid down by the Division
      Bench in Ekta Shukla's case (supra).


1.   2006(1)ESC531.                                                   H
    494 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A       (b) The proviso to Section 14(1) recognizes continuance
        of the course, which was being run immediately before the
        appointed day provided application is submitted within the
        continuance of such course is deemed recognition of such
        course and degree awarded therein by express provisions
B       of proviso to Section 14(1) of National Council for Teacher
        Education Act, 1993.

        (c) The exclusion of the candidates from the field of
        eligibility for Special BTC Course 2007 who have obtained
        B.Ed. degree prior to the enforcement of NCTE Act, 1993
c       or after the enforcement of the said Act during the period
        when the application of the institution or University was
        pending consideration is arbitrary, unreasonable and
        violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The above two
        categories of candidates are also eligible to participate
D       in Special BTC Course 2007.

         9. The conclusions drawn by the Full Bench are seriously
    challenged by the State in these appeals on various grounds.

E         10. We have heard Shri P.P. Rao, learned senior
    advocate on behalf of the State and M/s A.M. Singhvi and P.S.
    Narsimha, learned senior counsel for the respondents,writ
    petitioners.

    RIGHT TO EDUCATION
F
        11. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the entire
  issue that arises in this matter for our consideration. The
  directive principle contained in Article 45 has made a provision
  for free and compulsory education for alt children upto the age
G of 14 years within 10 years of promulgation of the Constitution
  of India but the nation could not achieve this goal even after 50
  years of adoption of the provision. The task of providing
  education to all children in this age group gained momentum
  after National Policy of Education (NPE) was announced in
H 1986. It was felt that though the Government of India in
     STATE OF U.P. & ORS. v. BHUPENDRA NATH                        495
     TRIPATHI & ORS. [B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.]
partnership with State Governments had made strenuous efforts              A
to fulfill the mandate and though significant improvements were
seen in various educational indicators, the ultimate goal of
providing universal and quality education still remained
unfulfilled. In order to fulfill that goal, it was felt that an explicit
provision should be made in the Part of the Constitution relating          B
to Fundamental Rights. Right to Education is now a guaranteed
fundamental right under Article 21A. It commands that the State
shall provide free and compulsory education to all children of
the age of 6 to 14 years in such manner as the State may, by
law, determine. The State as at present is under the                       c
constitutional obligation to provide education to all children of
the age of 6 to 14 years. The State by virtue of Article 21A is
bound to provide free education, create necessary infrastructure
and effective machinery for the proper implementation of the
right and meet total expenditure of the schools to that extent.            D
Right to Education guaranteed by Article 21A would remain
illusory in the absence of State taking adequate steps to have
required number of schools manned by efficient and qualified
teachers. Before teachers are allowed to teach the children,
they are required to receive appropriate and adequate training
from a duly recognized training institute. It has been observed            E
by this Court : "Allowing ill-trained teachers coming out of
derecognized or unrecognized institutes or licensing them to
teach the children of impressionable age, contrary to the norms
prescribed, will be detrimental to the interest of the nation itself
in the sense that in the process of building a great nation,               F
teachers and educational institutions also play vital role. In
cases like these, interest of individuals cannot be placed above
or preferred to larger public interest" [See L. Muthukumar Vs.
State of Tamil Nadu2]. Such is the importance of proper training
to the teachers before they are allowed to teach the children of           G
impressionable age. Part of the mantra of development
economics today is a stress on universal primary education,
including specific emphasis on educating girls. Several
countries have shown with experience that investing in primary
2.   (2000) 7 sec 618.                                                     H
    496    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A education has been a fundamental factor resulting in economic
  and social development. But in some countries including ours,
  it has been very difficult to achieve high enrollment rates, it is
  precisely for that reason and with a view to create a culture in
  which the expectation was that everyone went to school and that
B the entitlement to free primary education was universal, a
  provision is made in Part Ill of the Constitution imposing an
  obligation on the State to provide free and compulsory
  education to all children of the age of 6 to 14 years. The
  provision intends a systemic change to empower the marginal
c and deprived sections of the society.
    EFFORTS MADE BY THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

         12. As pointed out in the instant case, the problem
    confronting the State of Uttar Pradesh with respect to imparting
D   free and compulsory education appears to be a gigantic one.
    A scheme known as Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan was launched by
    the Government of India and for universalization of education,
    time bound goals have been ascertained. In order to achieve
    those goals, the State of Uttar Pradesh appointed 33,000
E   B.Ed. graduates in the primary schools controlled by U.P. Basic
    Education after the selection and successful completion of six
    months Special BTC Course. The State, thereafter, addressed
    NCTE requesting it to accord necessary recognition/consent
    to conduct and to select the candidates for Special BTC
F   Training 2006 as proposed by the State Government to fill the
    vacancies in Parshadiya School of Basic Education all over
    U.P. and to admit the B.Ed./L.T.B.P.Ed./C.P.Ed./D.P.Ed.
    trained candidates in the training. The NCTE, having
    considered the proposal submitted by the Government of Uttar
G   Pradesh for Special BTC Course of six months duration
    granted one time approval for training candidates for being
    appointed as primary teachers who were already B.Ed. subject
    to the fulfillment of the following:

          (a)   The teachers are to be trained only in the DIETs
H               recognized by NRC-NCTE.
   STATE OF U.P. & ORS. v. BHUPENDRA NATH                     497
   TRIPATHI & ORS. [B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.]
      (b)   The SGERT to submit the date of commencement              A
            of the course along with the list of the recognized
            DIETs where the proposed training is to be
            conducted.

      (c)   The quarterly progress report of the programme is         B
            to be submitted to NRC-NCTE.

      (d)   The curriculum as finalized in the meeting between
            the NCTE and the State Government of U.P. is to
            be followed for the programme.
                                                                      c
This was followed by the guidelines, terms and conditions
issued by the Government for the selection process and training
of the selected candidates for Special BTC Training, 2007
which, inter alia, provide Graduation as the minimum
academic eligibility and they must have passed the B.Ed.              D
degree recognized by NCTE from the institutions/University
established under law and recognized as regular candidate
fulfilling all other conditions. After completion of the six months
training of all the candidates of the concerned District, a formal
written examination would be held and successful candidates           E
would be eligible for appointment as Assistant Teacher in
Parshadiya Primary Schools. That is the scheme in vogue.

     13. The candidates in the present case were finally
selected to undergo Special Basic Training course, 2007.
Before they could be actually sent for training, the Director,        F
State Council of Research and Training addressed DIETs in
the State to follow the judgment in Sunita Upadhyay which
declared that so far as the BCT course is concerned, there is
a specific stipulation in the advertisement that the candidates
concerned to have the degree or diploma from the NCTE                 G
recognized institutions and since the candidates therein did not
have the recognition of NCTE as on the date when they have
obtained their B.Ed. and therefore, were not eligible to join the
BTC course.
                                                                      H
    498   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A       14. Before we proceed further, one important factor that
  is required to be borne in mind in the present case is that on
  the date of notification all the colleges from which the writ
  petitioners obtained their degrees were recognized by NCTE.
  We make it clear that the candidates securing the degrees
B from those institutions whose applications were ultimately
  rejected by NCTE stands entirely on different footing.

        15. The real question that falls for our consideration is
  whether only B.Ed. candidates who have obtained this degree
C after grant of recognition by NCTE or those candidates who
  have obtained their degree when the application of the
  institution for recognition was pending or such of those
  candidates who have obtained B.Ed. degree prior to
  commencement of the Act on 1st July, 1995 are also eligible
  to join the BTC course. On an analysis.of the material available
D on record and the submissions, the following are the various
  possible distinctions identified during the course of several
  levels of litigation concerning the issue :

          (I)     Degrees obtained from recognised institutions
E                 which have initiated such courses after the
                  commencement of NCTE Act;

          (II)    Degrees obtained from institutions after the
                  commencement of the Act during the pendency of
                  applications seeking recognition which ultimately
F                 did not receive the recognition;

          (Ill)   Degrees obtained from institutions during the
                  pendency of applications after which they have
                  been recognized;
G
          (IV}    Degrees obtained from Universities and affiliated
                  colleges thereof before the commencement of
                  NCTE Act which have been granted recognition
                  after the Act coming into force; and
H         (V)     Degrees obtained from Universities and affiliated
     STATE OF U.P. & ORS. v. BHUPENDRA NATH                   499
     TRIPATHI & ORS. [B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.]
             colleges before the commencement of the Act             A
             which have not been granted recognition .

. SCHEME OF THE ACT

      16. The NCTE Act, 1993 is an Act to provide for the
 establishment of National Council for Teacher Education with        B
 a view to achieving planned and coordinated development of
 the teacher education system throughout the country, for
 regularization and proper maintenance of norms and standards
 in the teacher education system and for matters connected
 therewith. The Act came into force with effect from July 1, 1995    C
 the appointed date under Section 1 (3) of the Act. Section 2(i)
 defines "recognized institution" which means an institution
 recognized by the Council under Section 14. The said Section
  14 which is relevant for our present purposes reads as under:
                                                                     D
 Section 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 education on or after the appointed
     day, may, for grant of recognition under this Act, make an      E
     application to the Regional Committee concerned in such
     form and in such manner as may be determined by
     regulations:

     Provided that an institution offering a course or training in   F
     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
     recogn,ition within the said period and until the disposal of
     the application by the Regional Committee.                      G
     (2) The fee to be paid along with the application under
     subsection (1) shall be such as may be prescribed.

     (3) On receipt of an application by the Regional Committee
     from any institution under sub-section (1 ), and after          H
    500     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A         obtaining from the institution concerned such other
          particulars as it may consider necessary, it shall,-

          (a) if it is satisfied that such institution has adequate
          financial resources, accommodation, library, qualified staff,
          laboratory and that it fulfils such other conditions required
8
          for proper functioning of the institution for a course or
          training in teacher education, as may be determined by
          regulations, pass an order granting recognition to such
          institution, subject to such conditions as may be
          determined by regulations; or
c
          (b) if it is of the opinion that such institution does not fulfill
          the requirements laid down in sub-clause (a), pass an order
          refusing recognition to such institution for reasons to, be
          recorded in writing:
D
          Provided that before passing an order under sub-clause
          (b), the Regional Committee shall provide a reasonable
          opportunity to the concerned institution for making a written
          representation.
E         (4) Every order granting or refusing rt!cognition to an
          Institution for a course or training in teacher education
          under sub-section (3) shall be published in the Official
          Gazette and communicated In writing for appropriate
          action to such institution and to the concerned examining
F         body, the local authority or the State Government and the
          Central Government.

          (5) Every institution, in respect of which recognition has
          been refused shall discontinue the course or training in
G         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 subsection (4),-
H
   STATE OF U.P. & ORS. v. BHUPENDRA NATH                        501
   TRIPATHI & ORS. [B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J,]
     (a) grant affiliation to the institution, where recognition has    A
     been granted; or

     (b) cancel the affiliation of the institution, where recognition
     has been refused.

     17. Section 16 of the Act mandates that the affiliating body       B
to grant affiliation only after 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 (3) declares that once the recognition
of a recognized institution is withdrawn under sub-section (1),         c
such institution shall discontinue the course or training in
teacher education, and the concerned University or the
examining body shall cancel affiliation of the institution with
effect from the end of the academic session next following the
date of communication of the said order.                                D

      18. A fair reading and analysis of the scheme of the Act
with respect to recognition of the institution imparting course
or training in teacher education is an essential prelude to the
core questions involved. On a plain reading of the provisions it
                                                                        E
is evident that on and from the date of enforcement of the Act,
every institution offering or intending to offer the course or
training in teacher education, was required to make application
to the Regional Committee in such form and manner as may
be determined by the regulations as provided in Section 14 of
the Act. The proviso to Section 14( 1) states that an institution
                                                                        F
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
disposal of the application by the Regional Committee. What             G
happens in case of existing institution makes application
seeking recognition within the prescribed time but no decision
is taken by the Council within the period of six months? Does
it mean that the institution can impart training only for a period
of six months and thereafter close the institution? Section 14(5)       H
    502 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A states that every institution, in respect of which recognition has
  been refused shall discontinue the course or training in 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).
B
          19. A plain reading of provisions suggests that all such
    institutions offering a course or training in teacher education
    prior to the Act coming into force, are entitled to continue such
    course or training until the application is disposed of provefed
    such an application has been made within six months from the
C   appointed day. The consequence of not being able to gain
    recognition is the discontinuance of the course. Once an
    application seeking recognition has been filed by the institution
    within the prescribed period of six months the institution is
    entitled to continue offering a course or training in teacher
D   education until the dispdsal of the application by the Regional
    Committee. Once the recognition is granted by the Regional
    Committee to the institution offering a course or training in
    teacher education, the same shall relate back to the date of
    filing of application. Section 14(5) read with Section 14(1)
E   enables the institution offering a course or training in teacher
    education on the appointed day to continue the course or
    training as the case may be during the pendency of the
    application seeking recognition and even in case of refusal of
    recognition, the course may have to be discontinued, only at
F   the end of academic session. The institution offering training
    or course is entitled to award degree or certificate as the case
    may be.

    VIEW OF THE NCTE

G      20. The NCTE made its stand clear, as is evident from the
  impugned order that after the enforcement of NCTE Act, the
  existing institutions on the appointed day offering a course or
  training in teacher education are entitled to continue such
  course or training providea such institutions apply for the grant
H of recognition under Section 14(1) of the Act within a period of
   STATE OF U.P. & ORS. v. BHUPENDRA NATH                      503
   TRIPATHI & ORS. [B. SUDERSR-AN REDDY, J.]
six months and until the disposal of their application by the         A
Regional Committee. The degrees obtained during the
pendency of the application are valid and recognition of such
institutions shall relate back to the date of application and all
such institutions shall be deemed to have been recognized for
all purposes in view of Section 14(1) of the NCTE Act. The            8
NCTE reiterated its stand before us.      -

     21. Prior to the enactment of NCTE Act, the degrees such
as B.Ed. course for teacher education were being awarded by
the Universities or by the recognized institutions by the
University Grants Commission or by such bodies as authorized          C
by the University Grants Commission. It is unreasonable to hold
that all those degrees granted by the Universities or the bodies
authorized by the University Grants Commission as the case
may be were of sub-standard in nature in comparison to those
degrees granted by the recognized institutions after the NCTE         D
Act came into force. Such a view may amount to undermining
the importance of the university education and the role played
by the Universities in promoting the education and educational
standards. Each of the Universities have their own systems and
mechanism to grant affiliation to the institutions offering courses   E
at the college/University level and grant of affiliation is never
considered to be a matter of course. Universities always ensure
maintenance of standards and degrees awarded only after
successfully completing the prescribed syllabi and the
examinations conducted by the Universities. The NCTE Act in           F
no manner makes any distinction between the degrees granted
by the Universities or authorized bodies recognized by the
University Grants Commission prior to the enactment of the Act
and the degrees granted by the recognized institutions after the
Act has come into force. NCTE Act provides for the recognition        G
of the institution offering course or training in teacher education
and does not speak about recognition of the degrees granted
by the institution prior to the Act coming into force. Thus,
degrees granted by the institutions already in existence offering
a course or training in teacher education shall be deemed to
                                                                      H
    504     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A be at par with the degrees or certificates granted by the
  recognized institutions after the commencement of the Act
  provided those institutions in existence offering the course also
  received recognition under the Act.

       22. In our considered view the State Government cannot
8 make any distinction between the degrees obtained from the
  existing institutions prior to the Act coming into force but
  received recognition after the commencement of the Act and
  the degrees obtained from the recognized institutions after the
  Act coming into force. It is not shown how such a classification
C is based on an intelligible differentia and on a rational
  consideration and further how it bears a nexus to the purpose
  and object thereof. The impugned action of the State results in
  the classification or division of members of a homogeneous
  group and subjecting them to differential treatment without any
D rhyme or reason.

        23. Learned senior counsel appearing for the State
  however submitted that the State which runs a training course
  with the approval of NCTE is entitled to prescribe the
E qualifications for candidates seeking admission to the course
  so long as the qualifications prescribed are not lower than those
  prescribed by or under the NCTE Act. The submission was that
  after the NCTE Act has come into force the State is justified in
  insisting and prescribing B.Ed. qualification from only such of
F those institutions recognized by NCTE. Reliance has been
  placed upon the decisions of this court in State of A.P. and Ors.
  Vs. Lavu Narendranath & ors. etc. 3, Dr. Preeti Srivastava &
  Anr. Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. 4 and State of T.N. & Anr. Vs.
  S. V. Bratheep (Minor) & Ors5.
G         24. There is no quarrel with the proposition that the State
    in its discretion is entitled to prescribe such qualifications as it

    3.   (1971) 3 SCR 699.
    4.   (1999) 1 sec 120.
H   5.   (2004) 4 sec 513.
   STATE OF U.P. & ORS. v. BHUPENDRA NATH                      505
   TRIPATHI & ORS. [B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.]
may consider appropriate for candidates seeking admission              A
into BTC course so long as the qualifications so prescribed are
not lower than those prescribed by or under the NCTE Act. The
State can always prescribe higher qualification, but the
argument proceeds on the assumption that B.Ed. qualification
obtained from only such of those institutions established and          B
recognized by NCTE after the Act coming into force is higher
or superior than the B.Ed. qualification obtained from the
Universities or affiliated colleges duly recognized by the
University Grants Commission prior to the Act coming into
force. What is the rational basis for such a presumption? None.        c
This fact assumes significance particularly in the light of the fact
that all the institutions from where the candidates obtained their
B.Ed. qualification have themselves received recognition from
the Regional Council after the NCTE Act came into force.

     25. For all the aforesaid reasons, we are of the opinion          D
that the impugned judgments do not suffer from any infirmities
requiring our interference.

    26. As a result, the appeals fail and are accordingly
dismissed.                                                             E
RP.                                          Appeals dismissed.