REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION   

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4305-4306  OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 5795-5796 of 2009)

Abhyudya Sanstha                                      Appellant(s)

VERSUS

Union of India & Ors.                                   Respondents

With

Civil Appeal Nos. 4307-4308 of 2011 [@SLP(C)Nos.5786-5787/2009]   Civil Appeal Nos. 4309-4310  of 2011 [@SLP(C)No. SLP(C)Nos.5831-5832/2009]

Civil Appeal Nos. 4311-4312  of 2011 [@SLP(C)Nos. 21661-21662/2009]

Civil Appeal Nos. 4313-4314  of 2011 [@SLP(C)Nos. 21675-21676/2009]

Civil Appeal No. 4315  of 2011   [@SLP(C)No. 25703/2009]

Civil Appeal No. 4316 of 2011   [@SLP(C)No. 25711/2009]

J U D G M E N T

G.S. Singhvi,  J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The  only  question  which  needs  consideration  in  these  appeals  is  

whether the appellants who had not been granted recognition by the Western  

Regional Committee of the National Council for Teacher Education and who  

1

did  not  get  affiliation  from the  examining  body  in  accordance  with  the  

provisions of  the National  Council  for  Teacher  Education Act,  1993 (for  

short,  `the  Act’)  and  the  National  Council  for  Teacher  Education  

(Recognition,  Norms  and  Procedure)  Regulations,  2007  (for  short,  `the  

Regulations’) are entitled to question the order passed by the Division Bench  

of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench whereby recognition granted to  

over 290 institutions was cancelled.

3. With  a  view  to  achieve  the  object  of  planned  and  coordinated  

development for the teacher education system throughout the country and  

for regulation and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the teacher  

education system and for matters connected therewith, Parliament enacted  

the Act for the establishment of a Council to be called the National Council  

for Teacher Education (for short, “the NCTE”) with multifarious functions,  

powers and duties.  Section 2(c) of the Act defines the term “Council” to  

mean a Council established under sub-section (1) of Section 3.  Section 2(i)  

defines the term “recognised institution” to mean an institution recognised  

under Section 14.  Section 2(j) defines the term “Regional Committee” to  

mean a Committee  established under Section 20.   Section 3 provides for  

establishment  of  the  Council  which  comprises  of  a  Chairperson,  a  Vice-

Chairperson, a Member-Secretary, various functionaries of the Government,  

thirteen  persons  possessing  experience  and  knowledge  in  the  field  of  

2

education  or  teaching,  nine  members  representing  the  States  and  Union  

Territories Administration, three members of Parliament, three members to  

be appointed from amongst teachers of primary and secondary education and  

teachers  of  recognised  institutions.   Section  12  of  the  Act  enumerates  

functions of the Council.  Section 14 provides for recognition of institutions  

offering course or training in teacher education.  Section 15 lays down the  

procedure for obtaining permission by an existing institution for starting a  

new course or training.  Section 16 contains a non obstante clause and lays  

down that an examining body shall not grant affiliation to any institution or  

hold  examination  for  a  course  or  training  conducted  by  a  recognised  

institution unless it has obtained recognition from the concerned Regional  

Committee  under  Section  14  or  permission  for  starting  a  new course  or  

training  under  Section  15.   The  mechanism  for  dealing  with  the  cases  

involving violation of the  provisions of  the Act or  the rules,  regulations,  

orders  made  or  issued  thereunder  or  the  conditions  of  recognition  by  a  

recognised institution finds place in Section 17.  By an amendment made in  

July,  2006,  Section  17-A  was  added  to  the  Act.   It  lays  down  that  no  

institution  shall  admit  any  student  to  a  course  or  training  in  teacher  

education unless it has obtained recognition under Section 14 or permission  

under Section 15.   Section 29 declares that the NCTE shall, in the discharge  

of its functions and duties under the Act be bound by such directions on  

questions of policy as the Central  Government may give in writing from  

3

time to time and the decision of the Central Government as to whether a  

question is one of policy or not shall be final.  Section 31(1) empowers the  

Central Government to make rules for carrying out the provisions of the Act.  

Section  31(2)  specifies  the  matters  in  respect  of  which  the  Central  

Government can make rules.  Under Section 32(1) the Council can make  

regulations for implementation of the provisions of the Act subject to the  

rider that the regulations shall not be inconsistent with the provisions of the  

Act and the rules made thereunder.  Section 32(2) specifies the matters on  

which the Council can frame regulations.  Sections 12, 14 to 16 and 17-A of  

the Act, which have bearing on the decision of these appeals read as under:

“12. Functions of the Council.– It shall be the duty of the  Council to take all such steps as it may think fit for ensuring  planned and coordinated development of teacher education  and for the determination and maintenance of standards for  teacher  education  and  for  the  purposes  of  performing  its  functions under this Act, the Council may–

(a) undertake  surveys  and  studies  relating  to  various  aspects of teacher education and publish the result thereof;

(b) make  recommendations  to  the  Central  and  State  Governments,  Universities,  University  Grants  Commission  and recognised institutions in the matter  of  preparation of  suitable  plans  and  programmes  in  the  field  of  teacher  education;

(c) coordinate  and  monitor  teacher  education  and  its  development in the country;

(d) lay  down  guidelines  in  respect  of  minimum  qualifications for a person to be employed as a teacher in  schools or in recognised institutions;

4

(e) lay down norms for any specified category of courses  or  training  in  teacher  education,  including  the  minimum  eligibility criteria for admission thereof, and the method of  selection  of  candidates,  duration  of  the  course,  course  contents and mode of curriculum;

(f) lay  down  guidelines  for  compliance  by  recognised  institutions,  for  starting  new  courses  or  training  and  for  providing  physical  and  instructional  facilities,  staffing  pattern and staff qualifications;

(g) xxx xxx xxx

(h) xxx xxx xxx

(i) xxx xxx xxx

(j) examine and review periodically the implementation  of  the  norms,  guidelines  and  standards  laid  down  by  the  Council and to suitably advise the recognised institutions;

(k) xxx xxx xxx

(l) xxx xxx xxx

(m) xxx xxx xxx

(n) perform such other functions as may be entrusted to it  by the Central Government.

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

Provided that an institution offering a course or training in  teacher  education  immediately  before  the  appointed  day,  shall  be entitled to  continue such course  or  training for a  period  of  six  months,  if  it  has  made  an  application  for  

5

recognition within the said period and until the disposal of  the application by the Regional Committee.  (2) The fee to be paid along with the application under  sub-section (1) shall be such as may be prescribed.

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

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

(b) if it is of the opinion that such institution does not  fulfil the requirements laid down in sub-clause (a), pass  an  order  refusing  recognition  to  such  institution  for  reasons to be recorded in writing: Provided that before passing an order under sub-clause  (b), the Regional Committee shall provide a reasonable  opportunity  to  the  concerned institution  for  making  a  written representation.

(4) xxx xxx xxx

(5) 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).

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

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

6

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

 15. Permission  for  a  new  course  or  training  by  recognised institution.– (1) Where  any  recognised  institution  intends  to  start  any  new  course  or  training  in  teacher  education,  it  may  make  an  application  to  seek  permission therefor to the Regional Committee concerned in  such  form and in  such  manner  as  may be  determined  by  regulations.

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

(3) On receipt of an application from an institution  under  sub-section  (1),  and  after  obtaining  from  the  recognised  institution  such  other  particulars  as  may  be  considered necessary, the Regional Committee shall,– (a) if  it  is  satisfied  that  such recognised  institution  has  adequate  financial  resources,  accommodation,  library,  qualified  staff,  laboratory,  and  that  it  fulfils  such  other  conditions required for proper conduct of the new course or  training  in  teacher  education,  as  may  be  determined  by  regulations,  pass  an  order  granting  permission,  subject  to  such conditions as may be determined by regulation; or

(b) if  it  is  of  the  opinion that  such institution  does  not  fulfil the requirements laid down in sub-clause (a), pass an  order refusing permission to such institution, for reasons to  be recorded in writing:

Provided that  before passing an order  refusing permission  under sub-clause (b), the Regional Committee shall provide  a  reasonable  opportunity  to  the  institution  concerned  for  making a written representation.

(4) xxx xxx xxx

16. Affiliating  body  to  grant  affiliation  after  recognition  or  permission  by  the  Council.–  Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the  time being in force, no examining body shall, on or after the  appointed day,–

7

(a) grant  affiliation,  whether  provisional  or  otherwise, to any institution; or

(b) hold  examination,  whether  provisional  or  otherwise,  for  a  course  or  training  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.

17-A. No admission without  recognition.– No institution  shall  admit  any student  to  a  course  or  training  in  teacher  education,  unless  the  institution  concerned  has  obtained  recognition under section 14 or permission under section 15,  as the case may be.”       

4. In exercise of the power vested in it under Section 32, the Council has  

framed regulations in 1995, 2002, 2005 and 2007.  Since we are concerned  

with the 2007 Regulations, the relevant provisions thereof are reproduced  

below:-

“5. Manner of making application and Time Limit

(1) An institution eligible under Regulation 4, desirous of  running a teacher education programme may apply to  the  concerned  Regional  Committee  of  NCTE  for  recognition in the prescribed form in triplicate along  with processing fee and requisite documents.

(2) xxx xxx xxx

(3) xxx xxx xxx

(4) xxx xxx xxx

(5) xxx xxx xxx

8

7. Processing of Applications

(1) The applicant institutions shall ensure submission of  applications  complete  in  all  respects.   However,  in  order  to  cover  the  inadvertent  omissions  or  deficiencies in documents, the office of the Regional  Committee shall point out the deficiencies within 30  days  of  receipt  of  the  applications,  which  the  applicants  shall  remove  within  90  days.   No  application shall be processed if the processing fees of  Rs.40,000/-  is  not  submitted  and  such  applications  would be returned to the applicant institutions.

(2) Simultaneously,  on  receipt  of  application,  a  written  communication  alongwith  a  copy  of  the  application  form submitted by the institution(s) shall  be sent by  the  office  of  Regional  Committees  to  the  State  Government/U.T. Administration concerned.

(3) On  receipt  of  the  communication,  the  State  Government/UT  Administration  concerned  shall  furnish its recommendations on the applications to the  office  of  the  Regional  Committee  concerned  of  the  National  Council  for  Teacher  Education  within  60  days from receipt.  If the recommendation is negative,  the  State  Government/UT  Administration  shall  provide  detailed  reasons/grounds  thereof  with  necessary  statistics,  which  shall  be  taken  into  consideration by the Regional  Committee  concerned  while deciding the application.  If no communication  is  received  from  the  State  Government/UT  Administration within the stipulated 60 days, it shall  be  presumed  that  the  State  Government/UT  Administration concerned has no recommendation to  make.

(4) After  removal  of  all  the  deficiencies  and  to  the  satisfaction of the Regional Committee concerned, the  inspection of infrastructure, equipments, instructional  facilities etc, of an institution shall be conducted by a  team  of  experts  called  Visiting  Team  (VT)  with  a  view  to  assessing  the  level  of  preparedness  of  the  

9

institution to commence the course.  Inspection would  be  subject  to  the  consent  of  the  institution  and  submission of the self-attested copy of the completion  certificate of the building.  Such inspection, as far as  administratively and logistically possible, shall be in  the chronological order of the date of receipt of the  consent of the institution.  In case the consent from  more than one institution is received on the same day,  alphabetical  order may be followed.  The inspection  shall  be conducted within  30 days of  receipt  of  the  consent of the institution.

(5) xxx xxx xxx

(6) xxx xxx xxx

(7) xxx xxx xxx

(8) xxx xxx xxx

(9) The institution concerned shall be informed, through a  letter,  of  the  decision  for  grant  of  recognition  or  permission subject to appointment of qualified faculty  members before the commencement of the academic  session.  The letter issued under this clause shall not  be  notified  in  the  Gazette.   The  faculty  shall  be  appointed  on  the  recommendations  of  the  Selection  Committee  duly constituted as per  the policy of the  State  Govt/Central  Govt/University/UGC  or  the  concerned affiliating body, as the case may be.  The  applicant  institution  shall  submit  an  affidavit  in  the  prescribed  form  that  the  Selection  Committee  has  been constituted as stated above.  A separate staff list  with the details would be submitted in the prescribed  form.   The  Regional  Committee  would  rely  on  the  above affidavit and the staff list before processing the  case for grant of formal recognition.

(10) xxx xxx xxx

(11) The  institution  concerned,  after  appointing  the  requisite  faculty/staff  as  per  Regulation  7(9)  above  and fulfilling  the  conditions  under  Regulation 7(10)  

1

above shall formally inform the Regional Committee  concerned alongwith the requisite affidavit  and staff  list.   The Regional  Committee  concerned shall  then  issue a formal recognition order that shall be notified  as per provision of the NCTE Act.

(12) xxx xxx xxx

(13) xxx xxx xxx

8. Conditions for grant of recognition

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

(2) In the first instance, an institution shall be considered  for grant  of  recognition for  only one course for the  basic unit as prescribed in the norms & standards for  the  particular  teacher  education  programme.   An  institution can apply for one basic unit of an additional  course  from  the  subsequent  academic  session.  However, application for not more than one additional  course can be made in a year.

(3) xxx xxx xxx

(4) xxx xxx xxx

(5) xxx xxx xxx

(6) xxx xxx xxx

(7) No institution shall be granted recognition under these  regulations unless it is in possession of required land  on  the  date  of  application.   The  land  free  from all  encumbrances could be either on ownership basis or  on  lease  from  Government/Govt  institutions  for  a  

1

period of not less than 30 years.  In cases where under  relevant  State/UT  laws  the  maximum  permissible  lease  period  is  less  than  30  years,  the  State  Government/UT  Administration  law  shall  prevail.  However,  no  building  could  be  taken  on  lease  for  running any teacher training course.

(8) xxx xxx xxx

(9) xxx xxx xxx

(10) At  the  time  of  inspection,  the  building  of  the  institution  shall  be  complete  in  the  form  of  a  permanent  structure  on  the  land  possessed  by  the  institution in terms of Regulation 8(7), equipped with  all  necessary  amenities  and  fulfilling  all  such  requirements as prescribed in the norms and standards.  The  applicant  institution  shall  produce  the  original  completion  certificate,  approved  building  plan  in  proof of the completion of building and built up area  and  other  documents  to  the  Visiting  Team  for  verification.  No temporary structure/asbestos roofing  shall be allowed.

(11) xxx xxx xxx

(12) An  institution  shall  make  admission  only  after  it  obtains  order  of  recognition  from  the  Regional  Committee  concerned  under  Regulation  7(11),  and  affiliation from the examining body.

(13) to (16) xxx xxx xxx”  

5. Vide letter dated 2.2.1996, the NCTE issued guidelines for ensuring  

that the training institutions are established keeping in view the requirement  

of trained teachers in different States and U.T.  These guidelines read as  

under:

1

“1. The establishment  of  teacher  training institutions  by  the Government, private managements or any other agencies  should largely be determined by assessed need for trained  teachers. This need should take into consideration the supply  of trained teachers from existing institutions, the requirement  of  such  teachers  in  relation  to  enrolment  projections  at  various stages, the attrition rates among trained teachers due  to superannuation, change of occupation, death, etc. and the  number  of  trained  teachers  on  the  live  register  of  the  employment  exchanges  seeking  employment  and  the  possibility of their deployment. The 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.

2. The  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 10-15 years.

3. Preference might be given to institutions which tend to  emphasise the preparation of teachers for subjects (such as  Science,  Mathematics,  English,  etc.)  for  which  trained  teachers have been in short supply in relation to requirement  of schools.

4. Apart from the usual courses for teacher preparation,  institutions which propose to concern themselves with new  emerging  specialities  (e.g.  computer  education,  use  of  electronic  media,  guidance  and  counselling,  etc.)  should  receive  priority.  Provisions  for  these  should,  however,  be  made  only  after  ensuring  that  requisite  manpower,  equipment  and  infrastructure  are  available.  These  considerations will  also be kept in view by the institution  intending to provide for optional subjects to be chosen by  students  such  as  guidance  and  counselling,  special  education, etc.

5. With  a  view  to  ensuring  supply  of  qualified  and  trained teachers for such specialities such as education of the  

1

disabled,  non-formal  education,  education  of  adults,  pre- school  education,  vocational  education,  etc.  special  efforts  and  incentives  may  be  provided  to  motivate  private  managements/voluntary  organisations  for  establishment  of  institutions, which lay emphasis on these areas.

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

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

8. Institutions should be allowed to come into existence  only  if  the  sponsors  are  able  to  ensure  that  they  have  adequate  material  and  manpower  resources  in  terms,  for  instance,  of  qualified  teachers  and  other  staff,  adequate  buildings and other infrastructure (laboratory, library, etc.), a  reserve  fund  and  operating  funds  to  meet  the  day-to-day  requirements  of  the  institutions,  including  payment  of  salaries, provision of equipment, etc. Laboratories, teaching  science methodologies and practicals should have adequate  gas  plants,  proper  fittings  and  regular  supply  of  water,  electricity,  etc.  They  should  also  have  adequate  arrangements.  Capabilities  of  the  institution  for  fulfilling  norms prepared by NCTE may be kept in view.

9. In the establishment of an institution preference needs  to be given to locations which have a large catchment area in  terms of schools of different levels where student teachers  can  be  exposed  to  demonstration  lessons  and  undertake  practice  teaching.  A  training  institution  which  has  a  demonstration  school  where  innovative  and  experimental  approaches can be demonstrated could be given preference.”

1

6. For  facilitating  grant  of  recognition  for  establishment  of  teacher  

training  institutions  in  different  parts  of  the  country,  four  Regional  

Committees including the Western Regional Committee at Bhopal (for short,  

`WRC, Bhopal’) were set up by the NCTE.  In 2006-2007, WRC, Bhopal  

granted recognition/permission  to  large number  of  colleges/institutions  to  

start B.Ed./D.Ed. courses in the four States falling within its jurisdiction, i.e.  

Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Goa.  On receipt of complaints  

that  grave  irregularities  were  committed  by  WRC,  Bhopal  in  granting  

recognition/permission,  the  Central  Government  (Ministry  of  Human  

Resource Development) in exercise of the power vested in it under Section  

29 of the Act issued order dated 21.8.2007 and directed WRC, Bhopal not to  

grant recognition to any institution/course till a comprehensive review was  

undertaken.   On  23.8.2007,  the  Central  Government  constituted  three  

member Committee headed by Ms. Anita  Kaul, Joint Secretary, Ministry of  

Human  Resource  Development  to  conduct  an  in-depth  inquiry  into  the  

working  of  WRC,  Bhopal.   In  its  report,  the  Committee  highlighted  the  

irregularities committed by WRC, Bhopal in granting recognition to various  

institutions  in  the  States  of  Maharashtra,  Madhya  Pradesh  and  Gujarat  

without  taking  into  consideration  the  views  of  the  concerned  State  

Governments.  After considering the report of the Committee, the Central  

Government issued the following directions to the NCTE:

1

“(a) The WRC, Bhopal will process all pending applications  ensuring,  however,  that  it  scrupulously  takes  into  account  the views of the State Government on the issue of sanction  or rejection of applications for recognition.  In case, WRC,  Bhopal differs with the views of the State Government, it  shall  record  specific  reasons  in  writing  in  such  case  and  submit a special report to NCTE headquarters;

(b)  NCTE  shall  expedite  the  study  on  the  demand  and  supply of teachers/teaching capacity specially for the State  of Maharashtra, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh  and;

(c)  The  recommendations  in  respect  of  amendments  to  NCTE Act and its Regulations shall be carefully examined  in consultation with Ministry of Law.”

7. The aforesaid  directions  were  considered  in  the  100th meeting  of  

WRC, Bhopal and the following norms were laid down for considering the  

recommendations of the State Government:

“(a) If there is any positive recommendation from the State  Government, recognition/permission will be granted as per  the NCTE Regulations:

(b) If the Government has not communicated any positive or  negative remarks within 60 days from the issuance of the  letter  from the WRC to the concerned Government,  cases  will be considered on merit basis:

(c)  In  case  of  the  negative  recommendation  without  any  justification, cases will be considered on merit basis;

(d) If the State Government’s negative recommendations are  there in respect of a particular institution with justification  and  in  the  opinion  of  the  Committee  the  justification  is  genuine, the cases will be rejected.  The intimation of such  cases will be sent to the NCTE headquarters.

1

(e) If the WRC differs with the negative reasons/opinion of  the State Government, cases will be forwarded to the NCTE  headquarters.”  

8. The appellant institutions submitted applications in 2006 and 2007  

for grant of recognition for starting D.Ed course.  The establishments of the  

appellants  were  inspected  in  March,  May,  June  and  July  2008.   After  

considering  the  inspection  reports,  WRC,  Bhopal  issued  letters  to  the  

appellants requiring them to give clarification on some issues.  The matter  

was  again  considered  in  the  meetings  of  WRC,  Bhopal  held  in  

September/October 2008 in the light of the directives issued by the Central  

Government and the appellants were informed that their cases will not be  

processed.  This was done in the back-drop of the recommendations made  

by the State Government that there was no requirement of trained teachers in  

the  State.  In  the  cases  of  Rajarshi  Sahoo  Chatrapati  Education  Society,  

Jagruti Shikshan Sanstha and Navyuvak Shikshan Mandal, letters of intent  

were issued, but final recognition was not granted under Section 14 of the  

Act read with Regulation 8(12) of 2007 Regulations.  The appeal filed by  

Navyuvak Sikshan Mandal under Section 18 of the Act was dismissed by the  

appellate Authority.

9. In  the  meanwhile,  respondent  Nos.6  and  7  filed  writ  petition  

questioning  the  exercise  undertaken  by  WRC,  Bhopal  for  grant  of  

1

recognition to over 290 institutions.  They alleged that recognition has been  

granted in total disregard of the provisions of the Act and the Regulations  

and that the views of the State Government were completely ignored.  The  

Division  Bench  of  the  High Court,  after  an  in-depth  examination  of  the  

record produced before it and the relevant statutory provisions, quashed the  

recognitions granted by WRC, Bhopal.

10. Although, the appellants were not at all affected by the order of the  

Division  Bench  of  the  High  Court  because  they  had  not  been  granted  

recognition by WRC, Bhopal, they filed special leave petitions and prayed  

for setting aside orders dated 7.1.2009 and 16.1.2009 passed by the Division  

Bench of the High Court.  They also filed applications for permission to file  

special leave petitions by stating that the orders passed by the High Court  

would  adversely  affect  their  right  to  continue  the  D.Ed.  course.   The  

appellants  pleaded  that  the  High  Court  could  not  have  quashed  the  

recognition granted by WRC, Bhopal without hearing the affected persons  

and without examining the issue of locus standi of the writ petitioners.  They  

also claimed that infrastructure has been created by investing huge amount  

and cancellation of recognition will cause irreparable loss to them.   In the  

synopsis and list of dates, all the appellants made categorical statement that  

after following the procedure prescribed under the Act and the Regulations,  

the NCTE granted permission/recognition to them for starting D.Ed. course.

1

11. Since  the  Court  was  not  apprised  of  the  true  status  of  the  

applications  filed  by  the  appellants  for  grant  of  recognition  and patently  

wrong  and  misleading  statements  were  made  that  they  have  been  duly  

recognised by the NCTE, this Court entertained the special leave petitions  

along with large number of other similar cases filed by those who had been  

granted recognition by WRC, Bhopal,  issued notices and passed order of  

status quo. Later on, further interim orders were passed directing the State  

Government to allot students to the appellants for D. Ed course.   

12. In the case of  Abhyudya Sanstha,  some interesting  developments  

took place during the pendency of the special leave petition.  By an order  

dated  26.4.2009/3.5.2010,  WRC,  Bhopal  refused  recognition  to  the  

appellant.   The  Writ  Petition  filed  by  the  institute  was  allowed  by  the  

Division  Bench  of  the  High  Court  and  WRC,  Bhopal  was  directed  to  

reconsider the appellant’s plea for recognition.  After remand, WRC, Bhopal  

reconsidered the appellant’s  application  and rejected the same vide order  

dated 3.5.2010.  The appeal preferred against that order was dismissed by  

the  competent  authority.    This  time,  the  appellant  did  not  approach  the  

Bombay High Court. Instead, it filed Writ Petition No. 6784 of 2010 in the  

Delhi High Court.  By an order dated 17.1.2011, the learned Single Judge  

allowed  the  writ  petition  and  remitted  the  matter  to  WRC,  Bhopal  for  

processing the applications of the appellant afresh.  These additional facts  

1

clearly  demonstrate  that  on  the  date  of  filing  the  special  leave  petition,  

appellant Abhyudya Sanstha did not have recognition in terms of Section 14  

read with Regulation 7(11).  The position of the other appellants is no better.  

Three of them got letters of intent but none was granted recognition. We  

have no doubt that if the appellants had not misrepresented the facts and  

made wrong statement on the issue of their recognition by WRC, Bhopal,  

this Court would not have entertained the special leave petition, what to say  

of passing interim orders.   

13. At the hearing, Shri Shekhar Naphade and Shri Ashok Srivastava,  

learned senior counsel appearing for some of the appellants fairly stated that  

their  clients  were  not  granted recognition by  WRC, Bhopal  and none of  

them was eligible to admit the students to D. Ed. course, but submitted that  

the  Court  may  direct  WRC,  Bhopal  to  reconsider  their  applications  for  

recognition  and  protect  the  students  who  got  admission  on  the  basis  of  

allotment made by the State Government so that they may not face difficulty  

in  getting  employment  on  the  basis  of  the  degrees  etc.  awarded  by  the  

affiliating body.  Learned senior counsel submitted that the statements made  

in the synopsis and list of dates of the special leave petitions about grant of  

recognition  by  NCTE  were  not  deliberate  and  the  institutions  and  the  

students may not be penalized for the lapse, which inadvertently occurred at  

the time of  drafting the petitions.   Shri  Ashok Srivastava,  learned senior  

2

counsel stated that his client has not admitted any student on the strength of  

the interim order passed by this Court.

14. Shri Amitesh Kumar, learned counsel for the NCTE submitted that  

the Court may not issue any direction for regularisation of admissions made  

by the appellants  because none of  them had been granted recognition by  

WRC, Bhopal.  Learned counsel argued that in the absence of recognition by  

the  competent  authority,  the  appellants  are  not  entitled  to  conduct  any  

teacher training course and, therefore, the students admitted by them should  

not be allowed to reap the benefits of illegal admissions.

15. We  have  considered  the  respective  submissions  and  carefully  

examined the records.

16. In our view, the appellants deserve to be non suited because they  

have not approached the Court with clean hands.  The plea of inadvertent  

mistake put  forward by the learned senior counsel for the appellants  and  

their  submission  that  the  Court  may  take  lenient  view  and  order  

regularisation of the admissions already made sounds attractive but does not  

merit acceptance.  Each of the appellants consciously made a statement that  

it had been granted recognition by the NCTE, which necessarily implies that  

recognition  was  granted  in  terms  of  Section  14  of  the  Act  read  with  

2

Regulations 7 and 8 of the 2007 Regulations.  Those managing the affairs of  

the  appellants  do  not  belong  to  the  category  of  innocent,  

illiterate/uneducated  persons,  who  are  not  conversant  with  the  relevant  

statutory provisions and the court process.  The very fact that each of the  

appellants  had submitted  application  in  terms  of  Regulation  7 and made  

itself  available  for  inspection  by  the  team constituted  by  WRC,  Bhopal  

shows that they were fully aware of the fact that they can get recognition  

only after fulfilling the conditions specified in the Act and the Regulations  

and  that  WRC,  Bhopal  had  not  granted  recognition  to  them.  

Notwithstanding this, they made bold statement that they had been granted  

recognition by the competent authority and thereby succeeded in persuading  

this Court to entertain the special leave petitions and pass interim orders.  

The minimum, which can be said about the appellants is that they have not  

approached  the  Court  with  clean  hands  and  succeeded  in  polluting  the  

stream of justice by making patently false statement.  Therefore, they are not  

entitled  to  relief  under  Article  136 of  the  Constitution.   This  view finds  

support from plethora of precedents.   In  Hari Narain v. Badri Das AIR  

1963 SC 1558, G. Narayanaswamy Reddy v. Govt. of Karnataka (1991)  

3 SCC 261 and large number of other cases, this Court denied relief to the  

petitioner/appellant on the ground that he had not approached the Court with  

clean hands.  In Hari Narain v. Badri Das (supra), the Court revoked the  

leave granted to the appellant and observed:

2

“It is of utmost importance that in making material statements  and setting forth grounds in applications for special leave made  under Article 136 of the Constitution, care must be taken not to  make  any  statements  which  are  inaccurate,  untrue  or  misleading. In dealing with applications for special leave, the  Court  naturally  takes  statements  of  fact  and  grounds  of  fact  contained in the petitions at their face value and it would be  unfair  to  betray  the  confidence  of  the  Court  by  making  statements  which  are  untrue  and  misleading.  Thus,  if  at  the  hearing of the appeal  the Supreme Court is  satisfied that the  material statements made by the appellant in his application for  special leave are inaccurate and misleading, and the respondent  is  entitled  to  contend  that  the  appellant  may  have  obtained  special leave from the Supreme Court on the strength of what  he characterises as misrepresentations of facts contained in the  petition for special leave, the Supreme Court may come to the  conclusion  that  in  such  a  case  special  leave  granted  to  the  appellant ought to be revoked.”

In  G. Narayanaswamy Reddy v. Govt. of Karnataka (supra), the Court  

noted that the appellant had concealed the fact that the award could not be  

made  by  the  Land  Acquisition  Officer  within  the  time  prescribed  under  

Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act because of the stay order passed by  

the High Court and observed:

“…… Curiously enough, there is  no reference in the special  leave petitions to any of the stay orders and we came to know  about  these  orders  only  when  the  respondents  appeared  in  response to the notice and filed their counter-affidavit. In our  view,  the  said  interim  orders  have  a  direct  bearing  on  the  question  raised  and  the  non-disclosure  of  the  same  certainly  amounts to suppression of material facts. On this ground alone,  the special  leave petitions are liable to be rejected.  It  is well  settled  in  law  that  the  relief  under  Article  136  of  the  Constitution is discretionary and a petitioner who approaches  this  Court  for  such  relief  must  come  with  frank  and  full  disclosure of facts. If he fails to do so and suppresses material  

2

facts, his application is liable to be dismissed. We accordingly  dismiss the special leave petitions.”

In  Dalip Singh v. State of U.P.  (2010) 2 SCC 114, this Court noticed the  

progressive decline in the values of life and observed:

“For many centuries Indian society cherished two basic values  of  life  i.e.  “satya”  (truth)  and  “ahimsa”  (non-violence).  Mahavir,  Gautam  Buddha  and  Mahatma  Gandhi  guided  the  people  to  ingrain  these  values  in  their  daily  life.  Truth  constituted an integral part of the justice-delivery system which  was in vogue in the pre-Independence era and the people used  to  feel  proud  to  tell  truth  in  the  courts  irrespective  of  the  consequences.  However,  post-Independence  period  has  seen  drastic  changes  in  our  value  system.  The  materialism  has  overshadowed the old ethos and the quest for personal gain has  become  so  intense  that  those  involved  in  litigation  do  not  hesitate  to  take  shelter  of  falsehood,  misrepresentation  and  suppression of facts in the court proceedings. In the last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up.   Those who belong to this  creed do not  have any respect  for  truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means  for achieving their goals. In order to meet the challenge posed  by this  new creed of  litigants,  the courts  have,  from time to  time, evolved new rules and it is now well established that a  litigant,  who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who  touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not  entitled to any relief, interim or final.”

17. The question which remains to be considered is  whether the Court  

should  direct  regularisation  of  the  admission  of  the  students,  who  were  

allotted  to  the  appellants  by  the  State  Government  etc.  pursuant  to  the  

directions given by this Court.  Although, in the absence of cogent material,  

it  is  not  possible  to  record  a  finding that  the  students  were  party  to  the  

patently wrong and misleading statement made by the appellants, the Court  

2

cannot  overlook  the  fact  that  none  of  the  appellants  has  been  granted  

recognition by WRC, Bhopal and in view of the prohibition contained in  

Section 17A of the Act read with Regulation 8(12), the appellants could not  

have admitted any student.  However, with a view to make business and earn  

profit in the name of education, the appellants successfully manipulated the  

judicial process for allocation of the students.  Therefore, there is no valid  

ground much less justification to confer legitimacy upon the admission made  

by the appellants in a clandestine manner.  Any such order by the Court will  

be detrimental to the national interest.  The students who may have taken  

admission and completed the course from an institution, which had not been  

granted recognition, will not be able to impart value based education to the  

future generation of the country.  Rather, they may train young minds as to  

how  one  can  succeed  in  life  by  manipulations.   Therefore,  we  do  not  

consider it proper to issue direction for regularising the admissions made by  

the appellants on the strength of the interim orders passed by this Court.

18. In the result,  the  appeals  are dismissed.   Each of  the appellants  is  

saddled  with  costs  of  Rs.2  lacs,  which  shall  be  deposited  with  the  

Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority within a period of three months.  

If the needful is not done, the Secretary, Maharashtra State Legal Services  

Authority shall be entitled to recover the amount of cost as arrears of land  

revenue.

2

19. We also declare that none of the students, who had taken admission  

on  the  basis  of  allotment  made  by  the  State  Government  etc.,  shall  be  

eligible for the award of degree etc. by the affiliating body.  If the degree has  

already been awarded to any such student, the same shall not be treated valid  

for any purpose whatsoever.

20. WRC, Bhopal shall publish a list of the students, who were admitted  

by the appellants pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court and  

forward  the  same  to  the  Education  Department  of  the  Government  of  

Maharashtra,  which shall  circulate  the same to all  government and aided  

institutions so that they may not employ the holders of such degrees.

21. The appellants are directed to pay Rs.1 lac to each of the students by  

way of compensation in lieu of the injury inflicted upon them by way of  

misrepresentation  about  their  entitlement  to  admit  the  students  to  D.Ed.  

course.

…….………….………………….…J. [ G.S. Singhvi ]

……………..…………..…………..J. [ K.S.Panicker Radhakrishnan ]

New Delhi; May 12, 2011.

2