1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  104    OF 2012 (arising out of  SLP (C) No.14020 of 2009)

Adarsh Shiksha Mahavidyalaya and others … Appellants versus

Subhash Rahangdale and others … Respondents

with

Civil Appeal No. 105  of 2012 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 13801 of 2009)

Civil Appeal No. 107 of 2012 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 14019 of 2009)

Civil Appeal No. 106 of 2012 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 13913 of 2009)

Civil Appeal No. 108 of 2012 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 11739 of 2009)

Civil Appeal No.109 of 2012 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 13615 of 2009)

Civil Appeal No.  110  of 2012 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 5485 of 2009)

Civil Appeal No. 111 of 2012 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 5486 of 2009)

Civil Appeal No. 114  of 2012 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 18345 of 2009)

Civil Appeal No. 115  of 2012 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 21277 of 2009)

Civil Appeal No. 116  of 2012 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 21015 of 2009)

Civil Appeal No. 118 of 2012 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 21012 of 2009)

Civil Appeal No. 119 of 2012 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 18985 of 2009)

Civil Appeal No. 120 of 2012 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 26526 of 2009)

Civil Appeal No. 121 of 2012 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 24088 of 2009)

Civil Appeal No. 122 of 2012 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 19604 of 2009)

Civil Appeal No. 123 of 2012 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 20674 of 2009)

1

2

Civil Appeal No. 124 of 2012 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 35507 of 2009)

Civil Appeal No. 125 of 2012 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 35519 of 2009)

Civil Appeal No. 126 of 2012 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 23072 of 2009)

Civil Appeal No. 127 of 2012 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 23073 of 2009)

Civil Appeal No. 128 of 2012 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 23074 of 2009)

Civil Appeal No. 131 of 2012 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 23075 of 2009)

Civil Appeal No. 132 of 2012 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 23076 of 2009)

Civil Appeal No. 133 of 2012 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 23079 of 2009)

Civil Appeal No. 134 of 2012 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 23080 of 2009)

Civil Appeal No. 135 of 2012 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 23081 of 2009)

Civil Appeal No. 136 of 2012 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 23084 of 2009)

Civil Appeal No. 137 of 2012 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 23083 of 2009)

Civil Appeal No. 139 of 2012 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 18984 of 2009)

Civil Appeal No. 140 of 2012 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 21288 of 2009)

Civil Appeal No. 141 of 2012 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 27318 of 2009)

Civil Appeal No. 142 of 2012 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 27320 of 2009)

Civil Appeal No. 143 of 2012 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 28625 of 2009)

Civil Appeal No. 144 of 2012 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 31086 of 2009)

Civil Appeal No. 145 of 2012 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 20994 of 2009)

Civil Appeal No. 146 of 2012 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 24779 of 2009)

Civil Appeal No. 147 of 2012 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 9468 of 2010)

J U D G M E N T

G. S. Singhvi, J.

2

3

1. Leave granted.

2. The  importance  of  teachers  and  their  training  has  been  

highlighted  time  and  again  by  eminent  educationists  and  

leaders  of  society.   The  Courts  have  also  laid  considerable  

emphasis  on  the  dire  need  of  having  qualified  teachers  in  

schools and colleges.   

2.1 In Ahmedabad St. Xavier’s College Society v. State of Gujarat  

(1974) 1 SCC 717, A.N. Ray, C.J., observed:

“Educational institutions are temples of learning.  The virtues of  human intelligence are mastered  and  harmonised  by  education.  Where  there  is  complete harmony between the teacher and the  taught,  where  the  teacher  imparts  and  the  student  receives,  where  there  is  complete  dedication  of  the  teacher  and  the  taught  in  learning,  where  there  is  discipline  between the  teacher  and  the  taught,  where  both  are  worshippers of learning, no discord or challenge  will  arise.  An  educational  institution  runs  smoothly  when the teacher  and the taught  are  engaged  in  the  common  ideal  of  pursuit  of  knowledge.  It  is,  therefore,  manifest  that  the  appointment of teachers is an important part in  educational  institutions.  The  qualifications  and  the  character  of  the  teachers  are  really  important.  The  minority  institutions  have  the  right to administer institutions. This right implies  the  obligation  and  duty  of  the  minority  institutions  to  render  the  very  best  to  the  students. In the right of administration, checks  and  balances  in  the  shape  of  regulatory  measures  are  required  to  ensure  the  

3

4

appointment  of  good  teachers  and  their  conditions of service. The right to administer is to  be  tempered  with  regulatory  measures  to  facilitate  smooth  administration.  The  best  administration will  reveal  no trace or  colour of  minority. A minority institution should shine in  exemplary eclectism in the administration of the  institution. The best compliment that can be paid  to a minority institution is that it does not rest  on or proclaim its minority character.

Regulations which will serve the interests of the  students,  regulations  which  will  serve  the  interests  of  the  teachers  are  of  paramount  importance  in  good administration.  Regulations  in the interest of efficiency of teachers, discipline  and fairness in administration are necessary for  preserving harmony among affiliated institutions.

Education  should  be  a  great  cohesive  force  in  developing  integrity  of  the  nation.  Education  develops the ethos of the nation. Regulations are,  therefore,  necessary  to  see  that  there  are  no  divisive  or  disintegrating  forces  in  administration.”

2.2 In  Andhra  Kesari  Education  Society  v.  Director  of  School  

Education (1989) 1 SCC 392, this Court observed:  

“Though  teaching  is  the  last  choice  in  the  job  market,  the  role  of  teachers  is  central  to  all  processes of formal education. The teacher alone  could  bring  out  the  skills  and  intellectual  capabilities of students. He is the ‘engine’ of the  educational system. He is a principal instrument  in  awakening  the  child  to  cultural  values.  He  needs to be endowed and energised with needed  potential to deliver enlightened service expected  of  him.  His  quality  should  be  such  as  would  

4

5

inspire and motivate into action the benefiter. He  must  keep  himself  abreast  of  ever-changing  conditions. He is not to perform in a wooden and  unimaginative  way.  He  must  eliminate  fissiparous tendencies and attitudes and infuse  nobler and national ideas in younger minds. His  involvement  in  national  integration  is  more  important, indeed indispensable. It is, therefore,  needless  to  state  that  teachers  should  be  subjected to rigorous training with rigid scrutiny  of efficiency. It has greater relevance to the needs  of  the  day.  The  ill-trained  or  sub-standard  teachers would be detrimental to our educational  system; if not a punishment on our children. The  government and the University must,  therefore,  take care to see that inadequacy in the training  of  teachers  is  not  compounded  by  any  extraneous consideration.”

2.3 In State of Maharashtra v. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale (1992) 4  

SCC 435, the Court said:

“The teacher plays pivotal  role in moulding the  career, character and moral fibres and aptitude  for  educational  excellence  in  impressive  young  children.  Formal  education  needs  proper  equipping of the teachers to meet the challenges  of  the  day  to  impart  lessons  with  latest  techniques to the students on secular, scientific  and  rational  outlook.  A  well-equipped  teacher  could  bring  the  needed  skills  and  intellectual  capabilities to the students in their pursuits. The  teacher is adorned as Gurudevobhava, next after  parents,  as  he  is  a  principal  instrument  to  awakening  the  child  to  the  cultural  ethos,  intellectual  excellence  and  discipline.  The  teachers,  therefore,  must  keep abreast  of  ever- changing  techniques,  the  needs  of  the  society  and to cope up with the psychological approach  to the aptitudes of the children to perform that  pivotal  role.  In  short  teachers  need  to  be  

5

6

endowed and energised with needed potential to  serve  the  needs  of  the  society.  The  qualitative  training in the training colleges or schools would  inspire  and  motivate  them  into  action  to  the  benefit  of  the  students.  For  equipping  such  trainee  students  in  a  school  or  a  college,  all  facilities  and  equipments  are  absolutely  necessary and institutions bereft thereof have no  place to exist nor entitled to recognition. In that  behalf compliance of the statutory requirements  is  insisted  upon.  Slackening  the  standard  and  judicial fiat to control the mode of education and  examining system are detrimental to the efficient  management of the education.”  

2.4 In  St.  Johns’  Teachers  Training  Institute  (for  Women),  

Madurai  v.  State  of  Tamil  Nadu (1993)  3  SCC 595,  the  Court  

observed:

“The  teacher-education  programme  has  to  be  redesigned  to  bring  in  a  system  of  education  which  can  prepare  the  student-teacher  to  shoulder  the  responsibility  of  imparting  education  with  a  living  dynamism.  Education  being closely interrelated to life the well trained  teacher can instil an aesthetic excellence in the  life  of  his  pupil.  The  traditional,  stereotyped,  lifeless and dull pattern of “chalk, talk and teach”  method  has  to  be  replaced  by  a  more  vibrant  system with  improved  methods  of  teaching,  to  achieve  qualitative  excellence  in  teacher- education.”

2.5 In N.M. Nageshwaramma v. State of  Andhra Pradesh 1986  

(Supp.) SCC 166, the Court observed:

“The Teachers Training  Institutes  are  meant to  teach  children  of  impressionable  age  and  we  

6

7

cannot  let  loose  on  the  innocent  and  unwary  children, teachers who have not received proper  and adequate training. True they will be required  to  pass  the  examination  but  that  may  not  be  enough. Training for a certain minimum period  in  a  properly  organised  and  equipped  Training  Institute  is  probably  essential  before  a  teacher  may be duly launched.”

3. We have prefaced disposal of these appeals, which are directed  

against  interlocutory  order  dated 17.12.2008 and final  order  

dated 13.03.2009 passed by the Division Bench of the Madhya  

Pradesh  High  Court  in  Writ  Petition  No.  6146  of  2008  and  

connected matters by highlighting the need for well-equipped  

and trained teachers because in the last three decades private  

institutions engaged in conducting teacher training courses /  

programmes have indulged in brazen and bizarre exploitation of  

the  aspirants  for  admission  to  teacher  training  courses  and  

ranked commercialisation and the regulatory bodies constituted  

under the laws enacted by Parliament and State Legislatures  

have failed to stem the rot. The cases filed by these institutions,  

many of whom have not been granted recognition due to non-

fulfilment of the conditions specified in the National Council for  

Teacher Education Act, 1993 (for short, ‘the 1993 Act’) and the  

Regulations framed thereunder and by the students who have  

taken admission in such institutions with the hope that at the  

7

8

end  of  the  day  they  will  be  able  to  get  favourable  order  by  

invoking sympathy of  the Court,  have choked the dockets of  

various  High  Courts  and  even  this  Court.  The  enormity  of  

litigation in this field gives an impression that implementation  

of the provisions contained in the 1993 Act and the Regulations  

framed thereunder has been acutely deficient and the objects  

sought  to  be  achieved  by  enacting  the  special  legislation,  

namely, planned and coordinated development of  the teacher  

education system throughout the country, the regulation and  

proper  maintenance  of  norms  and  standards  in  the  teacher  

education system have not been fulfilled so far.

4. Before adverting to the appellants’ grievance against the orders  

passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No.  

6146 of  2008 Subhash Rahangdale  and connected cases,  we  

consider it necessary to notice the scheme of the 1993 Act and  

the Regulations framed thereunder.

THE SCHEME OF THE 1993 ACT AND THE REGULATIONS

5.1 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  

8

9

norms and standards in the teacher education system and  

for  matters  connected  therewith,  Parliament  enacted  the  

1993 Act. The 1993 Act provides for the establishment of a  

Council  to  be  called  the  National  Council  for  Teacher  

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

powers and duties. Section 2(c) of the Act defines the term  

“council” to mean a council established under sub-section (1)  

of  Section  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  

education or teaching, nine members representing the States  

and the 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  

9

10

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  Regional  Committee  

concerned 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 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  

1

11

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. In terms of Section  

33, the Rules framed under Section 31 and the Regulations  

framed  under  Section  32  are  required  to  be  laid  before  

Parliament.  By  virtue  of  Section  34(1),  the  Central  

Government  has  been clothed with  the  power  to  issue  an  

order to remove any difficulty arising in the implementation  

of the provisions of the Act.

5.2 The relevant portions of Sections 12, 14 to 16, 17, 17-A, 18,  

20, 29 and 32 of the Act which have bearing on the decision of  

these appeals are reproduced below:  

“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—

1

12

(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;

(e)  lay  down norms for  any specified category of  courses  or  trainings  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)-(i)  * * *

(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)-(m) * * *

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

1

13

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 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 it 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:

1

14

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) * * *

(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

(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,  

1

15

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) * * *

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—

(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 - Contravention of provisions of the Act and  consequences thereof

1

16

(1) Where the Regional Committee is, on its own  motion or on any representation received from any  person, satisfied that a recognised institution has  contravened any of the provisions of  this Act, or  the  rules,  regulations,  orders  made  or  issued  thereunder,  or  any  condition  subject  to  which  recognition under sub-section (3) of section 14 or  permission under sub-section (3) of section 15 was  granted,  it  may  withdraw  recognition  of  such  recognised institution, for reasons to be recorded  in writing;

Provided that no such order against the recognised  institution  shall  be  passed  unless  a  reasonable  opportunity of making representation against the  proposed order has been given to such recognised  institution:

Provided  further  that  the  order  withdrawing  or  refusing  recognition  passed  by  the  Regional  Committee shall  come into force only  with effect  from  the  end  of  the  academic  session  next  following the date of communication of such order.

(2) A copy of every order passed by the Regional  Committee under sub-section (1),-

(a)  shall  be  communicated  to  the  recognised  institution concerned and a copy thereof shall also  be forwarded simultaneously to the University or  the examining body to which such institution was  affiliated for cancelling affiliation; and

(b)  shall  be published in the  Official  Gazette  for  general information.

(3) Once the recognition of a recognised institution  is  withdrawn  under  sub-section  (1),  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  in  accordance  with  the  order  passed  under sub-section (1), with effect from the end of  

1

17

the  academic  session  next  following  the  date  of  communication of the said order.

(4) If an institution offers any course or training in  teacher education after the coming into force of the  order  withdrawing  recognition  under  sub-section  (1),  or  where  an  institution  offering  a  course  or  training  in  teacher  education immediately  before  the  appointed  day  fails  or  neglects  to  obtain  recognition  or  permission  under  this  Act,  the  qualification  in  teacher  education  obtained  pursuant  to  such  course  or  training  or  after  undertaking  a  course  or  training  in  such  institution,  shall  not  be  treated  as  a  valid  qualification  for  purposes  of  employment  under  the Central Government, any State Government or  University,  or  in  any  school,  college  or  other  educational body aided by the Central Government  or any State Government.

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.

18 – Appeals (1) Any person aggrieved by an order made under  section 14 or section 15 or section 17 of the Act  may prefer an appeal to the Council within such  period as may be prescribed.

(2)  No appeal shall  be admitted if  it  is preferred  after the expiry of the period prescribed therefore:

Provided that an appeal may be admitted after the  expiry  of  the  period  prescribed  therefor,  if  the  appellant  satisfied  the  Council  that  he  had  sufficient  cause  for  not  preferring  the  appeal  within the prescribed period.

(3) Every appeal made under this section shall be  made in such form and shall be accompanied by a  

1

18

copy of  the  order appealed against  and by such  fees as may be prescribed.

(4) The procedure for disposing of an appeal shall  be such as may be prescribed:

Provided  that  before  disallowing  an  appeal,  the  appellant shall be given a reasonable opportunity  to represent its case.

(5) The Council may confirm or reverse the order  appealed against.  

20 - Regional Committees (1) The Council shall, by notification in the Official  Gazette,  establish  the  following  Regional  Committees, namely:--

(i) the Eastern Regional Committee;

(ii) the Western Regional Committee;

(iii) the Northern Regional Committee; and

(iv) the Southern Regional Committee.

(2)  The  Council  may,  if  it  considers  necessary,  establish  with  the  approval  of  the  Central  Government, such other Regional Committees as it  may deem fit.

(3) ***

(4) ***

(5) ***

(6) The Regional Committee shall in addition to its  functions under Sections 14, 15 and 17, perform  such other functions, as may be assigned to it by  the  Council  or  as  may  be  determined  by  regulations.

(7) The functions of, the procedure to be followed  by, the territorial jurisdiction of and the manner of  filling  casual  vacancies  among  members  of,  a  

1

19

Regional  Committee  shall  be  such  as  may  be  determined by regulations.

29 - Directions by the Central Government (1)  The  Council  shall,  in  the  discharge  of  its  functions and duties under this Act be bound by  such  directions  on  questions  of  policy  as  the  Central Government may give in writing to it from  time to time.

(2) The decision of the Central Government as to  whether a question is one of policy or not shall be  final.

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

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

(a) the time and the place of the meetings of the  Council  and  the  procedure  for  conducting  business thereat under sub-section (1) of section  7;

(b)  the  manner  in  which  and  the  purposes  for  which  persons  may  be  co-opted  by  the  Council  under sub-section (1) of section 9;

(c) the appointment and terms and conditions of  service  of  officers  and  other  employees  of  the  Council under sub-sections (1) and (2) respectively  of section 19;

(d) the norms, guidelines and standards in respect  of-

1

20

(i) the minimum qualifications for a person to be  employed as a teacher under clause (d) of section  12;

(ii) the specified category of courses or training in  teacher education under clause(e) of section 12;

(iii)  starting  of  new  courses  or  training  in  recognised institutions under clause (f) of section  12;

(iv) standards in respect of examinations leading to  teacher  education  qualifications  referred  to  in  clause (g) of section 12;

(v)  the  tuition fees and other  fees chargeable  by  institutions under clause (h) of section 12;

(vi)  the  schemes  for  various  levels  of  teachers  education,  and  identification  of  institutions  for  offering  teacher  development  programmes  under  clause (l) of section 12;

(e)  the  form  and  the  manner  in  which  an  application  for  recognition  is  to  be  submitted  under sub-section (1) of section 14;

(f) conditions required for the proper functioning of  the  institution  and  conditions  for  granting  recognition under clause (a)  of  sub-section (3) of  section 14;

(g)  the  form  and  the  manner  in  which  an  application  for  permission  is  to  be  made  under  sub-section (1) of section 15;

(h) conditions required for the proper conduct of a  new course or training and conditions for granting  permission under clause (a)  of  sub-section (3) of  section 15;

(i)  the  functions  which  may  be  assigned  by  the  Council  to  the  Executive  Committee  under  sub- section (1) of section 19;

2

21

(j)  the  procedure  and  the  quorum necessary  for  transaction  of  business  at  the  meetings  of  the  Executive  Committee  under  sub-section  (5)  of  section 19;

(k)  the  manner  in  which  and  the  purposes  for  which  the  Executive  Committee  may  co-opt  persons under sub-section (6) of section 19;

(l) the number of persons under clause (c) of sub- section (3) of section 20;

(m) the term of  office and allowances payable to  members under sub-section (5) of section 20;

(n)  additional  functions  to  be  performed  by  the  Regional  Committee  under  sub-section  (6)  of  section 20;

(o) the functions of the procedure to be followed by  the territorial  jurisdiction of, and the manner, of  filling  casual  vacancies  among  members  of  a  Regional  Committee  under  sub-section  (7)  of  section 20;

(p) any other matter in respect of which provision  is to be, or may be, made by regulations.”

6. In  exercise  of  the  power  vested  in  it  under  Section  32,  the  

National Council for Teacher Education (for short, ‘the NCTE’)  

has,  from time to  time,  framed the  regulations.  Initially,  the  

NCTE  framed  “the  National  Council  for  Teacher  Education  

(Application  for  Recognition,  the  Manner  for  Submission,  

Determination of Conditions for Recognition of Institutions and  

Permissions  to  Start  New  Course  or  Training)  Regulations,  

1995”.  In  2002,  the  NCTE framed  “the  National  Council  for  

2

22

Teacher  Education  (Form of  Application  for  Recognition,  the  

Time-Limit  of  Submission  of  Application,  Determination  of  

Norms  and  Standards  for  Recognition  of  Teacher  Education  

Programmes and Permission to Start New Course or Training)  

Regulations, 2002”.  Between 2003 and 2005, 6 amendments  

were made in the 2002 Regulations, which were finally repealed  

with  the  enactment  of  “the  National  Council  for  Teacher  

Education  (Recognition  Norms  and  Procedure)  Regulations,  

2005 (for short, ‘the 2005 Regulations’). The relevant provisions  

of the 2005 Regulations are reproduced below:

“3.  Applicability: These  regulations  shall  be  applicable  to  all  matters  relating  to  teacher  education  programmes  covering  norms  and  standards  and  procedures  for  recognition  of  institutions,  commencement  of  new  programmes  and  addition  to  sanctioned  intake  in  existing  programmes and other matters incidental thereto.

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

(2) The form can be downloaded from the Council’s  website  www.ncte-in.org,  free  of  cost.  The  said  form can also be obtained from the office of  the  Regional Committee concerned by payment of Rs.  1,000 by way of a demand draft of a Nationalised  Bank drawn in favour  of  the  Member Secretary,  

2

23

NCTE payable at the city where the office of  the  Regional Committee is located.

(3) An application can be submitted conventionally  or  electronically  on-line.  In  the  latter  case,  the  requisite  documents  in  triplicate  along  with  the  processing fee shall be submitted separately to the  office of the Regional Committee concerned. Those  who apply on-line shall have the benefit of not to  pay for the form.

7. Processing of applications (1) Applications which are complete in all respects  shall  be  processed  by  the  office  of  the  Regional  Committee concerned within 30 days of receipt of  the such applications.

(2) The applications shall be processed as under: - (i)  The  particulars  of  the  institutions  shall  be  hosted  on  the  official  website  of  the  Regional  Committee concerned of the National Council  for  Teacher Education. (ii) This will serve as an electronic communication  to  the  applicant  and  also  the  State  Government/UT  Administration  concerned  for  necessary follow up action on their part. (iii) A written communication in addition shall also  follow to the applicant. (iv) A written communication alongwith a copy of  the  application  form  submitted  by  the  institution(s) of the concerned State/U.T. shall be  sent 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  

2

24

detailed reasons/grounds thereof, which could 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) Though normally the applicant institutions will  ensure submission of applications complete in all  respects,  in  order  to  cover  the  inadvertent  omission of 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.  The  date  of  receipt  of  the  application after completion of deficiencies shall be  treated  as  the  date  of  receipt  of  the  application  complete  in  all  respects  within  the  meaning  of  Regulation 7(1).

(5)  Ordinarily,  the  inspection  of  infrastructure,  equipment,  instructional  facilities,  etc.,  of  an  institution shall  be conducted within 30 days of  completion of processing of its application by the  office  of  the  Regional  Committee  with  a  view  to  assessing  the  level  of  preparedness  of  the  institution  to  commence  the  course.  Such  inspection shall  be  in  the  chronological  order  of  the date of receipt of the completed application in  the  office  of  the  Regional  Committee  concerned.  Among the applications received on the same day,  alphabetical order shall be followed.

(6)  All  the  applicant  institutions  are  expected to  launch their own website simultaneously with the  submission  of  their  applications  covering,  inter  alia,  the  details  of  the  institutions,  its  location,  name  of  the  course  applied  for  with  intake,  availability  of  physical  infrastructure  (land,  building,  office,  classrooms,  and  other  

2

25

facilities/amenities),  instructional  facilities  (laboratories,  library,  etc.)  and the  particulars of  their  proposed  teaching  and  non-teaching  staff,  etc.  with  photographs  for  information  of  all  concerned.

(7) At the time of visit of the team of experts to an  institution, the institution concerned shall arrange  for the inspection to be videographed in a manner  that all important facilities are videographed along  with  interaction  with  the  management  and  the  staff (if available). The visiting teams shall finalize  and courier their reports alongwith the video tapes  on the same day.

(8)  The application and the  report alongwith the  video tapes of  the Visiting Team shall  be placed  before  the  Regional  Committee  concerned  for  consideration of grant of recognition or permission  to an institution in its next meeting.

(9) The Regional Committee shall decide grant of  recognition  or  permission  to  an  institution  only  after satisfying itself that the institution fulfills all  the conditions prescribed by the NCTE under the  NCTE Act,  Rules or Regulations,  including,  inter  alia,  the norms and standards laid down for the  relevant teacher education programme/course.

(10)  In  the  matter  of  grant  of  recognition,  the  Regional  Committees shall  strictly act within the  ambit  of  the  National  Council  for  Teacher  Education,  Act,  1993,  the  National  Council  for  Teacher Education Rules, 1997 as amended from  time  to  time  and  the  regulations  including  the  norms  and  standards  for  various  teacher  education  programmes  and  shall  not  make  any  relaxation thereto. The Regional Directors shall be  responsible for ensuring that the decisions of the  Regional  Committees are  not  in contravention of  the  NCTE  Act,  NCTE  Rules  and  regulations  including the norms and standards.

2

26

(11) The institution concerned shall be informed of  the decision for grant of recognition or permission  subject  to  appointment  of  qualified  faculty  members  before  the  commencement  of  the  academic session.

(12)  The  institution,  concerned,  after  appointing  the  requisite  faculty/staff,  shall  put  the  information on its official website and also formally  inform  the  Regional  Committee  concerned.  The  Regional Committee concerned shall then issue a  formal unconditional recognition order.

(13)-(14) * * *

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  the  basic  unit as prescribed in the norms & standards for  the particular teacher education programme.

(3) An institution shall  be permitted to apply for  enhancement  of  intake  in  a  teacher  education  course already approved after completion of three  academic sessions of running the course.

(4)  An institution shall  be permitted to apply for  enhancement  of  intake  in  Secondary  Teacher  Education  Programme  –  B.Ed.  &  B.P.Ed.  

2

27

Programme,  if  it  has  accredited  itself  with  the  National  Assessment  and  Accreditation  Council  (NAAC) with a grade of B+ on a nine point scale  developed by NAAC.

(5)  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 for a 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.

(6)-(9) * * *

(10) An institution shall make admission only after  it obtains unconditional letter of recognition from  the Regional Committee concerned, and affiliation  from the examining body.

(11) Whenever there are changes in the norms and  standards  for  the  course  or  training  in  teacher  education,  the  institution  shall  comply  with  the  requirements laid down in the revised norms and  standards immediately but not later than the date  of  commencement  of  the  next  academic session,  subject  to  conditions  prescribed  in  the  revised  norms.

(12)-(14) * * *”

7. Appendix-1 of the Norms and Standards for Secondary Teacher  

Education Programme leading to Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.)  

Degree, which was notified with the 2002 Regulations and was  

retained in the 2005 Regulations was amended vide notification  

2

28

dated 12.7.2006, paragraphs 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 of  

which are extracted below:  

“1.0 Preamble Teacher  preparation  course  for  secondary  education,  generally  known  as  B.Ed.,  is  a  professional  course  that  prepares  teachers  for  upper  primary/middle  level  (classes  VI-VIII),  secondary  (classes  IX-X)  and  senior  secondary  (classes XI-XII) levels.

2.0 Duration and working days

2.1 Duration B.Ed. programme shall be of a duration of at least  one academic year.

2.2 Working Days There shall be at least 200 working days exclusive  of period of examination and admission etc., out of  which  at  least  40  days  shall  be  for  practice- teaching in about ten schools at upper primary /  secondary / senior secondary level. A working day  shall  be  of  a  minimum of  6  hours  in  a  six-day  week,  during  which  physical  presence  in  the  institution  of  teachers  and  student-teachers  is  necessary to ensure their availability for individual  advice,  guidance,  dialogues  and  consultation  as  and when needed.

3.0 Intake, Eligibility and Admission Procedure

3.1 Intake There shall be a unit of 100 students divided into  two sections of 50 each for general sessions and  not more than 25 students per teacher for a school  subject  for  methods  courses  and  other  practical  activities  of  the  programme  to  facilitate  participatory teaching and learning.  

3.2 Eligibility

2

29

3.2.1 Candidates with at least 50% marks either in  the  Bachelor’s  Degree  and/or  in  the  Master’s  degree  or  any  other  qualification  equivalent  thereto,  are  eligible  for  admission  to  the  programme.

3.2.2  There  shall  be  relaxation  of  marks/reservation  of  seats  for  candidates  belonging to SC/ST/OBC communities and other  categories  as per  the  Rules  of  the  Central/State  Government/UT Administration concerned.

3.3 Admission Procedure Admission shall be made on merit on the basis of  marks  obtained  in  the  qualifying  examination  and/or in the entrance examination or any other  selection  process  as  per  the  policy  of  the  State  Government/U.T.  Administration  and  the  University.”

8. The 2005 Regulations were repealed by the National Council for  

Teacher  Education  (Recognition  Norms  and  Procedure)  

Regulations,  2007,  the  relevant  provisions  of  which  read  as  

under:

“4. Eligibility.—The  following  categories  of  institutions are eligible  for  consideration of  their  applications under these Regulations:

(1)  Institutions  established  by  or  under  the  authority  of  the  Central/State  Government/UT  administration;

(2)  Institutions  financed  by  the  Central/State  Government/UT administration;

(3) All  universities, including institutions deemed  to be universities,  so recognised under the  UGC  Act, 1956.

2

30

(4)  Self-financed  educational  institutions  established  and  operated  by  ‘not  for  profit’,  Societies  and  Trusts  registered  under  the  appropriate law.

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) The form can be downloaded from the Council's  website  www.ncte-in.org,  free  of  cost.  The  said  form can also be obtained from the office of  the  Regional Committee concerned by payment of Rs.  1000  (Rupees  one  thousand  only)  by  way  of  a  demand  draft  of  a  nationalised  bank  drawn  in  favour of the Member-Secretary, NCTE payable at  the city where the office of the Regional Committee  is located.

(3) An application can be submitted conventionally  or  electronically  online.  In  the  latter  case,  the  requisite  documents  in  triplicate  along  with  the  processing fee shall be submitted separately to the  office of the Regional Committee concerned. Those  who apply online shall have the benefit of not to  pay for the form.

(4) The cut-off date for submission of application to  the  Regional  Committee concerned shall  be 31st  October  of  the  preceding  year  to  the  academic  session for which recognition has been sought.

(5) All complete applications received on or before  31st October of the year shall be processed for the  next  academic  session  and  final  decision,  either  recognition  granted  or  refused,  shall  be  communicated  by  15th  May  of  the  succeeding  year.

3

31

* * * 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 along with a copy of  the  application  form  submitted  by  the  institution(s)  shall  be  sent  by  the  office  of  the  Regional  Committees  to  the  State  Government/UT  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  

3

32

be conducted by a team of experts called Visiting  Team (VT)  with  a  view  to  assessing  the  level  of  preparedness of  the institution to commence the  course. Inspection would be subject to the consent  of  the  institution  and  submission  of  the  self- attested copy of  the completion certificate  of  the  building.  Such  inspection,  as  far  as  administratively and 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)-(8) * * *

(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  Government/Central Government/University/UGC  or the affiliating body concerned, 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)  All  the  applicant  institutions  shall  launch  their  own  website  soon  after  the  receipt  of  the  letter  from  the  Regional  Committee  under  Regulation 7(9) covering, inter alia, the details of  the  institution,  its  location,  name  of  the  course  applied  for  with  intake,  availability  of  physical  

3

33

infrastructure  (land,  building,  office,  classrooms,  and  other  facilities/amenities),  instructional  facilities  (laboratory,  library,  etc.)  and  the  particulars  of  their  proposed  teaching  and  non- teaching  staff,  etc.  with  photographs,  for  information of all concerned.

(11) The institution concerned, after appointing the  requisite faculty/staff as per Regulation 7(9) above  and  fulfilling  the  conditions  under  Regulation  7(10)  above  shall  formally  inform  the  Regional  Committee  concerned  along  with  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)-(13) * * *

8. Conditions for grant of recognition.—(1) An  institution must fulfil all the prescribed conditions  related to norms and standards as prescribed by  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  and  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)  An institution shall  be permitted to apply for  enhancement  of  course  wise  intake  in  teacher  education  courses  already  approved,  after  

3

34

completion of three academic sessions of running  the respective courses.

(4)  An institution shall  be permitted to apply for  enhancement  of  intake  in  Secondary  Teacher  Education Programme — BEd & BPEd programme,  if  it  has  accredited  itself  with  the  National  Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) with  a Letter Grade B developed by NAAC.

(5) An institution that has been granted additional  intake in BEd and BPEd teacher training courses  after promulgation of the 2005 Regulations i.e. 13- 1-2006 shall have to be accredited itself with the  National  Assessment  and  Accreditation  Council  (NAAC)  with  a  Letter  Grade  B  under  the  new  grading  system  developed  by  NAAC  before  1-4- 2010 failing which the  additional  intake granted  shall stand withdrawn w.e.f. the academic session  2010-2011.

(6) * * *

(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/government institutions for a 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)-(9) * * *

(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  

3

35

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) * * *

(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)-(16) * * *”

The details of the petitions filed in 2007 and 2008 and the  orders passed by the High Court

9.1 One of the four Committees constituted by the Council  

under  Section  20(1)  of  the  1993  Act  is  the  Western  Regional  

Committee, which is required to perform functions under Sections  

14, 15 and 17 in relation to the States of Gujarat, Goa, Madhya  

Pradesh and Maharashtra. In the last about 15 years, the Western  

Regional Committee entertained thousands of applications made  

by private institutions for starting teacher training courses albeit  

without  ensuring  compliance  of  the  mandatory  provisions  

contained in the 1993 Act and the relevant regulations.  Some of  

these  institutions  were  started  in  commercial  premises  like  

marriage  halls  and shops,  and  in  the  existing  school  premises  

without  the  required  infrastructure  and  staff.   They  admitted  

3

36

students from different parts of the country, majority of whom did  

not  even  know  the  place  from  where  the  institutions  were  

operating.  This must have become possible because of the active  

or tacit connivance of those who were entrusted with the task of  

ensuring effective  implementation of  the  provisions of  the  1993  

Act.  When  the  Central  Government  was  apprised  of  the  

irregularities committed by the Western Regional Committee in the  

matter  of  grant  of  recognition  to  the  so-called  teacher  training  

institutions, it was decided to take necessary corrective measures.  

Therefore, the Central Government invoked the power vested in it  

under Section 29(1) of the 1993 Act and directed that henceforth  

no  recognition  be  granted  to  any  teacher  training  

institution/courses/additional  intake  by  the  Western  Regional  

Committee.   The  decision  of  the  Central  Government  was  

communicated  to  the  Chairperson  of  NCTE  vide  letter  dated  

20.8.2007, the relevant portions of which are extracted below:

“New Delhi 20th August, 2007

Government of India, Ministry of Human Resources Development Department of School Education & Literacy

The Chairperson, National Council for Teacher Education,  

3

37

I, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi   110002

Subject: Directions under Section 29 of the NCTE Act,  1993 to withhold the grant of recognition in institutions  Courses /Additional intake falling under Jurisdiction of  Western  Regional  Committee  of  National  Council  for  Teacher Education (NCTE).

Sir,

It  has  come  to  notice  of  the  department  of  school  education & Literacy that there has been uneven and  disproportionate growth in the number of recognitions  granted to various courses and institutions in the states  falling under the Western Regional Committee of NCTE  and that while granting recognition, the actual demand  of teachers in particular states has been totally ignored.

2. In  these  circumstances,  it  is  felt  appropriate  to  undertake a comprehensive review of the situation for  taking  necessary  corrective  measures.  Therefore,  as  directed by  the  competent  authority,  NCTE is  hereby  directed under section 29 of the NCTE Act, 1993 that  recognition  may  henceforth  not  be  granted  to  any  teacher training institutions/courses/ Additional intake  falling within the Jurisdiction of the Western Regional of  NCTE till a comprehensive review is made or till further  orders, whichever is earlier.

3. Necessary  instruction  to  this  order  may  accordingly  be  conveyed  to  the  Western  Regional  Committee of NCTE. A compliance report may be sent to  this Department at the earliest.

Your sincerely

(Simmi Choudhary) Deputy Secretary to Government

Govt. of India”

3

38

9.2 The NCTE sent letter dated 22.8.2007 to the Regional  

Director,  Western Regional  Committee  incorporating  therein the  

direction issued by the Central Government.  That letter reads as  

under:

“August 22, 2007

To, Dr. OVS Sikarwar,  Regional Director  Western Regional Committees  Manas Bhawar (Near Air)  Shyamala Hills,  Bhopal : 162002

Subject: Directions under Section 29 of the NCTE Act,  1993 to withhold the grant of Recognition to institutions  Courses  /Additional  intake  falling  under  the  Jurisdiction of Western Regional Committee of NCTE.

Sir,

I am directed to say that directions have been received  from the competent authority under Section 29 of the  NCTE Act,  1993 on August 21, 2007 that recognition  may henceforth not be granted to any teacher training  institutions Courses/Additional intake falling within the  Jurisdiction  of  the  Western  Regional  Committee  of  NCTE till a comprehensive service to be undertaken or  till further orders, whichever is earlier.

2. In view of the above, you are directed to ensure that  the above directions are complied with and immediate  steps are taken to ensure that no action taken for grant  of  recognition  and  also  no  meeting  of  the  Western  Regional  Committee  is  held.  The  Chairperson  and  members  of  the  Western  Regional  Committee  may  immediately be suitably informed in this regard.

3

39

Yours Faithfully, Sd/-

(V.C. Tewari) Members Secretary”

9.3 The directions issued by the Central Government were  

challenged  by  Amrit  Vidyapeeth  B.Ed.  College,  Siddhi  in  Writ  

Petition No. 14227 of 2007 filed before the Madhya Pradesh High  

Court. A large number of other private collages and institutions  

(198)  which were  desirous  of  starting  teacher  training  courses.  

They pleaded that even though the applications filed by them for  

recognition were complete in all respects and they had already got  

‘No  Objection  Certificates’  from  the  State  Government  and  

affiliation  from  the  examining  bodies,  the  Western  Regional  

Committee was not entertaining their applications because of the  

restriction  imposed  by  the  Central  Government.  All  the  writ  

petitions were dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court  

vide its order dated 29.11.2007. The Division Bench adverted to  

the  scheme of  the  1993 Act,  referred to  the  judgments  of  this  

Court in Food Corporation of India v. Bhanu Lodh (2005) 3 SCC  

618 and  State  of  Maharashtra  v.  Sant  Dnyaneshwar  Shikshan  

Shastra  Mahavidyalaya (2006) 9 SCC 1 and held that the Central  

3

40

Government has the power to issue the directions impugned in the  

writ  petitions.  The  reasons  assigned  by  the  Division  Bench for  

arriving at this conclusion are contained in paragraph 32 of order  

dated 29.11.2007, which is extracted below:

“32. Regard being had to the aforesaid pronouncements  of  law,  if  we  look  at  the  language  employed  under  section 29 of the Act we have no scintilla of doubt that  the  Central  Government  could  have  issued  such  a  direction as has been issued inasmuch as sub-section  (1) of Section 29 makes it crystal clear that the Council  is bound by such directions on questions of policy as  the Central Government may give in writing from time  to time and further sub-section (2) of section 29 lays a  postulate that the decisions of the Central Government  as to whether the question is one of the policy or shall  be final. Be it noted in the letter dated 20.8.2007 there  is mention of the fact that it has come to the notice of  school  education  and  Literacy  that  there  has  been  uneven and disproportionate growth in the number of  recognition  granted  to  various  courses  of  the  institutions  in  the  State  falling  under  the  Western  Regional  Committee  of  NCTE  and  while  granting  recognition  the  actual  demand  of  teaches  in  the  particular  State  has  been  totally  ignored.  It  is  also  perceivable from the letter that   the   Department   has  felt   is   appropriate   to   make comprehensive review  of  the  situation  for  taking  necessary  corrective  measures.  The  tenor  of  the  letter  and  the  grounds  mentioned  therein  and  keeping  in  view  the  language  employed in section 29 of the Act there can be no trace  of  doubt  that  the  Central  Government  has  taken  a  decision which by no stretch of imagination can not be  said to be a policy decision under the scheme of the Act.  It is because the purpose of  the Act is to provide for  establishment  of  a  National  Council  for  Teacher  Education  with  a  view  to  achieve  planned  and  co- ordinated development of the teacher education system  throughout the country. That apart, Regulation 4 deals  

4

41

with  eligibility  and  Regulation  8  deals  with  the  conditions  for  grant  of  recognition.  We  have  already  referred to Section 12 of the Act. In view of the object  and reasons and the role assigned to the Council and  the  power  conferred  on  the  Central  Government  we  come  to  the  irresistible  conclusion  that  the  direction  issued by the Central Government is within the ambit  and sweep of its powers and not de hors the statutory  exercise of power.”

The plea that the students who had taken admission should be  

permitted  to  appear  in  the  examination  was  rejected  by  the  

Division Bench by making the following observations:

“36. Presently to the legitimate expectation and interest,  it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners  that  the  institutions  have  given  admission  and  if  eventually the institutions are granted recognition the  students  should  be  permitted  to  appear  in  the  examination. Learned Single Judge of this Court while  passing  the  interim  order  had  clearly  stated  that  institutions may admit students provisionally  at  their  own risk without accepting fees from them and if they  accept fees from the students they would be ready to  face the consequences if the petition is decided against  them in view of the aforesaid order no equity can ever  flow in favour of the institutions. We would like to place  it  on  record  that  an  institution  which  is  desirous  of  imparting B.Ed. and M.Ed. education or introducing a  course  meant  for  teachers  is  under  obligation  to  be  aware of the provisions contained under the 1993 Act.  The  said  Act  has  been  engrafted  with  a  sacrosanct  purpose. Grant of recognition is the condition precedent  before any institution proceeds in any other matter like  affiliation  from  the  examination  body.  Whether  the  affiliation  has  to  be  granted  automatically  or  not  we  have  already  refrained  from  dwelling  upon  the  said  issue, but an onerous one, it is inconceivable how an  

4

42

institution without recognition can nurture the idea to  admit students. A day dreamer can build a castle in the  air or for that matter castle in Spain, but it is absolutely  inapposite on the part of aspirants registered bodies or  institutions  to  admit  students  and  pyramid  the  foundation  relying  on  the  bedrock  of  legitimate  expectation  that  the  students  would  be  treated  as  students who have been admitted in such institutions  in such course which are valid in law. An educational  institution has to conduct itself in an apple pie order. It  has to maintain the sacredness of the concept behind  imparting education. They are under obligation to keep  in mind that commercialization of course under 1993  Act is impermissible. Quite apart from the above it is  totally imprudent and in a way quite   audacious   to  build   a   superstructure without   an infrastructure. If  we  allow  ourselves  to  say  so,  perception  has  been  blinded and in the ultimate eventuate a cataclysm has  been unwarrantedly invited.   We  may  say  without  any  fear   of  contradiction  that  it  is  a  perceptible  deception and fraud on law Ergo. The stance that they  have  to  be  given the  benefit  of  legitimate  expectation  and their interest should be protected, is devoid of any  substance and we unhesitatingly repel the same.”

9.4 Another batch of  18 writ  petitions with the lead case  

Pitambra  Peeth  Shiksha  Prasarani  Samiti  v.  State  of  M.P.  and  

others W.P. (C) No. 15276 of 2007, filed for quashing the decision  

of the State Government to hold common entrance examination for  

admission to B.Ed. courses was disposed of by the Division Bench  

of  the  High  Court  vide  order  dated  14.12.2007.   The  Division  

Bench referred to the provisions  of the 1993 Act as well as the  

M.P.  B.Ed.  Examination  Rules,  2007,  order  dated  29.11.2007  

4

43

passed  in  Writ  Petition  No.14227  of  2007  and  batch,   took  

cognizance  of  the  fact  that  some  of  the  students  had  taken  

admissions  in  the  unrecognized  institutions  and  proceeded  to  

observe:

“….Regard being  had to  the  peculiar  facts  and  circumstances  of  the  case  and  the  nature  of  litigation  which  had  cropped  up  and  the  time  consumed we think it  appropriate to direct the  students who have taken admission in the non- recognised  colleges/institutions,  if  so  desired,  can  take  admission  in  the  recognised  institutions/colleges. The State Government and  the University shall not cause any impediment in  the same and make an endeavour to facilitate the  same  by  allotting  them to  colleges  which  have  recognition, if the students approach the Central  Agency,  the  respondent  No.3.  The  State  Government  is  directed  to  publish  the  notification within a period of seven days fixing a  date seven days thereafter so that  they can be  allotted colleges.

As far as the counseling of the candidates who  have  passed  the  entrance  examination  is  concerned,  a  date  should  be  notified  within  a  period  of  seven  days  and  counselling  be  done  within a period of seven days thereafter and the  candidates appearing in the counseling shall also  be allotted recognised colleges/institutions.”

The Division Bench rejected the petitioners’ plea for permission to  

hold college level counseling and observed:

“The  next  facet  that  requires  to  be  dealt  with  whether there should be permission for grant of  

4

44

college  level  counselling.  Submission  of  the  learned  counsel  for  the  petitioners  is  that  the  seats  should  not  lie  vacant  and  college  level  counselling should  be allowed.  It  is  urged that  the State Government has illegally introduced the  centralized counselling.  In this  context  we may  refer to clause 3.2 of NCTE Norms which reads  as under:

“3.2 Eligibility

3.2.1 Candidates  with  at  least  50% marks  either  in  the  Bachelor's  Degree  and/or  in  the  Master's  Degree  or  any  other  qualification  equivalent thereto,   are  eligible  for  admission  to  the programme.

3.2.2 There  shall  be  relaxation  of  marks/reservation  of  seats  for  candidates  belonging to SC/ST/OBC communities and other  categories as per the Rules of the Central/State  Government/UT Administration concerned.

3.3 Admission Procedure Admission shall be made on merit on the basis of  marks  obtained  in  the  qualifying  examination  and/or in the entrance examination or any other  selection process as per the policy of  the State  Government/U.T.  Administration  and  the  University."

As is demonstrable from clause 3.2 it deals with  the eligibility of a candidate and clause 3.3 deals  with  the  admission  procedure.  The  State  Government  has  taken  mode  of  common  entrance examination.  This is  a policy  decision  taken by the State Government. As is manifest,  the NCTE has deliberately introduced norms and  left it to the discretion of the State Government  and hence, holding of the entrance test cannot be  found fault with. Once the said mode has been  taken  recourse  to  the  college  level  counselling  

4

45

should not  be allowed. Therefore,  the aforesaid  submission  of  the  learned  counsel  for  the  petitioners leaves us unimpressed and we repel  the same.”

The conclusions recorded by the Division Bench of the High Court  

in the aforesaid batch of cases are extracted below:

“(a) The candidates who have taken admission  in  the  non-recognised  institutions  should  be  called by the Central Agency as well as the State  Government by notifying a date within a period of  seven days fixing a date after 7 days so that the  candidates  can  be  allotted  to  the  recognised  colleges/institutions as per norms.  

(b) The  students  who  have  qualified  in  the  entrance  examination  but  could  not  appear  in  the counselling should be called for counselling  by a date which would be notified within a period  of seven days and the said date would be after  seven days as a result of which the counselling  would become convenient.

(c) The  allotment  of  seats  should  be  made  strictly on the basis of norms keeping in view the  concept of proportionality so that the grievance is  put to rest.

(d)     The  college  level  counselling  is  not  permissible as the State Government has taken  recourse  to  the  mode  of  common  entrance  examination.”

9.5 The State of Madhya Pradesh challenged the aforesaid  

order in SLP(C) No. 3269 of 2008, etc., which were disposed of by  

this Court on 18.2.2008 in the following terms:

4

46

“It has been stated that for taking admission in  B.Ed. course within the State of Madhya Pradesh  after exhausting the State quota, 8411 seats are  lying vacant. According to the State, pursuant to  the direction of the High Court in Paragraph 19  of  the  impugned  order,  5142  seats  would  be  required to be filled up by admitting the students  but  3269  seats  in  B.Ed.  course  would  be  still  lying vacant. The State Government is directed to  take  steps  for  fresh  centralized  counselling  for  filling up all the unfilled seats in the recognized  colleges  for  which  steps  must  be  taken  within  fifteen days from today.”

9.6 One more batch of 55 writ petitions with the lead case  

Jan Seva Shiksha Samiti v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others  

W.P.  No.  12133  of  2007  was  filed  questioning  the  alleged  

interference  of  the  State  Government  in  the  matter  of  grant  of  

recognition  for  establishing  teacher  training  colleges.  In  those  

petitions, it was pleaded that the 1993 Act and the Regulations  

framed  thereunder  do  not  envisage  any  role  for  the  State  

Government  and,  therefore,  the  grant  of  recognition  cannot  be  

made conditional  on the production of ‘No Objection Certificate’  

from the State Government.  In the counter affidavit filed on behalf  

of  the  State  Government,  it  was  averred  that  in  terms  of  

Regulation 7(2)(iv) of the 2005 Regulations, it had a significant role  

in the matter of setting up of teachers training institutions and as  

4

47

such the institutions seeking recognition were bound to obtain ‘No  

Objection Certificate’.   The NCTE supported the stand taken by  

the  petitioners  and  pleaded  that  the  State  Government  cannot  

interfere  in  the  matter  of  recognition,  which  is  the  exclusive  

preserve of the Regional Committee.  The High Court referred to  

the provisions of Sections 14 to 16, 20, 21, 29 and 32 of the 1993  

Act  and  Regulations  3,  5,  6  and  7  of  the  1995  Regulations,  

different types of orders passed by Western Regional Committee  

under Section 14(1) and (3) and 15(1) of the 1993 Act for grant of  

recognition to different institutions as also the directions given by  

the Central Government under Section 29 of the 1993 Act, report  

submitted  by  the  Committee  headed  by  Mrs.  Anita  Kaul  and  

issued the following directions:

“(a) Though the letters of recognition issued by  the NCTE are couched in different phraseology in  various  cases,  yet  the  same  lead  to  one  inescapable conclusion that they are conditional  recognitions.

(b) The  conditional  recognitions  could  have  been  ripened  after  satisfying  certain  statutory  requirements  like  appointment  of  teaching  and  non-teaching  staff  and  other  conditions  enumerated/provided in regulations 7 & 8 of the  Regulations as they are conditions precedent and  relate to fundamental realm of recognition.

(c) Certain  conditions  are  relatable  to  the  institutions after they become functional but on  

4

48

that foundation it cannot be construed that the  orders of recognition are totally unconditional.

(d) The  State  Government  cannot  refuse  ‘No  Objection  Certificate’  relying  on  the  M.P.  Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyum, 1973 in view of the  decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case  of  Sant  Dnyaneshwar  Shikshan  Shastra  Mahavidyalaya (Supra).

(e) The  institutions  are  bound  to  follow  the  regulations of the NCTE and the Universities are  required  to  respect  regulations  as  they  have  overriding effect on the University statues.

(f) As  the  Union  of  India  has  interfered with  the pending applications and the present cases  do  constitute  a  hybrid  category,  it  is  apposite  that the Apex body of the NCTE shall look into  the matter from all  spectrums including calling  for recommendation from the State Government  within a specified span of time.

(g) If  the  Apex  Body  of  NCTE  grants  unconditional  recognition  the  University  shall  extend  the  benefit  of  affiliation  and  in  case  conditional  recognition is  granted by the  NCTE  the  University  shall  grant  affiliation  on  satisfaction of the conditions enumerated in the  order itself  and shall  not entrench or encroach  upon the filed by taking recourse to its Act or its  statues.

(h) The University shall be totally bound by the  conditions  imposed  in  the  order  and  shall  not  travel beyond them.

(i) The  institutions  who  have  admitted  students de hors the Act and the regulations and  admitted  students  without  proper  recognition  and affiliation cannot be extended the benefit of  equity and the students who have been admitted  

4

49

can  be  imparted  education  afresh  after  recognition and affiliation are granted.

(j)  If  the  institutions  are  eventually  granted  recognition and affiliation fees collected from the  students shall be adjust for fresh course which  would commence after recognition and affiliation.

(k)  If  the  students  do  not  intend  to  prosecute  studies in the institution they would entitled to  claim  refund  of  their  fees  and  the  institution  shall  be  bound  to  refund  the  fees  to  the  said  students on receipt of proper application, as the  institutions have admitted the students at their  own risk.”    

9.7 S.R. College of Education filed Writ Petition No. 4016 of  

2008  for  quashing  the  decision  of  the  university  not  to  grant  

affiliation on the ground that it did not have NOC from the Higher  

Education Department of  the State  Government.  The University  

took  up  the  stand  that  the  college  cannot  participate  in  the  

counseling because it did not have recognition or affiliation. The  

Division Bench of  the  High Court noticed the  judgment in Jan  

Seva Shiksha Samiti’s case and held:  

“In  view  of  the  aforesaid  the  college  could  not  have  admitted  the  students  without  affiliation  and recognition. The Apex Court by order dated  18.02.2008  directed  the  State  Government  to  take steps for centralized counseling for filling up  unfilled seats in the recognized colleges. By that  day  the  petitioner  college  was  not  recognized.  Quite apart from the above, the petitioner college  

4

50

has  not  yet  been  affiliated.  There  can  be  no  scintilla of doubt, as has been held by this Court,  a  college  which does  not  have  recognition  and  affiliation cannot admit the students. An attempt  has been made to give admission to the students  in respect of the academic session 2007-08. Their  Lordships  have  stated  to  hold  centralized  counseling for recognized colleges. As the present  institution  had  neither  got  recognition  till  21.02.2008  nor  does  it  have  the  affiliation  at  present, it cannot claim as a matter of right to  admit  the  students  and  participate  in  the  centralized  counseling.  The  recognition  granted  has to be prospective. If affiliation is granted by  the University as per the conditions enumerated  in the order of recognition and the role ascribed  to  the  Universities  by  the  NCTE  Regulations,  2005, then only the college can participate in the  centralized  counseling.  The  institution  cannot  claim that it can admit students by participating  in  centralized  counseling  for  the  academic  session  2007-08.  It  can  do  so  after  obtaining  affiliation for the academic session 2008-09.  

9.8 Akhil  Bhartiya  Shiksha  Avam  Prashikshan  

Mahavidhyalaya filed Writ Petition No. 4847 of 2008 questioning  

the  direction  given  by  the  State  Government  to  Barkatullah  

University  that  it  shall  seek  guidance  by  sending  details  and  

documents  in  respect  of  those  institutions  which had obtained  

recognition from NCTE but did not have NOC. During the course  

of hearing, learned counsel appearing for the State conceded that  

in view of the order passed in Jan Seva Shiksha Samiti’s case, the  

State was not entitled to insist upon production of the NOC from  

5

51

the State Government. After taking note of his statement, the High  

Court held:  

“16. We understand the anxiety of the petitioner  that  the  State  Government  has  issued  a  letter  circular insisting upon the NOC. That part has  already been dealt with in earlier decisions. The  competent  authority  of  the  State  Government  should not have behaved in a callous,  reckless  and  high-handed  manner  by  incorporating  the  same. The University also could have been well  advised  to  bring  it  to  the  notice  of  the  State  Government about the law in the field specially  when  both  of  them were  parties  to  the  earlier  litigation instead of following the decision of the  State Government in a mechanical manner. It is  understandable  had  the  institutions  obtained  recognition from the NCTE and faced difficulty in  getting affiliation from the University because of  insistence of the State Government for NOC in its  whim  and  fancy,  the  matter  would  have  been  different. We reiterate the legal position that the  State Government cannot insist for NOC as has  been  held  in  the  earlier  judgment,  and  we  command the  State  Government  to  modify  the  letter circular in consonance with the judgments  delivered  by  us  in  Jan  Seva  Shiksha  Samiti  (supra), S.R. College of  Science and Technology  (supra) and other connected matters.

17.  Though we have so directed,  the petitioner  remains in the state where it  was when it  last  approached this Court in the earlier writ petition.  We are really shocked how a prayer could have  been made to allow the petitioner to participate  in the  re-counseling of  B.Ed.,  without  insisting  for NOC by the State Government. The said stage  has  not  yet  come  into  existence.  A  litigant  is  supposed  to  know  whether  he  has  a  real  grievance  or  he  has  made  an  effort  to  build  a  

5

52

castle in the air. An educational institution which  is supposed to impart, education in B.Ed., course  has to have legal opinion in the field but as it  seems all norms are thrown to the winds and the  writ  petition  is  filed  by  picking  a  straw  either  from here to there. This does not help. When the  petitioner  had  approached  this  court  and  no  relief was granted and it was clearly held that all  the  institutions  would  be  governed  by  the  directions contained in paragraph 42 of Jan Seva  Shiksha Samiti (supra), it is really shocking that  such an ambitious petition, is filed. It would not  be out of place to say that the State Government  has  acted  contrary  to  the  judgments  but  the  institutions which, could have been aggrieved by  such  action  could  have  filed  the  writ  petitions  and that would have been a sanguine grievance.  But the petitioner institutions do not fall in the  said category. Under the circumstances, we are  disposed to think an ingenious effort is made to  build up an edifice to have the relief which has  already been etherized. Almost six decades back,  it was said by Agnes E. Benedict, ‘the only thing  better than education is more education,’ but the  present case demonstrates a situation where one  can say with certitude that it smells of foul play  and  drafts  out  a  mephitic  ambition.  The  institutions which are concerned with education  should have ethicality, probity, propriety, parity,  righteousness,  ability,  honesty,  rectitude  acclaimed  virtues  and  not  unnecessary  and  unwarranted excitement, glee to achieve glory in  any  mariner,  elation  at  the  cost  of  legality,  jubilation at the murder of all norms and rapture  by chartering away all normative guidelines.  

18.  In  view  of  our  aforesaid  analysis,  while  holding  that  the  State  Government  could  not  have insisted for NOC as per the law laid down in  the case of Jan Seva Shiksha Samiti (supra), we  conclude and hold that the petitioner institutions  in each case are not entitled to any relief and the  

5

53

petitions  are  dismissed.  We  may  further  state  here  that  we  would  have  imposed  exemplary  costs as it was within the special knowledge of  the petitioners that they could not have got the  relief without further action being taken by the  Apex  Body  of  the  NCTE  and  without  the  affiliation, yet we restrain from, doing so for the  present as we treat this spate of litigations as a  manifestation  of  unwarranted  and  uncalled  for  anxiety on the part of the persons who are in the  management of the said institutions.”

9.9 In Rajendra Katare Shiksha Mahavidyalaya v. State of  

M.P. and others W.P. No. 3679 of 2008 the High Court held that  

the  petitioner  cannot  make  admission  without  obtaining  

recognition from the competent authority and affiliation from the  

concerned  University.  The  High  Court  also  observed  that  

recognition and affiliation will  be prospective and any authority  

making an effort to take steps contrary to the directions given by it  

would be liable for contempt.

9.10 In Siddhi Vinayak College, Bhind v. State of M.P. and  

others W.P.  No.  1558 of  2008,  the  Division Bench of  the  High  

Court  referred  to  the  interim  directions  issued  by  the  learned  

Single Judge and observed:  

“11. The submissions of Mr. Dinesh Upadhyay,  learned counsel appearing for the petitioner are  basically  based  on  the  order  passed  by  the  

5

54

learned Single Judge. It is vehemently contended  by him that because of the interim order of this  Court, the institution has admitted the students.  The  Division  Bench  of  this  Court  had  already  dealt with the said facet. When in the final order  the relief was denied the petitioner cannot claim  any benefit on the basis of the interim order and  more  so,  when  this  Court  has  expressed,  the  opinion  that  it  was  inconceivable  how  an  institution  without  recognition  can nurture  the  idea to admit students. The imperative guidelines  for  imparting  of  training  for  180  days  are  not  disputed  before  us.  The  examination  is  scheduled,  to  be  held  in  May-June,  2008.  Recognition  has  been  granted  on  28-12- 2007/11-01-2008.  By  the  principle  of  sheer  arithmetics 180 days training is not possible and  hence, the order passed by the respondent no. 2  cannot be faulted.”

9.11 In Sheetla Shiksha Mahavidyalaya, Gwalior v. State of  

M.P.  and  others  Writ  Petition  No.  6716  of  2008  the  petitioner  

challenged the decision of the Board of Secondary Education not  

to grant affiliation. The Court noticed the affidavit filed on behalf  

of the NCTE and held that the recognition granted under the 1993  

Act is prospective and no institution can admit students without  

having recognition from the competent authority.  

9.12 Vikramaditya  Mahavidhyalaya,  Jabalpur  filed  Writ  

Petition  No.  6113  of  2008  impleading  the  Union  of  India,  the  

NCTE, Western Regional  Committee of  NCTE, the  State  of  M.P.  

5

55

and six universities of Madhya Pradesh as party respondents and  

prayed for issue of direction to the universities to withdraw the  

affiliation granted to non-deserving colleges and to restrain them  

from  declaring  the  result  of  the  students  admitted  in  such  

colleges.  It was further prayed that the universities be directed  

not to conduct the examination for the students of non-deserving  

colleges. That petition was disposed of by the Division Bench of  

the High Court vide order dated 31.7.2008.  While disapproving  

the actions of the universities to grant affiliation by overlooking  

the fact that the institutions had not complied with the mandate of  

Regulation  7(9),  (11)  and  (12),  the  Division Bench gave  several  

directions, some of which are reproduced below:  

“(a)  The  State  Government  cannot  refuse  ‘No  Objection  Certificate’  relying  on  the  M.P.  Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 in view of the  decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case  of  Sant  Dnyaneshwar  Shikshan  Shastro  Mahavidyalaya (supra).

(b)  The  institutions  are  bound  to  follow  the  Regulations of the NCTE and the Universities are  required  to  respect  the  Regulations  and  act  accordingly.

(c) The Institutions/Colleges can give admissions  only  after  they  obtain  the  order  of  recognition  from the  Regional  Committee  concerned  under  Regulation 7(I) and affiliation from the concerned  examining body.  

5

56

(d) The order of recognition is always prospective.

(e) On the basis of the order of recognition, the  institution is entitled to obtain affiliation from the  examining  body  after  fulfilling  the  criteria  mentioned in the NCTE Act and Regulations and  thereafter admit the students.

(f) The NCTE cannot pass an order of recognition  retrospectively.

(g) The order of recognition itself does not enable  the  institution  to  treat  the  recognition  as  a  blanket order and violate other requirements that  may  be  prescribed  by  the  affiliating  examining  body which is in accord with the 1993 Act and  Regulations.

(i) The State Government shall positively reply to  the Apex Body of the NCTE within a week hence,  failing which it would be presumed that it has no  recommendation to make.

(j) The universities shall forward the documents  received by them to the NCTE for verification with  regard  to  the  status  of  recognition  and  their  queries  within  a  week  hence  by  special  messengers.

(k) The Apex Body shall scrutinize the recognition  order  and  the  documents  brought  on  file  and  take  a  decision  whether  those  institutions  are  recognized  or  not.  The  said  decision  shall  be  taken within a period of  seven days therefrom,  i.e., seven days from the receipt of the documents  from the universities. The Apex Body shall also  scrutinize  the  recognitions  which  were  not  the  subject matter of the litigation before this Court  to  find  out  whether  the  said  recognitions  were  valid as per the NCTE Act and the Regulations  framed thereunder.  

(l)  The  Apex  Body  shall  communicate  to  the  universities and the State Government about the  

5

57

recognition  facet  positively  within  a  week  therefrom.

(m)  The universities  shall  scrutinize  the  norms  for the purpose of grant of affiliation in terms of  the  order  of  recognition  and  the  provisions  contained in the Regulations, regard being had to  the decisions of this Court within seven days and  issue letters of affiliation wherever justified.

(p) If any admission has already been given, the  same shall be kept in abeyance.

(q) The case of the petitioner-college shall also be  scrutinized by the Apex Body of the NCTE as well  as by the concerned university.”

The details of the orders passed in Writ Petition No. 6146 of  2008 and connected cases

10.1 Subhash  Rahangdale  filed  Writ  Petition  No.6146  of  

2008 by way of Public Interest Litigation and prayed for issue of  

direction to the NCTE, State of M.P., Barkatullah University and  

others for ensuring proper maintenance of norms and standards  

in  the  teacher  education  system  in  various  colleges  run  by  

different  educational  societies  /  entities  or  the  institutions  

financed  by  Central  /  State  Government  or  Union  Territory  

Administration  or  the  universities  including  the  deemed  

universities and self-financed educational institutions established  

and operated by non-profit making societies and trusts registered  

within the State. He prayed for appointment of an expert team of  

5

58

NCTE for conducting inspection of all the recognized institutions  

under Section 13 and 17 of the 1993 Act and also for issue of a  

direction to Western Regional Committee to take action in light of  

the report of the expert team. Another prayer made by him was for  

directing  the  universities  and  examining  bodies  not  to  take  

examination of the students who did not satisfy the conditions of  

eligibility.  

10.2 The Division Bench of the High Court passed interim  

orders  dated  14.10.2008;  23.10.2008  and  15.12.2008  and  

directed  the  NCTE  to  prepare  exhaustive  lists  of  recognized  

colleges  and  re-scrutinize  those  lists  and verify  whether  norms  

and procedures were followed at the time of appointment of faculty  

members and whether they were still continuing in the colleges.  

On 17.12.2008 the High Court passed a detailed order, paragraph  

54 of which is extracted below:

“54.  Regard  being  had to  the  aforesaid  factual  scenario we proceed to enumerate our directions  in seriatim:  

a) The students who have prosecuted studies in  the  colleges  which  have  been  cleared  by  the  NCTE are entitled to appear in the examination  for the academic session 2007-08.

5

59

b) The University Teaching Department and the  Colleges which have been cleared and have held  the examinations, the results shall be published.

c)  The  Colleges  which  have  been  cleared  and  where we have stated that affiliation should not  have  been  discontinued  and  where  a  fresh  affiliation  is  necessary  because  all  formalities  were completed if any other formalities remain to  be complied with as required by the University,  the same shall be complied with within a period  of  15  days  from the  date  of  intimation  by  the  concerned University.

d)  As  far  as other  colleges in  respect  of  which  inspection  have  carried  out  by  the  NCTE  and  have  not  been cleared,  the  inspection  shall  be  completed  on  University-wise  basis  by  20.01.2009.

e) The NCTE shall make a college-wise report and  behave like a statutory body with responsibility  by  enclosing  the  documents  so  that  it  will  be  properly appreciated.

f) The students who have prosecuted studies in  the colleges which have been cleared must have  completed the period of study as per the norms  of Regulations, 2007, i.e., 180 days. If the period  of study is found to be inadequate, the students  would  not  be  allowed  to  appear  in  the  examination.

g)  The  students  who  have  prosecuted  their  studies in UDT and Government colleges would  be  entitled  to  appear  subject  to  compliance  of  norms of Regulation 2007.

h)  The  examination  in  respect  of  aforesaid  students  shall  be  held  in  the  last  week  of  February, 2009.

5

60

10.3 Swavittiya  Ashaskiya  Mahavidyalaya  Vikas  Sangh  

challenged the  order  dated  17.12.2008 in  SLP (C)  No.  5485 of  

2009. Vidyavati College and others also challenged that order in  

SLP(C) Nos. 5486 of 2009. Initially, this Court passed an order of  

stay on 14.01.2009 but the same was modified on 19.01.2009 in  

the following terms:  

“Adjourned by two weeks.

Interim order dated 14.01.2009 is vacated.

As  regards  the  direction  for  conducting  of  examination  is  stayed  until  the  High  Court  consider the matter and pass further orders.”

10.4 Thereafter,  the  High  Court  considered  report  dated  

27.1.2009 prepared  by  the  Committee  of  the  NCTE which  had  

undertaken detailed scrutiny of the status of various institutions  

engaged in conducting teacher training courses. The Committee  

divided the institutions in the following four categories:

Category 01 Clearly recognized institutions who are recognized  and their recognition is to continue (This includes  some  cases  where  inspection  of  the  new building  constructed  is  pending  despite  application/  depositing of fee to WRC).

Category 02 Cases  recognized  upto  2007-08  and  they  are  subjected  to  proceedings  to  withdraw  the  recognition   from 2008-09 onwards.  

6

61

Category 03 Cases  which  are  to  be  recognized  from  2008-09  onwards and Universities are required to affiliate,  if not already done.

Category 04 Institutions which are not recognized during 2007- 08 due to not having staff during sessions or due  to decisions of  Hon’ble Court in Amrit Vidyapeeth  Case.

10.5 After noticing the categorization done by the Committee,  

the High Court issued the following directions:

“(i) The colleges which have been cleared by the NCTE  as they have recognition and affiliation, the students  of  said  colleges  are  entitled  to  undertake  the  examination for the academic session 2007-08.

(ii) The colleges which have been granted recognition  and  affiliation  after  the  said  academic  session  they  shall be prospective   and   would   not   have   any  retrospective applicability.

(iii) The colleges which were the parties in Amrit Vidya  Peeth (supra) and claimed to impart B.Ed, education  will be entitled to be considered for participating in the  examination for the academic session 2007-08.

(iv) The colleges/ institutions which were eligible for imparting  B.Ed.  Course  but  not  M.Ed.  Course  and  were parties in Amrit Vidya Peeth (supra) and are not  presently  cleared  by  the  NCTE  for  the  said  reason  shall be scrutinized by the NCTE for B.Ed. course and  a report in that regard be submitted on the next date  of hearing.

(v) Submission  of  Mr.  Naman  Nagrath,  learned  counsel for interveners, to the effect that the students  

6

62

who had prosecuted their studies in the colleges on  the basis of certain orders issued by the NCTE would  also  be  entitled  to  appear  in  the  examination  sans  substance inasmuch as the cases of said colleges were  rejected  in  Amrit  Vidya  Peeth  (supra)  as  there  was  actually no recognition.

(vi) The  colleges  which  have  been  cleared  after  scrutiny  as  per  the  direction  in  Jan  Seva  Shiksha  Samiti  (supra)  and  in  this  case  are  eligible  to  undertake the examination.

(vii) The  NCTE shall  not  extend  the  benefit  to  any  college  by  granting  recognition  in  a  retrospective  manner.

(viii) The institutions which have intervened and have  not been visited with the order of rejection may make representation to the NCTE for inspection or scrutiny  within a period of  one  week and the  same shall  be  done as undertaken by Mr. BD Silve, learned senior  counsel.

(ix) The colleges whose cases have been rejected for recognition may prefer an appeal under Section 18 of  the Act within a period of three weeks. Their appeals  shall  be disposed of  on merits ascribing cogent and  germane reasons.

(x) The rest of the colleges in respect of which the inspection  is  in  progress  shall  be  completed  as  undertaken by Mr. BD Silva in quite promptitude. The  inspection shall be carried out university-wise and the  report be submitted to this Court so that this Court  can  be  apprised  of  the  colleges  which  have  been  recognized and affiliated.

(xi) While  carrying  out  the  inspection  it  needs  no  special  emphasis  to  state  the  NCTE shall  keep  in  view  the  norms  and  standards  as  also  the  provisions enshrined under the Act and Regulations. It  

6

63

should  be  kept  in  mind  that  education  cannot  be  crucified, or guillotined at the alter of fancy, whim or  the propensity of a demagogue.”

10.6 Clause (3) of the above noted directions was substituted  

on 30.1.2009 with the following:

“The colleges which were parties in Amrit Vidya Peet  (supra) and claimed to impart B.Ed. education shall  not be entitled to be considered for participation in the  examination for the academic session 2007-08.”

10.7 In furtherance of the directions given by the High Court,  

the Committee of  the NCTE conducted inspection of majority of  

the  364  institutions  of  which  the  details  were  furnished  by  7  

universities  of  the  State  and  found  that  the  students  of  221  

institutions were eligible to take the examinations for  academic  

session 2007-08 and more than 55 institutions were covered by  

the directions given in Amrit Vidyapeeth and Jan Seva Shikshan  

Samiti cases.  The High Court also noted that the Committee had  

prepared a separate list of 17 colleges in respect of which some  

doubts were expressed and another list of 22 colleges which were  

not scrutinized earlier and proceeded to observe:

“In the ordinary course of things, the clearance given  by the NCTE after due inspection should have put the  controversy  to  rest,  but  unfortunately  it  is  not  so  

6

64

inasmuch as the NCTE while submitting the list has  not taken care of the earlier decisions rendered by this  Court,  despite  categorical  conclusions  and  the  said  position  was  conceded  to  by  Mr.  Brian  Da’  Silva,  learned senior counsel on earlier date of hearing. We  think it apt to clarify the position. In the case of Amrit  Vidya  Peeth  (supra),  the  institutions  did  not  have  recognition and affiliation. The Institution availed an  interim  order  to  admit  students  but  the  Division  Bench while dealing with it had not accepted the plea  of legitimate expectation. A submission was put forth  while hearing the present writ petitions that in Amrit  Vidya  Peeth  (supra),  certain  Institutions  had  recognition for B.Ed. and affiliation for the said course  by the University but had no recognition and affiliation  for M.Ed. Course. In view of the same, a recognition  and affiliation  in  respect  of  B.Ed.  course  should  be  cleared  and  the  Institutions  which  do  not  have  recognition and affiliation should not be extended the  benefit at all. The NCTE, as it appears, has scrutinized  the same taking into consideration the parameters on  that score in respect of Institutions.

We have already referred to in detail the facts of Jan  Seva  Shiksha  Samiti  (supra).  The  institutions  had  admitted the students though they had not been given  affiliation by the University.  Affiliation had not  been  given  because  they  did  not  have  unconditional  recognition  and  they  not  appointed  the  faculty  members. Keeping that in view, this Court had issued  directions which we have reproduced hereinbefore.

On a plain reading of the same, it will be clear as a  noon day that the grant of recognition and affiliation  would  be  prospective.  Thus,  the  cases  which  are  covered under  the  Jan Seva Shiksha Samiti  (supra)  and  similar  cases  cannot  be  conceived  of  having  recognition and affiliation. In Jan Seva Shiksha Samiti  (supra), this Court had clearly held that an Institution  which does not have unconditional recognition, which  includes  the  faculty  members  and  does  not  have  

6

65

affiliation, could not have admitted the students. As it  appears, the NCTE has cleared certain Colleges for the  academic  session  2007-08  by  mis-interpreting  Jan  Seva  Shiksha  Samiti  (supra).  An  institution  or  a  college which is covered by Jan Seva Shiksha Samiti  (supra), in our considered opinion, cannot be treated  to  be  recognized  and  affiliated  institution  for  the  academic session 2007-08.”

10.8 The Division Bench of the High Court observed that the  

recognition  granted  after  scrutiny  by  the  NCTE  and  the  

universities in the light of the directions given in the earlier cases  

including Vikramaditya Mahavidhyalaya’s case should be treated  

as prospective, i.e., for the year 2008-2009.  The High Court then  

referred to the schemes of Sections 14, 15 and 17 of the 1993 Act,  

Regulations 7(9), (11) and (12), 8(1), (5), (8), (10) and (11) of the  

1995 Regulations, Regulations 7(7), (9) and (11) and 8 of the 2007  

Regulations and recorded its conclusions  and directions in para  

60, which are extracted hereunder:

“(a) Section 14 (3) of the Act lays down postulates  with  regard  to  certain  parameters  for  grant  of  recognition  and  stipulates  certain  conditions  which  are  pre-conditions  and since  qua non for  grant  of  recognition  and  also  deal  with  certain  conditions which are futuristic in  nature.

(b) Unless  the  requirement  as  provided  under  Section 14 (3) of the Act are fulfilled the Western  Regional  Committee  cannot  confer  the  benefit  of  recognition.

6

66

(c) There cannot be any kind of compromise or  relaxation with regard to imperative conditions as  prescribed under sub-section 14 (3) of the Act.

(d) No  examining  body  can  grant  affiliation  unless  there  is  recognition  by  the  NCTE  as  contemplated under Section 16 of the Act.

(e) If  an educational  institution is aggrieved by  the order of refusal of recognition by the Regional  Committee it can submit a representation to the  said Committee.

(f) If  a  decision  is  taken  against  the  affected  institution  by  the  Committee,  an  appeal  can  be  preferred  under  Section  18  of  the  Act  to  the  Council,  and  said  remedies  are  alternative  and  efficacious.

(g) The  grant  of  recognition  and  benefit  of  extension  of  affiliation  are  always  prospective.  Neither the NCTE nor the University can make it  retrospective in nature.

(h) Section  14  (5)  is  relatable  only  to  the  institutions  which  were  offering  a  course  or  training  in  teacher  education  at  the  commencement of the Act.

(i) Section  17  (1)  of  the  Act  basically  and  fundamentally  deals  with  the  withdrawal  of  recognition of such recognized institutions.

(j) As  far  as  the  withdrawal  is  concerned  the  same shall  come into force only with effect from  the end of the academic session inasmuch as the  withdrawal  relates  to  an  already  recognized  institutions  and  hence,  statutory  protection  has  been granted.

6

67

(k) The  terms  “refusing  recognition”  used  in  second proviso to Section 17 (1) can alone relate to  sub-section  (1)  and  (5)  of  Section  14  to  give  a  purposeful meaning to the same and regard being  had to the scheme of provisions occurring the said  chapter.

(l) The contention that students could have been  admitted without proper recognition and affiliation  by the educational institution is sans substratum.

(m) The list of colleges which have been cleared  by the NCTE are treated as recognized institutions  under  the  Act  but  the  institution  which  are  covered on the principle of Jan Seva Shika Samit  (supra)  cannot  be  allowed  to  undertake  the  examination  for  the  academic  session  2007-08  since at the time of admitting the students they  did not have recognition in terms of Section 14 (3)  of  the  Act  and  affiliation  from  the  concerned  Universities.

(n) The students who had admitted in the said  colleges, if the said Colleges have been cleared by  the NCTE in its list, can prosecute the studies as  per the norms of the NCTE and thereafter appear  in the examination.

(o) The claim put forth by the students that they  should be equitably dealt with and be permitted to  appear  in  the  examination  keeping  in  view  the  prosecution  of  their  studies  in  such  colleges  is  negative since their studying in the unrecognized  colleges/institutions  cannot  be  regarded  as  prosecution of studies as per the norms laid down  by the NCTE and such an order would tantamount  to grant of premium to the educational institutors.

(p) If any student has felt betrayed or deceived  by educational institution it is open to him to take  appropriate steps claiming compensation.

6

68

(q) The  institutions  which  had  collected  fees  from the students for the academic Session 2007- 08 and the students are not in a position to avail  the benefit of such studies, the Colleges are under  an obligation to refund the fees and the amount  which had been collected from the students, if the  students so desired.  This is without prejudice to  the claim of the students who put forth their stand  and stance for claiming compensation.

(r) The  NCTE  shall  bifurcate  the  recognized  colleges  on  the  parameter  of  Jan  Sevan  Shiksa  Samit (supra) which are fit to undertake 2007-08  examination  on  the  basis  of  education  imparted  and other colleges which are to be recognized for  the subsequent academic session.

(s) The  institution  which  are  aggrieved  by  the  action of  refusal  or  recognition  or  withdrawal  of  recognition shall be communicated by the order by  the competent authority of the NCTE, if not done  so far, within three weeks and it would be open to  said  institutions  to  take  statutory  remedy  as  contemplated under Sections 14 and 18 of the Act.

(t) It would  be open to the institutions to put  forth  their  stand  from  all  spectrums  and  the  authorities  concerned  would  be  under  an  obligation to pass cogent and speaking order.

(u) The  educational  institutions  in  respect  of  which withdrawal of recognition is sought for, the  same has to be in accord with Section 17 (1) of the  Act and that would be as per the second proviso to  the said section.

(v) The Colleges in respect of which results have  been  published  shall  reap  the  benefit  of  such  declaration.”            

The grounds of challenge

6

69

11. The appellants have challenged the impugned orders on the  

following grounds:

(i) The  High  Court  committed  grave  error  by  

entertaining Writ  Petition No.  6146 of  2008 filed in the  

name  of  public  interest  litigation  without  making  an  

inquiry  into  the  background  of  the  petitioner  and  his  

special interest in the field of teacher education.

(ii) The  directions  given  by  the  

High Court are vitiated due to violation of the rules of  

natural  justice  because  none  of  the  appellants  was  

impleaded as party to Writ Petition No. 6146 of 2008  

and they did not get opportunity to show that they were  

duly  recognized  by  the  Western  Regional  Committee  

and  they  had  also  obtained  affiliation  from  the  

examining body or that they were eligible and entitled to  

get recognition and affiliation.

(iii) The High Court has usurped the powers vested in the  

NCTE under the 1993 Act and the Regulations framed  

thereunder  and has  issued directions  in  disregard of  

the  observations  made  by  this  Court  in  State  of  

6

70

Maharashtra  v.  Sant  Dnyaneshwar  Shikshan Shastra  

Mahavidyalaya  (supra)  that  the  NCTE  is  the  sole  

guardian and custodian of maintaining and sustaining  

the standard of teacher education.

(iv) That  the  High Court  misinterpreted the  provisions  of  

Sections 14 and 17 of the 1993 Act and the Regulations  

framed thereunder  and erroneously  assumed that  an  

order  refusing  recognition  would  operate  with  

retrospective  effect.  The  withdrawal  of  recognition  by  

the  Regional  Committee in  the  light  of  the  directions  

given by the High Court in Jan Seva Shiksha Samiti v.  

State of Madhya Pradesh (supra) should be treated as  

prospective  and  the  students  admitted  before  

withdrawal  of  recognition  should  be  held  entitled  to  

appear in the examination conducted by the examining  

body.

(v) Since  the  Government  failed  

to  fill  up  the  vacant  seats  through  the  centralised  

counselling, the appellants did not commit any illegality  

7

71

by admitting the students on the basis of institutional  

counselling.

(vi) The  2007  Regulations  are  not  retrospective  and  the  

same cannot be relied upon for refusing recognition to  

the institutions which had applied prior to the coming  

into force of those regulations.

(vii) The  students  who  had  been  admitted  prior  to  the  

decisions of the cases referred to in the impugned order  

cannot be denied the right to appear in the examination  

to  be  conducted  by  the  competent  body  and  the  

respondents  are  duty  bound  to  declare  the  result  of  

those who have already appeared in the examination.

12. In furtherance of the liberty given by the Court the counsel  

for the appellants filed written submissions on behalf of  self-

financed private B.Ed. institutions, the salient features of the  

written submissions are:

(i.) The State Government had failed to fill up the vacant seats  

and only  very  few students  had been admitted through  

centralized counselling. It had also not prescribed a cut off  

mark for the pre-B.Ed. examination for 2007-08. Even the  

7

72

students  who  secured  zero  marks  were  allotted  to  the  

colleges through centralised counselling. In view of this,  

the  appellants  made  provisional  admissions  for  the  

approved  intake  and in  light  of  the  minimum eligibility  

prescribed by the  NCTE norms.  It  was very difficult  for  

private  unaided  institutions  to  maintain  the  

infrastructure,  staff  and other  requirement as stated by  

the NCTE without the students.

(ii.) The  State  Government  failed  to  fill  up  vacant  seats  for  

2007-08  even  though  it  was  directed  to  do  so  by  the  

Supreme Court vide order dated 18.2.2008 in SLP (C) No.  

3269/2008 “State of MP v. PP Prasarsarni Samiti & rs.”  

and order dated 7.3.2008  passed in IA No. 5 in SLP (C)  

No. 17093 of 2007.

(iii.) The respondents should be directed to declare the result of  

the  students  who  were  provisionally  admitted  and were  

allowed to take part in the examination pursuant to the  

interim orders passed by the High Court and the Supreme  

Court.

7

73

(iv.) In its affidavit dated 24.7.2010 the NCTE has treated as  

valid the recognition granted to various institutions for the  

session 2007-08 and has also stated that the withdrawal  

of  recognition  under  Section  17  of  the  1993 Act  would  

operate  prospectively  and would not  affect  the  students  

already admitted.

(v.) Some of the petitioners have not been granted affiliations  

by their respective Universities for academic session 2007-

08,  although  requisite  fee  has  been  accepted  for  this  

academic session. The practice in some of the Universities  

have been that once the affiliation order is granted for a  

particular session, then the requisite fee has been asked to  

pay but without issuing any affiliation order. In fact, this  

situation is beyond the control of the institutions seeking  

affiliations.  

13. In paragraph 8 of the written submissions, it has been stated  

that the self-financed private B.Ed. colleges undertake not to  

admit  any  student  in  future  except  through  centralised  

counselling for any of the academic session.

7

74

14. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Madhya  

Pradesh  in  SLP(C)  No.  14020/2009  and  other  SLPs,  the  

following significant averments have been made:

(i.) The controversy before the High Court was only in relation  

to  the  academic  session  2007-2008  and  not  for  the  

academic sessions 2005-2006,  2006-2007 or  2008-2009  

and  all  the  universities  had  already  conducted  

examinations  for  the  academic  sessions  2005-2006 and  

2006-2007.  

(ii.) The appellants have deliberately flouted all the rules and  

regulations  and  admitted  students  for  the  academic  

session 2007-2008 at their own level and not through the  

centralized counseling and even those students who did  

not  pass Pre-B.Ed. Examination 2007 were admitted by  

the institutions on their own by taking advantage of the  

conditional interim order dated 13.9.2007 passed in Writ  

Petition No. 12889 of 2007.  

(iii.) The appellants cannot  seek a direction in the matter of  

students admitted for the Sessions 2005-06, 2006-07 and  

2008-09 and no direction may be issued for declaring the  

7

75

result of the students admitted for the Sessions 2005-06  

and 2006-07. More so because the admissions were made  

by the private institutions for the Session 2008-09 in total  

disregard of the orders passed by the High Court.  

15. In the counter affidavits filed by Rani Durgawati University,  

Jabalpur,  Barkatullah University,  Bhopal and Dr. Hari  Singh  

Gour University, Sagar in SLP(C) No. 35300/2009, it has been  

pleaded  that  the  appellants  deliberately  flouted  the  rules  

relating to admission and admitted the students de hors the  

procedure  contained  in  Annexure  1  appended  to  the  

Regulations and the interim order passed by the High Court on  

13.9.2007. A large number of students were admitted without  

passing  the  entrance  examination  conducted  in  2007  and  

without  appearing  for  centralized  counselling.  Barkatullah  

University had allotted 25256 students to different institutions  

through centralized  counseling  held  for  the  Session  2007-08  

but 28106 appeared in the examinations in furtherance of the  

interim orders passed by the Courts.

CONSIDERATION

16. In the light of the above, we shall first consider whether the  

High Court committed an error by entertaining the writ petition  

7

76

filed by Subhash Rahangdale as public interest litigation.  This  

Court  has,  time  and  again,  laid  down guiding  principles  for  

entertaining petitions filed in public interest. However, for the  

purpose of deciding the appellants’ objection it is not necessary  

to advert to the plethora of precedents on the subject because  

in State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal (2010) 3 SCC  

402,  a  two-Judge  Bench  discussed  the  development  of  law  

relating to public interest litigation and reiterated that before  

entertaining such petitions, the Court must feel satisfied that  

the  petitioner  has  genuinely  come forward to  espouse public  

cause and his litigious venture is  not guided by any ulterior  

motive or is not a publicity gimmick.  In paragraphs 96 to 104,  

the Bench discussed Phase-III of the public interest litigation in  

the context of transparency and probity in governance, referred  

to the judgments in Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1998) 1  

SCC 226, Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India  

(2003) 7 SCC 532, Rajiv Ranjan Singh “Lalan” (VIII) v. Union of  

India (2006) 6 SCC 613, M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (2007) 1  

SCC 110, M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (2008) 1 SCC 407 and  

observed:

7

77

“These are some of the cases where the Supreme Court  and the  High Courts  broadened the  scope of  public  interest  litigation  and  also  entertained  petitions  to  ensure  that  in  governance  of  the  State,  there  is  transparency  and  no  extraneous  considerations  are  taken  into  consideration  except  the  public  interest.  These  cases  regarding  probity  in  governance  or  corruption in public life dealt with by the courts can  be  placed  in  the  third  phase  of  public  interest  litigation.”

17. Reference also deserves to be made to the judgment of the  

three-Judge Bench in Shivajirao Nilangekar Patil v. Dr. Mahesh  

Madhav Gosavi (1987) 1 SCC 227 in which a new dimension  

was  given  to  the  power  of  the  Superior  Courts  to  make  

investigation into the issues of public importance even though  

the petitioner may have moved the Court for vindication of a  

private interest. In that case the High Court had entertained a  

writ  petition  filed  by  Assistant  Medical  Officer  of  K.E.M.  

Hospital, Bombay questioning the assessment of answer sheets  

of the Post Graduate Medical Examinations held by the Bombay  

University  in  October  1985.   He  alleged  malpractices  in  the  

evaluation of the answer sheets of the daughter of the appellant  

who, at the relevant time, was Chief Minister of the State.  The  

learned Single Judge held that altering and tampering of  the  

grade sheets was done by Dr. Rawal at the behest of the Chief  

7

78

Minister.  The Division Bench affirmed the order of the learned  

Single  Judge  with  some  modification.   While  rejecting  the  

objection raised on behalf of the appellant that the writ petition  

filed by the respondent cannot be treated as a petition filed in  

public interest, this Court observed:

“The  allegations  made  in  the  petition  disclose  a  lamentable  state  of  affairs  in  one  of  the  premier  universities of India. The petitioner might have moved  in his private interest but enquiry into the conduct of  the examiners of the Bombay University in one of the  highest  medical  degrees  was  a  matter  of  public  interest. Such state of affairs having been brought to  the notice of the Court, it was the duty of the Court to  the  public  that  the  truth  and  the  validity  of  the  allegations  made  be  inquired  into.  It  was  in  furtherance of public interest that an enquiry into the  state of affairs of public institution becomes necessary  and private litigation assumes the character of public  interest  litigation  and  such  an  enquiry  cannot  be  avoided  if  it  is  necessary  and  essential  for  the  administration of justice.”

(emphasis supplied)

18. What the respondent had done by filing the writ petition was to  

highlight  grave  irregularities  committed  by  the  Western  

Regional Committee of NCTE in granting recognition to private  

institutions  who  did  not  fulfill  the  mandatory  conditions  

relating  to  financial  resources,  accommodation,  library,  

laboratory and other physical infrastructure and qualified staff  

7

79

and admitted students who had either not passed the entrance  

test  or  had  not  appeared  for  the  centralised  counselling  

conducted  under  the  directions  issued  by  the  State  

Government. The respondent derived support from the orders  

passed by the High Court in various cases. The statement made  

by Shri Hasib Ahmad, Member Secretary, NCTE, who appeared  

before this Court on 21.7.2010, that effective steps have been  

taken after discovery of irregularities in the grant of recognition  

to various private colleges in the State of Madhya Pradesh and  

other  States  falling  within  the  Western  Region  also  gives  

credence to the respondents’ assertion that all was not well with  

the Western Regional Committee.  In the pleadings filed before  

this  Court,  the  appellants  have  not  suggested  that  the  

respondents had filed the writ petition to settle score with any  

institution or with some ulterior motive.  Learned counsel for  

the  appellants  also  did  not  make  any  such  argument.  

Therefore,  it  cannot  be  said  that  the  High  Court  committed  

error by entertaining the writ petition and ordering an inquiry  

into the allegations of irregularities committed in the matter of  

recognition  and affiliation  of  self-financed private  institutions  

and admission of the students by such institutions. If the High  

7

80

Court had not ordered re-scrutiny of the recognition/affiliation  

granted to the private institutions, the irregularities committed  

by Western Regional Committee may never have seen the light  

of the day and we do not see any reason to nullify the exercise  

undertaken by the High Court to ensure that the provisions of  

the  1993  Act  and  the  Regulations  thereunder  are  strictly  

followed by the authorities entrusted with the task of granting  

recognition  and  affiliation  to  the  institutions  and  colleges  

engaged in conducting teacher training courses.

19. The next question, which merits consideration is whether the  

impugned order is contrary to the rules of natural justice, i.e.,  

audi alteram partem.  In this context, it is apposite to note that  

in  the  impugned  order,  the  High  Court  has  not  discussed  

eligibility  or  entitlement  of  any  particular  institution  to  get  

recognition  or  affiliation.   What  High  Court  has  done  is  to  

interpret  the  relevant  statutory  provisions  in  light  of  the  

judgments of this Court and orders passed by it in other writ  

petitions.  After examining the provisions of the 1993 Act and  

the  Regulations,  the  High Court  held  that  sub-section (3)  of  

Section  14  and  clauses  of  Regulations  7  and  8  of  the  

Regulations are mandatory and that recognition can be granted  

8

81

to an institution intending to undertake teacher training course  

only if the mandatory conditions are fulfilled.  The High Court  

also held that  the examining body cannot grant affiliation to  

any institution unless it is recognized by the NCTE.  The High  

Court  highlighted  the  distinction  between  refusal  to  grant  

recognition  under  Section  14(3)(b)  and  withdrawal  of  the  

recognition  under  Section  17  and  held  that  any  person  

aggrieved by the decision of the competent authority refusing to  

grant recognition or to withdraw the recognition already granted  

is  entitled  to  avail  remedy  of  appeal.  In  our  view,  the  

conclusions  recorded  by  the  High  Court  and  the  directions  

contained in the impugned order are of general application and  

do not target any particular college or institution.  Therefore,  

the appellants cannot be heard to make a grievance that the  

impugned order is violative of the rules of natural justice.

20. We shall  now examine whether the State  Government has  

any  say  in  the  matter  of  grant  of  recognition  to  the  private  

institutions desirous of conducting teacher training courses.  In  

this context, it will be appropriate to notice Regulation 7(2) and  

(3) of the 2005 and 2007 Regulations, which lay down that a  

copy  of  the  application  form  submitted  by  the  institution(s)  

8

82

shall  be sent  by the  office  of  the Regional  Committee to the  

State  Government/Union  Territory  Administration  concerned  

and the latter shall furnish its recommendations within 60 days  

from  receipt  of  the  copy  of  the  application.  If  the  State  

Government/Union  Territory  Administration  does  not  make  

favourable  recommendations,  then  it  is  required  to  provide  

detailed  reasons/grounds  with  necessary  statistics.  While  

deciding  the  application  made  for  recognition,  the  Regional  

Committee is duty bound to consider the recommendations of  

the State Government / UT Administration.  The last portion of  

Regulation 7(3)  contains  a  deeming provision and lays  down  

that  if  no  communication  is  received  from  the  State  

Government/Union  Territory  Administration  within  60  days,  

then  it  shall  be  presumed  that  the  concerned  State  

Government/Union  Territory  Administration  has  no  

recommendation to make.  The rationale of these provisions is  

discernable from the guidelines issued by the NCTE vide letter  

dated  2.2.1996,  the  relevant  portions  of  which are  extracted  

below:

“1.  The  establishment  of  teachers’  training  institutions by Government, private managements or  any  other  agencies  should  largely  be  determined  by  

8

83

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  

8

84

education  of  the  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 a 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  

8

85

demonstration  school  where  innovative  and  experimental  approaches can be demonstrated could  be given preference.”

21. The question whether the State Government has any role in  

the matter of grant of recognition to the private institutions who  

want to conduct teacher training course was considered in St.  

Johns Teachers Training Institute v. Regional Director, NCTE  

(2003) 3 SCC 321.  The Court noticed Section 14(3) of the 1993  

Act  and Regulation 5(e)  and (f)  of  the  2002 Regulations  and  

observed:

“Sub-section (3) of Section 14 casts a duty upon the  Regional  Committee  to  be satisfied with regard to  a  large  number  of  matters  before  passing  an  order  granting recognition to an institution which has moved  an  application  for  the  said  purpose.  The  factors  mentioned in sub-section (3) are that the institution  has  adequate  financial  resources,  accommodation,  library,  qualified  staff,  laboratory  and  that  it  fulfils  such other conditions required for proper functioning  of  the institution for a course or training in teacher  education as may be laid down in the Regulations. As  mentioned  earlier,  there  are  only  four  Regional  Committees in the whole country and, therefore, each  Regional Committee has to deal with applications for  grant of recognition from several States. It is therefore  obvious  that  it  will  not  only  be  difficult  but  almost  impossible for the Regional Committee to itself obtain  complete particulars and details of financial resources,  accommodation, library, qualified staff, laboratory and  other conditions of the institution which has moved an  application  for  grant  of  recognition.  The  institution  may  be  located  in  the  interior  of  the  district  in  a  

8

86

faraway  State.  The  Regional  Committee  cannot  perform such Herculean task and it has to necessarily  depend upon some other agency or body for obtaining  necessary  information.  It  is  for  this  reason that  the  assistance of the State Government or Union Territory  in  which  that  institution  is  located  is  taken  by  the  Regional Committee and this is achieved by making a  provision  in  Regulations  5(  e  )  and  (  f  )  that  the    application  made  by  the  institution  for  grant  of  recognition has to be accompanied with an NOC from  the State or Union Territory concerned. The impugned  Regulations  in  fact  facilitate  the  job  of  the  Regional  Committees in discharging their responsibilities.”

(emphasis supplied)

While rejecting the plea that no guidelines had been laid down for  

the State Government to make recommendations in terms of the  

relevant  Regulations,  the  Court  referred  to  guidelines  dated  

2.2.1996  issued  by  the  NCTE  to  the  State  Governments  and  

observed:

“A  perusal  of  the  guidelines  would  show  that  while  considering  an  application  for  grant  of  an  NOC the  State  Government  or  the  Union  Territory  has  to  confine itself  to the matters enumerated therein like  assessed need for trained teachers, preference to such  institutions  which  lay  emphasis  on  preparation  of  teachers  for  subjects  like  Science,  Mathematics,  English etc.  for  which trained teachers are  in  short  supply  and  institutions  which  propose  to  concern  themselves  with  new  and  emerging  specialities  like  computer education, use of electronic media etc. and  also  for  speciality  education  for  the  disabled  and  vocational  education  etc.  It  also  lays  emphasis  on  establishment of institutions in tribal and hilly regions  

8

87

which  find  it  difficult  to  get  qualified  and  trained  teachers and locations which have catchment area in  terms  of  schools  of  different  levels  where  student  teachers can be exposed to demonstration lessons and  can  undertake  practice  teaching.  Para  8  of  the  guidelines  deals  with  financial  resources,  accommodation, library and other infrastructure of the  institution which is  desirous of  starting a  course  of  training and teacher education. The guidelines clearly  pertain to the matters enumerated in sub-section (3) of  Section  14  of  the  Act  which  have  to  be  taken  into  consideration  by  the  Regional  Committee  while  considering the application for granting recognition to  an  institution  which  wants  to  start  a  course  for  training in teacher education. The guidelines have also  direct nexus to the object of the Act, namely, planned  and  coordinated  development  of  teacher  education  system  and  proper  maintenance  of  norms  and  standards.  It  cannot,  therefore,  be  urged  that  the  power  conferred  on  the  State  Government  or  Union  Territory, while considering an application for grant of  an NOC, is an arbitrary or unchannelled power. The  State  Government  or  the  Union  Territory  has  to  necessarily  confine itself  to  the guidelines issued by  the Council while considering the application for grant  of  an NOC.  In case  the  State  Government  does  not  take  into  consideration  the  relevant  factors  enumerated in sub-section (3) of Section 14 of the Act  and the guidelines issued by the Council or takes into  consideration  factors  which  are  not  relevant  and  rejects the application for grant of an NOC, it will be  open  to  the  institution  concerned  to  challenge  the  same  in  accordance  with  law.  But,  that  by  itself,  cannot be a ground to hold that the Regulations which  require  an  NOC  from  the  State  Government  or  the  Union Territory are ultra vires or invalid.”

22. In Government of Andhra Pradesh v. J.B. Educational Society  

(2005) 3 SCC 212, this Court considered the question whether  

8

88

the  provision  contained  in  Section  20(3)(a)(i)  of  the  Andhra  

Pradesh  Education  Act,  1982  under  which  obtaining  of  

permission of the State Government was made sine qua non for  

establishing  an  institution  for  technical  education  was  ultra  

vires  the  provisions  of  the  All  India  Council  for  Technical  

Education Act, 1987 and the Regulations framed thereunder.  

While  rejecting  the  challenge,  this  Court  referred  to  Articles  

245, 246 and 254(2) and Entries 66 of List I and 25 of List III of  

the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution and observed:  

“The  provisions  of  the  AICTE  Act  are  intended  to  improve  technical  education  and  the  various  authorities under the Act have been given exclusive  responsibility  to  coordinate  and  determine  the  standards of higher education. It is a general power  given  to  evaluate,  harmonise  and  secure  proper  relationship  to  any  project  of  national  importance.  Such a  coordinate  action in  higher  education with  proper  standard  is  of  paramount  importance  to  national progress. Section 20 of the A.P. Act does not  in  any  way  encroach  upon  the  powers  of  the  authorities  under  the  Central  Act.  Section 20 says  that the competent authority shall, from time to time,  conduct a survey to identify the educational needs of  the locality under its jurisdiction notified through the  local  newspapers  calling  for  applications  from  the  educational  agencies.  Section  20(3)(a)(i)  says  that  before permission is granted, the authority concerned  must  be  satisfied  that  there  is  need  for  providing  educational facilities to the people in the locality. The  State  authorities  alone  can  decide  about  the  educational  facilities  and  needs  of  the  locality.  If  there are more colleges in a particular area, the State  

8

89

would not be justified in granting permission to one  more  college  in  that  locality.  Entry  25  of  the  Concurrent List gives power to the State Legislature  to  make  laws  regarding  education,  including  technical education. Of course, this is subject to the  provisions  of  Entries  63,  64,  65  and  66  of  List  I.  Entry 66 of List I to which the legislative source is  traced  for  the  AICTE  Act,  deals  with  the  general  power of Parliament for coordination, determination  of standards in institutions for higher education or  research  and  scientific  and  technical  educational  institutions  and  Entry  65  deals  with  the  union  agencies and institutions for professional, vocational  and  technical  training,  including  the  training  of  police  officers,  etc.  The  State  has  certainly  the  legislative  competence  to  pass  the  legislation  in  respect  of  education  including  technical  education  and  Section  20  of  the  Act  is  intended  for  general  welfare  of  the  citizens  of  the  State  and  also  in  discharge  of  the  constitutional  duty  enumerated  under Article 41 of the Constitution.

The  general  survey  in  various  fields  of  technical  education contemplated under Section 10(1)(a) of the  AICTE Act is not pertaining to the educational needs  of  any  particular  area  in  a  State.  It  is  a  general  supervisory  survey  to  be  conducted  by  the  AICTE  Council, for example, if any IIT is to be established in  a  particular  region,  a  general  survey  could  be  conducted and the Council can very much conduct a  survey regarding the location of that institution and  collect  data  of  all  related  matters.  But  as  regards  whether a particular educational institution is to be  established in a particular area in a State, the State  alone would be competent to say as to where that  institution should be established. Section 20 of the  A.P. Act and Section 10 of the Central Act operate in  different  fields  and we  do not  see any repugnancy  between the two provisions.”

8

90

23. In  State  of  Maharashtra v.  Sant  Dnyaneshwar  Shikshan  

Shastra  Mahavidyalaya  (supra),  this  Court  considered  the  

provisions of the 1993 Act and the 2002 Regulations and held:

“In  the  instant  case,  admittedly,  Parliament  has  enacted the 1993 Act, which is in force. The preamble  of  the  Act  provides  for  establishment  of  National  Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) with a view to  achieving planned and coordinated development of the  teacher-education system throughout the country, the  regulation  and  proper  maintenance  of  norms  and  standards  in  the  teacher-education  system  and  for  matters connected therewith. With a view to achieving  that  object,  the  National  Council  for  Teacher  Education has been established at four places by the  Central Government. It is thus clear that the field is  fully and completely occupied by an Act of Parliament  and covered by Entry 66 of List I of Schedule VII. It is,  therefore,  not  open  to  the  State  Legislature  to  encroach upon the said field. Parliament  alone could  have exercised the power by making appropriate law.  In  the  circumstances,  it  is  not  open  to  the  State  Government  to  refuse  permission relying  on a  State  Act or on “policy consideration”.”

The  Court  also  observed  that  it  is  for  the  NCTE  to  deal  with  

applications for establishing new B.Ed. colleges or allowing any  

increase in intake capacity keeping in view the 1993 Act and it is  

neither  open  to  the  State  Government  nor  to  a  university  to  

consider  the  local  conditions  or  apply  State  policy  for  refusing  

such permission.  The Court also referred to the earlier judgment  

in  St.  Johns  Teachers  Training  Institute  v.  Regional  Director,  

9

91

NCTE (supra)  and observed that  once  the  decision is  taken by  

NCTE, it has to be implemented by all authorities in the light of  

the provisions of the 1993 Act and the law declared by this Court.

24. Recently,  the  same  question  was  considered  in  National  

Council  for  Teacher  Education  v.  Shri  Shyam  Shiksha  

Prashikshan Sansthan (2011) 3 SCC 238.  After noticing the  

guidelines  issued  by  the  NCTE  on  2.2.2006  and  various  

judgments including those referred to hereinabove, this Court  

observed:

“The  consultation  with  the  State  Government/Union  Territory  Administration  and  consideration  of  the  recommendations/suggestions  made  by  them  are  of  considerable importance. The Court can take judicial  notice of the fact that majority of the candidates who  complete  BEd  and  similar  courses  aspire  for  appointment  as  teachers  in  the  government  and  government-aided  educational  institutions.  Some  of  them do get appointment against the available vacant  posts, but a large number of them do not succeed in  this venture because of non-availability of posts. The  State  Government/Union  Territory  Administration  sanctions the posts keeping in view the requirement of  trained  teachers  and  budgetary  provisions  made  for  that  purpose.  They  cannot  appoint  all  those  who  successfully  pass  BEd  and  like  courses  every  year.  Therefore, by incorporating the provision for sending  the  applications  to  the  State  Government/Union  Territory  Administration  and  consideration  of  the  recommendations/suggestions, if  any made by them,  the Council has made an attempt to ensure that as a  result of grant of recognition to unlimited number of  

9

92

institutions to start BEd and like courses, candidates  far in excess of the requirement of trained teachers do  not become available and they cannot be appointed as  teachers. If, in a given year, it is found that adequate  numbers  of  suitable  candidates  possessing  the  requisite  qualifications  are  already available  to  meet  the  requirement  of  trained  teachers,  the  State  Government/Union  Territory  Administration  can  suggest to the Regional Committee concerned not to  grant recognition to new institutions or increase intake  in the existing institutions. If the Regional Committee  finds  that  the  recommendation  made  by  the  State  Government/Union Territory Administration is based  on valid grounds, it can refuse to grant recognition to  any new institution or entertain an application made  by an existing institution for increase of intake and it  cannot  be said that  such decision is  ultra vires  the  provisions of the Act or the Rules.”

25. The above survey of  precedents makes it  clear  that  under  

Regulation 7(2) and (3), the State Government/Union Territory  

Administration  is  entitled  to  make  recommendations  on  the  

application  made  for  grant  of  recognition  and  the  same  are  

required to be considered by the concerned Regional Committee  

before taking a final decision on the application.

26. Learned counsel for the appellants did not seriously contest  

the position that the provisions contained in Sections 14(3) and  

15(3)  read  with  Regulation  7(2),  (3),(4),  (5)  and  (9)  are  

mandatory  and  the  Regional  Committee  cannot  grant  

recognition unless it is satisfied that the applicant has fulfilled  

9

93

the mandatory conditions prescribed in the 1993 Act and the  

Regulations.  They also did not dispute that in view of Section  

16, examining body cannot grant affiliation, whether provisional  

or  permanent  to  any  institution  or  hold  examination  for  the  

courses of training conducted by a recognized institution unless  

the  institution  concerned  has  obtained  recognition  under  

Section 14 or permission for a course or training under Section  

15.  What  needs  to  be  emphasised  is  that  no  

recognition/permission  can  be  granted  to  any  institution  

desirous  of  conducting  teacher  training  course  unless  the  

mandatory conditions enshrined in Sections 14(3) or 15(3) read  

with the relevant clauses of  Regulations 7 and 8 are fulfilled  

and that in view of the negative mandate contained in Section  

17A read with Regulation 8(10), no institution can admit any  

student unless it has obtained unconditional recognition from  

the  Regional  Committee  and  affiliation  from  the  examining  

body.

27. The  next  issue  which  requires  examination  is,  whether  the  

private  institutions  could have  made admissions  de hors the  

entrance examination conducted by the State Government.  The  

High  Court  has  answered  this  question  in  the  negative  by  

9

94

relying upon the admission procedure contained in para 3.3 of  

Appendix-I,  which  contains  the  Norms  and  Standards  for  

Secondary Teachers Education Programme. The appellants have  

not questioned the vires of the admission procedure.  Therefore,  

they cannot contend that they were entitled to admit students  

de hors the list prepared on the basis of entrance examination  

conducted under the directions of the State Government.  

28. The question which remains to be considered is, whether the  

students who had taken admission in unrecognized institutions  

or the institutions which had not been granted affiliation by the  

examining body have the right to appear in the examination and  

whether the Court can issue a mandamus for declaration of the  

result  of  such students simply because they were allowed to  

provisionally  appear in the  examination in compliance of  the  

interim orders passed by the High Court and/or this Court. An  

ancillary  question,  which  would  require  consideration  is,  

whether the students who had not completed the requirement  

of  minimum  teaching  days  were  entitled  to  appear  in  the  

examination and a direction can be given for declaration of their  

result.

9

95

29. A somewhat similar question was considered in A.P. Christians  

Medical Educational Society v.  Government of Andhra Pradesh  

(1986) 2 SCC 667.  In that case, one Professor C.A. Adams, who  

was  signatory  to  the  Memorandum  of  Association  of  the  

appellant-society created fake documents for starting a medical  

college  for  Christian  students  at  Vikarabad  in  Rangareddy  

district  of  Andhra  Pradesh.   When  the  appellant  sought  

affiliation  with  Osmania  University,  the  latter  made  some  

queries and asked for certain documents.  The appellant did not  

furnish  the  requisite  information  and  documents.  In  the  

meanwhile, 60 students were admitted in the first year MBBS  

course.  In  July  1985,  the  Government  of  Andhra  Pradesh  

informed  the  appellant  that  permission  to  start  a  private  

medical  college  was not  granted  in  view of  the  policy  of  the  

Government  of  India  and  Medical  Council  of  India.   The  

appellant then filed a writ petition before the High Court, which  

was dismissed in limine by a speaking order.  Before this Court,  

it was contended that the appellant was a minority institution  

and, as such, it was not required to take permission for starting  

a medical college.  This Court negatived the appellant’s plea and  

confirmed the order passed by the High Court.  While dealing  

9

96

with the question, whether the students who had already been  

admitted by the appellant should be allowed to participate in  

the  examination  conducted  by  the  University,  this  Court  

observed:

“We do not think that we can possibly accede to the  request  made  by  Shri  Venugopal  on  behalf  of  the  students. Any direction of the nature sought by Shri  Venugopal  would  be  in  clear  transgression  of  the  provisions of the University Act and the regulations of  the  University.  We  cannot  by  our  fiat  direct  the  University to disobey the statute to which it owes its  existence and the regulations made by the University  itself. We cannot imagine anything more destructive  of  the rule of  law than a direction by the court to  disobey the laws.”

(emphasis supplied)

30. In  N.M.  Nageshwaramma v.  State  of  Andhra Pradesh,  (1986)  

Supp. SCC 166, this Court considered the question whether the  

students  admitted  by  the  private  teacher  training  institutes  

which had not been granted permission and recognition under  

the  Andhra  Pradesh  Education  Act,  1982  were  entitled  to  

appear  in  the  examination  and  answered  the  same  in  the  

following words:

“One  of  the  writ  petitions  before  us  (Writ  Petition  12697 of  1985)  was filed by a student claiming to  have  undergone  training  in  one  of  the  privately  

9

97

managed institutes. It was argued that the students  of the institute in which she had undergone training  were  permitted  in  previous  years  to  appear  at  the  Government  examination  and  as  in  previous  years  she may be allowed to appear at the examination this  year. A similar request was made by Shri Garg that  the  students  who  have  undergone  training  for  the  one year course in these private institutions may be  allowed  to  appear  at  the  examination  notwithstanding the fact that permission might not  be  accorded  to  them.  We  are  unable  to  accede  to  these  requests.  These  institutions  were  established  and the students were admitted into these institutes  despite  a  series  of  press  notes  issued  by  the  Government.  If  by a fiat of  the court we direct the  Government  to  permit  them  to  appear  at  the  examination we will  practically be encouraging and  condoning  the  establishment  of  unauthorised  institutions. It is not appropriate that the jurisdiction  of  the  court  either  under  Article  32  of  the  Constitution or Article 226 should be frittered away  for such a purpose.”

(emphasis supplied)

31. In State of Maharashtra v. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale (supra),  

this  Court  noted  that  there  was  mushroom  growth  of  ill-

equipped,  under-staffed  and  unrecognised  educational  

institutions  in  Andhra  Pradesh,  Bihar,  Tamil  Nadu  and  

Maharashtra and that an interim order was passed by the High  

Court for allowing the students to appear in the examination  

and proceeded to observe:

“Slackening  the  standard  and  judicial  fiat  to  control  the  mode  of  education  and  examining  

9

98

system  are  detrimental  to  the  efficient  management of the education. The directions to  the appellants to disobey the law is subversive of  the rule of law, a breeding ground for corruption  and  feeding  source  for  indiscipline.  The  High  Court,  therefore,  committed  manifest  error  in  law, in exercising its prerogative power conferred  under  Article  226 of  the Constitution,  directing  the appellants to permit the students to appear  for the examination etc.

32. In St. Johns’ Teachers Training Institute (for Women), Madurai  

v. State of Tamil Nadu (supra), this Court adversely commented  

upon the practice of passing interim orders like the one passed  

by the learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court  

in some of these cases, referred to the judgment in  Christians  

Medical Educational Society v.  Government of Andhra Pradesh  

(supra) and observed:

“In view of the aforesaid pronouncement of this  Court,  the High Court should not have passed,  interim order directing the respondents to allow  the  teachers  of  unrecognised  institutions  to  appear  at  the  examinations  in  question.  Such  teachers  cannot  derive  any  benefit  on  basis  of  such interim orders,  when ultimately  the  main  writ  applications  have  been  dismissed  by  the  High Court, which order is being affirmed by this  Court. The same view has been expressed by this  Court,  in  connection  with  the  minority  unrecognised  Teachers  Training  Institutions  in  the State of Tamil Nadu itself, in the case of State  of T.N. v.  St. Joseph Teachers Training Institute  

9

99

(1991) 3 SCC 87. As such no equity or legal right  can be pleaded on behalf of the teachers admitted  for  training  by  such  minority  institutions,  for  publication  of  their  results,  because  they  were  allowed to appear at the examinations concerned,  during  the  pendency  of  the  writ  applications  before  the  High Court,  on  the  basis  of  interim  orders passed by the High Court; which were in  conflict with the view expressed by this Court in  the aforesaid cases.”

33. As  a  sequel  to  the  above  discussion,  we  hold  that  the  

impugned  orders  do  not  suffer  from  any  legal  infirmity  

warranting interference by this Court.  We also reiterate that:

(i) The Regional Committees established under Section 20 of the  

1993  Act  are  duty  bound  to  ensure  that  no  private  

institution  offering  or  intending  to  offer  a  course  or  

training  in  teacher  education  is  granted  recognition  

unless  it  satisfies  the  conditions  specified  in  Section  

14(3)(a) of the 1993 Act and Regulations 7 and 8 of the  

Regulations.  Likewise,  no  recognised  institution  

intending to start any new course or training in teacher  

education shall be granted permission unless it satisfies  

the conditions specified in Section 15(3)(a) of the 1993  

Act and the relevant Regulations.

(ii) The State Government / UT Administration, to whom a  

copy of the application made by an institution for grant  

of recognition is sent in terms of Regulation 7(2) of the  

Regulations,  is  under  an  obligation  to  make  its  

9

100

recommendations  within  the  time  specified  in  

Regulation 7(3) of the Regulations.  

(iii) While granting recognition, the Regional Committees are  

required to give due weightage to the recommendations  

made by the State Government/UT Administration and  

keep in view the observations made by this Court in St.  

Johns Teachers Training Institute v. Regional Director,  

NCTE  (2003)  3  SCC  321  and  National  Council  for  

Teacher Education v. Shri Shyam Shiksha Prashikshan  

Sansthan, which have been extracted in the earlier part  

of this judgment.

(iv) The  recognition  granted  by  the  Regional  Committees  

under  Section  14(3)(a)  of  the  1993  Act  read  with  

Regulations 7 and 8 of the Regulations and permission  

granted under  Section 15(3)(a)  read with the  relevant  

Regulations  shall  operate  prospectively,  i.e.,  from the  

date  of  communication  of  the  order  of  recognition  or  

permission, as the case may be.

(v) The recognition can be refused by the Regional  Committee  

under Section 14(3)(b),  in the first instance, when an  

application  for  recognition  is  made  by  an institution.  

Likewise, permission can be refused under Section 15(3)

(b).   

(vi) If the recognition is refused under Section 14(3)(b) after  

affording  reasonable  opportunity  to  the  applicant  to  

make  a  written  representation,  the  concerned  

1

101

institution  is  required  to  discontinue  the  course  or  

training  from  the  end  of  the  academic  session  next  

following the date of receipt of the order.

(vii) Once  the  recognition  is  granted,  the  same  can  be  

withdrawn  only  under  Section  17(1)  if  there  is  a  

contravention of the provisions of the Act or the Rules,  

or  the  Regulations,  or  orders  made  therein,  or  any  

condition  subject  to  which  recognition  was  granted  

under Section 14(3)(a) or permission was granted under  

Section 15(3)(a).

(viii) The  withdrawal  of  recognition  becomes  effective  from  

the end of the academic session next following the date  

of communication of the order of withdrawal.  

(ix) Once the recognition is withdrawn under Section 17(1),  

the concerned institution is required to discontinue the  

course  or  training  in  teacher  education  and  the  

examining body is obliged to cancel the affiliation.  The  

effect  of  withdrawal  of  the  recognition  is  that  the  

qualification in teacher education obtained pursuant to  

the course or training undertaken at such institution is  

not to be treated as valid qualification for the purpose of  

employment under the Central Government, any State  

Government or  University  or  in any educational  body  

aided by the Central or the State Government.

(x) In view of the mandate of Section 16, no examining body, as  

defined  in  Section  2(d)  of  the  1993  Act,  shall  grant  

1

102

affiliation unless the applicant has obtained recognition  

from  the  Regional  Committee  under  Section  14  or  

permission for starting a new course or training under  

Section 15.

(xi) While granting affiliation, the examining body shall be  

free to demand rigorous compliance of  the conditions  

contained in the statute like the University Act or the  

State  Education  Board  Act  under  which  it  was  

established or the guidelines / norms which may have  

been laid down by the concerned examining body.

(xii) No  institution  shall  admit  any  student  to  a  teacher  

training  course  or  programme unless  it  has  obtained  

recognition  under  Section  14  or  permission  under  

Section 15, as the case may be.  

(xiii) While making admissions, every recognised institution  

is duty bound to strictly adhere to para 3.1 to 3.3 of the  

Norms  and  Standards  for  Secondary/Pre-School  

Teacher Education Programme contained in Appendix-1  

to the Regulations.

(xiv) If any institution admits any student in violation of the  

Norms and Standards laid down by the NCTE, then the  

Regional Committee shall initiate action for withdrawal  

of  the  recognition  of  such  institution  and  pass  

appropriate  order  after  complying  with  the  rules  of  

natural justice.  

1

103

(xv) The students admitted by unrecognised institution and  

institutions which are not  affiliated to any examining  

body  are  not  entitled  to  appear  in  the  examination  

conducted  by  the  examining  body  or  any  other  

authorised agency.

(xvi) The  students  admitted  by  the  recognised  institutions  

otherwise  than  through  the  entrance/eligibility  test  

conducted in accordance with the admission procedure  

contained in para 3.3 of Appendix-1 of the Regulations  

are  also  not  entitled  to  appear  in  the  examination  

conducted  by  the  examining  body  or  any  other  

authorised agency.

(xvii) The  NCTE  shall  issue  direction  for  mandatory  

inspection of recognised institutions on periodical basis  

and all the Regional Committees are duty bound to take  

action in accordance with those directions.

(xviii) In future, the High Courts shall not entertain prayer for  

interim  relief  by  unrecognised  institutions  and  the  

institutions which have not been granted affiliation by  

the examining body and/or the students admitted by  

such  institutions  for  permission  to  appear  in  the  

examination  or  for  declaration  of  the  result  of  

examination.  This  would also apply to the  recognised  

institutions  if  they  admit  students  otherwise  than  in  

accordance with the procedure contained in Appendix-1  

of the Regulations.

1

104

34. So far as these appeals are concerned, we deem it proper to give  

the following directions:

(i) Within one month from today, the concerned examining body  

shall  declare  the  result  of  the  students  who  were  

admitted for the session 2007-2008 keeping in view the  

directions  contained  in  the  impugned  orders.  This  

would mean that result of the students admitted for the  

session 2007-2008 by the institutions whose cases were  

scrutinised  by  the  NCTE  pursuant  to  the  directions  

given by the High Court and who were found to have  

been  validly  recognised  after  compliance  with  the  

mandatory  conditions  specified  in  Section  14(3)(a)  of  

1993 Act and Regulations 7 and 8 of the Regulations  

shall be declared.

(ii) The result of the students admitted by an unrecognized  

institution  or  by  an  institution  which  had  not  been  

granted affiliation by the examining body shall not be  

declared. The result of the students who were admitted  

without qualifying the entrance examination shall also  

not be declared.  In other words, the students admitted  

by  the  private  institutions  on  their  own shall  not  be  

entitled  to  declaration  of  their  result.  If  any  private  

institution had not complied with the requirements of  

completing the prescribed training,  then the  result  of  

students of such institution shall also not be declared.  

1

105

(iii) The directions contained in the preceding clause shall  

not be used for dealing with the admissions made for  

the sessions 2005-2006, 2006-2007 or 2008-2009.  The  

admissions made for those years shall be dealt with by  

the  Western  Regional  Committee  and  the  concerned  

examining  body  in  accordance  with  the  relevant  

statutory provisions.

(iv) Any institution aggrieved by the decision of the Western  

Regional  Committee  to  reject  the  application  for  

recognition or for permission to start a new course or  

training or withdrawal of recognition under Section 17  

shall be free to avail remedy of appeal under Section 18  

of  the  1993  Act.  If  any  such  appeal  is  filed  by  the  

aggrieved  party  within  30  days  from today,  then  the  

Appellate Authority shall entertain and decide the same  

on merits.

(v) If the Western Regional Committee has taken any action in  

furtherance of the directions given by the High Court,  

then the aggrieved person shall be entitled to challenge  

the same by availing remedy of appeal under Section 18  

of the 1993 Act.

35. Subject to the above observations and directions, the appeals  

are dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.

...……..….………………….…J.    [G.S. Singhvi]

1

106

………..….………………….…J.   [Asok Kumar Ganguly]

New Delhi, January 6, 2012.

1