1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.   10677-10678         OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(Civil) Nos. 13743-13744 of 2017)

NEHRU GRAM BHARATI UNIVERSITY .....APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF U.P. & ORS. .....RESPONDENT(S)

W I T H

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.      10679-10680          OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(Civil) Nos. 14259-14260 of 2017)

A N D

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 10681-10682       OF 2018 (arising out of SLP(Civil) Nos. 3480-3481 of 2018)

J U D G M E N T

A.K. SIKRI, J.

Leave granted.

2) These  appeals  arise  out  of  impugned  common  judgment  and  order

dated March 31, 2017 in Special Appeal No. 1877 of 2012 and Special

Appeal No. 1878 of  2012 passed by the High Court  of  Judicature at

2

Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 57527 of 2010 (Shashi Kumar

Dwivedi & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors.) connected with Civil Misc. Writ

Petition No. 493 of 2012 (Chandra Prakash Kanyakubj & Ors. v. State of

U.P. & Ors.).   

3) The first petition i.e. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 57527 of 2010 was filed

by  the  students  who  were  admitted  to  two  years  Basic  Teachers

Certificate Course (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BTC’ Course) in the

Academic  Session  2008-09  in  Nehru  Gram  Bharati  University

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Deemed University’) for quashing of the

order  dated  July  14,  2010  passed  by  the  Director,  State  Council  of

Educational  Research  and  Training  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  the

‘SCERT’) and further for a direction upon the SCERT to recognise the

BTC Course and the certificates granted by the Deemed University as

legal  and  valid  for  selection  and  appointments  as  teachers  in

Parishadiya Vidyalayas/Junior Basic Schools.   

 4) Another petition i.e. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 493 of 2012 was filed by

the students who were admitted by the same Deemed University for two

years BTC Course in the Academic Session 2009-10.  The relief prayed

for in this petition was more or less identical to the one in Civil Misc. Writ

Petition No. 57527 of 2010.

5) These writ  petitions were dismissed by the single Judge of  the High

3

Court.   Thereagainst,  intra-court  appeals  were  filed.   The  Division

Bench,  under  the  impugned  judgment  dated  March  31,  2017,  has

dismissed the Special Appeals holding that the Deemed University was

not legally authorised to start the BTC Course for the Academic Session

2008-09 and 2009-10 respectively in the absence of strict compliance of

the letter  of  recognition dated August  16,  2005 as also in  view of  it

having  itself  asked  for  recognition  from  the  examining  body,  i.e.

State/SCERT and recognition, in fact, was granted under the letter dated

May  29,  2013  for  the  Academic  Session  2012-13.   However,  the

Division Bench took into account the plight of the students caused due

to  negligence  on  the  part  of  the  Deemed  University  and,  therefore,

directed  that  each  respondent-student  be  paid  Rs.50,000/-  by  the

Deemed University in addition to refund of the entire fee which was paid

for  the two years  BTC Course in  2008-09 and 2009-10 respectively.

The  Division  Bench  also  directed  that  the  money  be  paid  through

account payee cheque within two months from the date of the judgment.

6) Facts in short relevant for deciding the present appeals are as follows:

Rajiv Gandhi Post Graduate College, Kotwa, Jamunipur, Allahabad

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Post Graduate College’) was established

by the  Society,  duly  registered  under  the  provisions  of  the  Societies

Registration Act, 1860 in the name and style of Nehru Gram Bharati.  It

was a Post Graduate College affiliated to Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj

4

University, Kanpur  (hereinafter  referred to as the ‘Kanpur  University’).

The Post Graduate College made an application before the NCTE for

grant  of  recognition  for  starting  two  years  BTC  Course  under  the

provisions of NCTE Act.  The North Regional Committee of NCTE vide

its letter dated August 16, 2005 granted permission to the Post Graduate

College under Section 15(3) of the NCTE Act for starting two years BTC

Course subject to fulfillment of the terms and conditions as contained in

the said letter.  It is admitted on record that the Post Graduate College

did not take requisite steps for complying with the terms and conditions

as mentioned in the permission letter dated August 16, 2005 for years

together.   

7) It so happened that the Central Government vide notification dated June

27, 2008 declared the Post Graduate College as a Deemed University

with the change of name as Nehru Gram Bharati Deemed University.

The College was deaffiliated from the Kanpur University.  The Deemed

University made a request to the North Regional Committee to change

the name of the institution as mentioned in the permission letter dated

August  16,  2005.   Such  change in  name was  granted  by the  North

Regional Committee and communicated to the Deemed University vide

its letter dated December 02, 2008.  The Deemed University is stated to

have published an advertisement inviting applications for admission to

two years BTC Course for the Academic Session 2008-09 and similarly

5

issued advertisement for the Academic Session 2009-10.   

8) While the Deemed University started its process of admission to BTC

Course, it simultaneously entered into correspondence with SCERT to

grant recognition to said two years BTC Course offered by the Deemed

University as the same was reflected through the letter dated February

10, 2010 forwarded by the Deemed University to SCERT with a request

to  approve the two years  BTC Course and include the name of  the

Deemed  University  in  the  list  of  approved  institutions  so  that  the

students with BTC certificate granted by the Deemed University had no

difficulty in employment as Assistant Teachers in Junior Basic Schools.

One  of  the  students  is  also  stated  to  have  sent  similar  request  to

SCERT.  He  was informed by the Director, SCERT vide letter dated July

14, 2010 that his papers were being returned as they did not concern

SCERT.  This led to the filing of two writ petitions mentioned below:

(a) Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 57527 of 2010 was filed by some of the

candidates  who  were  admitted  to  the  two  years  BTC Course  in  the

Academic Session 2008-09 in the Deemed University for quashing the

order dated July 14,  2010 passed by the Director, SCERT and for  a

direction  upon  the  SCERT  to  recognize  the  BTC  Course  and  the

certificates awarded by the Deemed University.

(b) Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 493 of 2010 was filed by some of the

candidates who had been granted admission by the Deemed University

6

to the BTC Course in the next Academic Session 2009-10 and the relief

claimed was for a direction upon the respondents to recognize the BTC

Certificate awarded by the Deemed University so that  the candidates

can be considered eligible for appointment as Assistant Teachers in the

Junior Basic Schools.

9) It  is  the case of  the appellants that  once the University acquired the

status  of  Deemed  University,  it  became  an  ‘examining  body’  under

Section 2(d) of the NCTE Act.  Section 2(d) of the NCTE Act defines an

‘examining body’ to mean a University, agency or authority to which an

authority is  affiliated for  conducting examination in  teacher  education

qualification.   The plea is that  since it  is  a Deemed University and it

conducts its own examination, there was no need to seek affiliation from

any other agency.  It is also pointed out that the State had taken a policy

decision dated September 21, 2006 not to permit private institutions to

run the BTC Course.  The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad vide

judgment dated July 31, 2009 upheld the single Judge’s decision dated

May 08, 2007 striking down the State Government’s policy, and held that

policy makers are under an obligation to formulate a policy that is in

consonance with the law of the land and that there was no rational basis

for the monopoly of training teachers created by the State Government.   

10) It may also be mentioned at this stage that on application by the

7

Deemed University, the State Government vide Government order dated

May 29, 2013, granted recognition to the BTC Course offered by the

Deemed University from the Academic Session 2012-13.  This order of

recognition was, however, modified vide Government order dated July

07, 2014 and it was provided that in place of Academic Session 2012-13

for the purposes of recognition of BTC Course, the same may be read

as Academic Session 2010-11 onwards.  The Government order dated

July 07,  2014 has  since  been revoked under  the  Government  order

dated September 27, 2016.  These Government orders dated May 29,

2013, July 07, 2014 and September 27, 2016 were not subject matter of

challenge before the High Court.   

11) On behalf of the students, the basic contention raised before the

Court was that once permission was granted under Section 15(3) of the

NCTE  Act  in  favour  of  the  Post  Graduate  College  which  was

subsequently converted into a Deemed University for starting of the two

years BTC Course, the issue of seeking affiliation/recognition from the

examining  body  became  redundant  after  issuance  of  the  notification

dated June 27, 2008 whereby the Post Graduate College was declared

as a Deemed University.  It was contended that the Deemed University

has a right  to conduct its own examination,  therefore,  no approval  is

required from any authority for conduct the examinations in respect of

two years BTC Course offered by the Deemed University subsequent to

8

the notification dated June 27, 2008 and in view of the law laid down by

this Court in the case of  State of Maharashtra v. Sant Dnyaneshwar

Shikshan  Shastra  Mahavidyalaya  &  Ors.1 as  also  in  view  of  the

Division Bench judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in

Special Appeal No. 1639 of 2007 (State of U.P. & Ors.  v. Dau Dayal

Mahila P.G. College & Ors.) decided on July 31, 2009 and in the case

of State of U.P. & Ors. v. Furqan Ali & Ors.2.   

12) The claim set up by the students was opposed by the State of

Uttar  Pradesh  through  its  Advocate  General.   With  reference  to  the

notification dated June 27, 2008 itself, it was submitted that the Deemed

University  could  offer  only  such  courses  as  were  being  offered

immediately  before  the  conferment  of  the  status  of  the  Deemed

University  or  alike  courses thereto.   Deemed University  could  award

degrees  only  for  conventional/general  degree  programs  leading  to

B.A./B.SC./B.Com or M.A./M.Sc. degrees covered under Section 22(3)

of the Universities Grants Commission Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to

as the ‘UGC Act’).  On behalf of the State, it was explained that BTC

Course  is  not  a  Degree  Course  nor  a  course  recognized  by  the

Universities Grants Commission (UGC).  Therefore, merely because the

Post Graduate College has been declared as a Deemed University, it

cannot be presumed that it gets a right to act as an examining body for

1 (2006) 9 SCC 1 2 2011 (1) ADJ 480

9

BTC Course, which is not provided for or taken care of under the UGC

Act.   

13) Learned Single Judge vide its common judgment dated October

11, 2012 held that it was not possible for the Court to grant the relief as

has been prayed for.  Referring to the provisions of Sections 2, 3 and 4

of the Guidelines framed by the UGC under the UGC Act and to the

grant of  status of  Deemed University and clause 1 of  the notification

dated June 27, 2008, it was held that in view of Section 22, a University

can only grant such degrees which have been specified by the UGC in

the Official Gazette and that BTC is not one of the degrees mentioned

therein.  With reference to the provisions of NCTE Act and Regulations

of 2007, it was held the College, even after grant of permission by the

North Regional Committee of  the NCTE, kept silent  and did not take

steps  for  starting  two  years  BTC course  for  long  duration  and  after

confirmation of the status of the Deemed University, invited applications

for the Academic Session 2008-09 and similarly for 2009-10.  Deemed

University cannot act as an examining body for the BTC Course and it

had to obtain necessary permission from the examining body, namely,

SCERT which  was the examining body for  the BTC course.   It  was

further held that the candidates were not possessed of a BTC certificate

from an institution having due authority of law to be the examining body

for the course, therefore, such certificates did not make them eligible for

10

appointment as Assistant Teacher in Junior High Schools.  

14) Aggrieved students filed Special Appeals before Division Bench of

the High Court.   As noted above,  the High Court,  vide its  impugned

judgment  dated  March  31,  2017,  has  dismissed  the  appeals  and

affirmed the judgment of the learned Single Judge and directed the Post

Graduate College to refund the fees of the students and also to pay a

sum of Rs.50,000/- to each student.  It has further directed that it is open

for  the  concerned  authority  of  University  to  take  appropriate  action

against all those responsible for creating the situation and to recover the

money lost due to payment to the students.   

15) A perusal  of  the impugned judgment  would show that  the High

Court  has rested its  decision on the premise that  non-compliance of

statutory conditions is more or less admitted.   Further, mere grant of

permission by NCTE does not amount to automatic affiliation for running

the BTC Course, until and unless the institution fulfills the norms which

are prescribed by the NCTE.  The High Court also noted that it  was

virtually  admitted  that  formalities  required  for  admission  from  the

examining body have not been completed and it is only now that BTC

Course is running as per the norms of NCTE.  The High Court has also

observed that,  on the one hand, the Deemed University claimed that

after  conferment  of  the  status  of  Deemed  University  upon  the  Post

11

Graduate  College,  it  became  the  examining  body  for  all  courses

including  BTC Course,  but,  on  the  other  hand,  it  continued  to  write

letters  to  the  Director,  SCERT to  grant  recognition  to  the  certificate

issued by it  and  to  include  the  name of  the  University  in  the  list  of

approved institutions for the purpose of treating its certificate to be a

valid qualification for appointment as Assistant Teachers in Junior High

Schools  recognised  under  the  U.P. Basic  Education  Act,  1978.   In

nutshell, the High Court has held that mere grant of permission by NCTE

does not amount to automatic affiliation for running the BTC Course,

until and unless the institution fulfills the norms which are prescribed by

the NCTE. Therefore, there was no question of any recognition being

granted  to  a  private  institution  upto  January  15,  2010  for  the  BTC

Course in the State of Uttar Pradesh.  Since the Deemed University was

not  legally  authorised  to  start  the  BTC  Course  for  the  Academic

Sessions  2008-09  and 2009-10  respectively, in  the  absence of  strict

compliance of letter of recognition dated August 16, 2005 as also in view

of having itself asked for recognition from the examining body, the BTC

Course for these two sessions could not be treated as recognised.   

16) Mr.  Rakesh  Dwivedi,  learned  senior  counsel  appearing  for  the

Deemed University, reiterated the submission which was raised before

the High Court, namely, once it was granted deemed status, it became

an examining body by itself by virtue of Section 2(n) and Section 2(d) of

12

the NCTE Act.  It was submitted that Section 22 of the UGC Act gives

right to a Deemed University to confer degrees which would imply that

such  Deemed University  would  itself  become an  examining  body by

virtue of Section 2(n) and Section 2(d) of the NCTE Act as the degree

can be awarded only by the examining body.  It was also submitted that

the NCTE Act is a complete and exhaustive code for teachers education

and is made by Parliament with respect to Entry 66 List I read with Entry

25 List III.  It lays down all norms and standards including qualification

for teachers and curriculum. Only examinations are to be conducted by

Universities or competent authority established by the State.  So far as

Universities are  concerned,  they hold  examinations for  their  students

themselves and need no affiliation.   Even where an institution seeks

affiliation  from State’s  competent  authority,  the  said  authority  cannot

have a relook at matters which are considered by NCTE while granting

recognition to the institution or course.  Mr. Dwivedi also submitted that

the  NCTE  Regulations  of  2009  which  were  notified  vide  notification

dated August 31, 2009 could not be applied in this case as  Deemed

University was granted recognition by NCTE on August 16, 2005.  He

submitted that relevant regulations which were applicable on that date

were  of  the  year  2002  known  as  NCTE  (Form  of  application  for

recognition, the time limit of submission of application, determination of

norms and standards for recognition of teacher education programmes

13

and  permission  to  start  new  course  or  training)  Regulations,  2002

(hereinafter referred to as ‘Regulations, 2002).  The Regulations, 2002

were  repealed  by  NCTE  (Recognition,  Norms  and  Procedure)

Regulations, 2005 dated December 27, 2005.  However, action already

taken  under  the  Regulations,  2002  were  protected  and  saved  by

Regulation  11(2)  of  the  Regulations,  2005.   He  submitted  that  the

Regulations, 2002 contemplated an NOC from the State Government at

a  pre-recognition  stage  vide  Regulation  6.   Sub-clause  (x)  of  this

Regulation  dispensed  with  the  requirement  of  NOC  with  regard  to

institutions  already recognized  by NCTE for  running  a  B.Ed.  course.

Admittedly, the Deemed University was running B.Ed. when recognition

for  BTC course was given.   Therefore,  the  said  requirement  did  not

apply to the Deemed University.  However, this requirement of NOC has

been held by this Court to be immaterial and irrelevant, so far as the

power of NCTE is concerned, in Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra

Mahavidyalaya:

“63.  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

14

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.

64.   Even  otherwise,  in  our  opinion,  the  High  Court  was  fully justified in negativing the argument of the State Government that permission could be refused by the State Government on “policy consideration”.  As already observed earlier, policy consideration was negatived by this  Court  in  Thirumuruga Kirupananda Trust [(1996) 3 SCC 15 : JT (1996) 2 SC 692] as also in  Jaya Gokul Educational Trust [(2000) 5 SCC 231 : JT (2000) 5 SC 118].

xx xx xx

68.  In view of the fact, however, that according to us, the final authority lies with NCTE and we are supported in taking that view by various decisions of this Court, NCTE cannot be deprived of its authority or power in taking an appropriate decision under the Act irrespective  of  absence  of  no-objection  certificate  by  the  State Government/Union Territory. Absence or non-production of  NOC by the institution, therefore, was immaterial and irrelevant so far as the power of NCTE is concerned.”

17) On this  count,  submission  of  Mr. Dwivedi  was  that  the present

matters does not concern with this aspect since the said provision deals

with  a  pre-recognition  stage  and  whereas  these  cases  related  to

affiliation which is post-recognition stage.  The learned senior counsel

also  referred  to  the  judgments  of  this  Court  in  Maa Vaishno   Devi

Mahila Mahavidyalaya v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.3 and State of

Rajasthan v. LBS B.Ed. College & Ors.4.

18) Dealing  with  the  issue  of  non-compliance  with  the  conditions

contained in the recognition letter issued by NCTE, Mr. Dwivedi argued

3 (2013) 2 SCC 617 4 (2016) 16 SCC 110

15

that it is an erroneous finding.  In this behalf, his submission was that, in

the first instance, the conditions contained in the letter dated August 16,

2005 of NCTE were to be complied ‘before the commencement of the

academic session’.  The Deemed University had commenced its BTC

Course  only  in  the  year  2008  and,  therefore,  question  of  complying

these conditions before 2008, in any case, did not arise.  Secondly, this

policy of fulfilling the conditions ceased to apply to this University once it

obtain the status of Deemed University.  Thirdly, this policy was set aside

by the High Court (by the single Judge vide judgment dated May 08,

2007  which  was  affirmed  by  the  Division  Bench  on  July  31,  2009).

Therefore,  argued the learned senior  counsel,  by the time University

commenced BTC Course in 2008, there were no such conditions which

remained to be complied.  Mr.  Dwivedi also argued that so far as faculty

is concerned, Deemed University through its Additional  Registrar  had

written a letter  to NCTE on July 22,  2009 submitting a list  of  faculty

members  for  BTC,  B.Ed.  and  M.Ed.  along  with  minutes  of  selection

committee  dated  August  14,  2008  selecting  seven  teachers.   These

appointments were approved by Board of Management vide resolution

dated  August  25,  2008  pursuant  to  which  appointment  letters  were

issued which are also placed on record.  It is also important to state here

that  the  seven  faculty  members  who  were  appointed  were  already

teaching in  the B.Ed.  course run by the predecessor of  the Deemed

16

University.  The appellant also maintained regular attendance register

which shows that the teachers were, in fact, teaching.  Similarly, vide

letter dated July 28, 2010, details of existing faculty members were sent

to NCTE 2009.  Even the inspection report of the UGC Committee which

was accepted by UGC on November 19, 2009 stated that appointment

of teachers were made by following the rules and norms of UGC and

regulatory bodies from time to time.  It also noted that, by and large, the

University  had adequate and qualified  faculty.  The  representative  of

NCTE was satisfied with the professional development of the teachers.

In view of the above material, it is incorrect to state that the Deemed

University did not appoint faculty and that there was non-compliance by

the Deemed University.

19) As regards the Endowment Fund, argument is that the sum of Rs.5

lakhs in the form of Fixed Deposit was, in fact, deposited with the NCTE

on February 19, 2004 itself and renewed from time to time but it was to

be converted into a joint account on October 28, 2015.  It is contended

that it is an admitted position that the amount of Rs.5 lakhs towards the

endowment  fund  was  deposited  by  the  University  and  the  Fixed

Deposits have also been annexed in the Additional Affidavit.   In view

thereof, there is substantial compliance by the Deemed University and

non-conversion into a joint account is only a minor lapse and even the

NCTE did not object to the same.  This cannot be a ground for denying

17

recognition  of  BTC  Course  to  students  of  the  Academic  Sessions

2008-09 and 2009-10.

20) Mr. Dwivedi pleaded, in the alternative, that in the event this Court

is pleased to hold that  the University required to seek affiliation from

State,  the  direction  to  refund  the  fees  and  pay  further  amount  of

Rs.50,000/- may be set aside since it involves a huge cost of above one

crore.  It was stated that the University is catering to rural masses and

such a direction will cause grave hardship.  Moreover, the present is not

a case where the course was being run without recognition of NCTE.

21) Mr. Parekh,  learned senior  counsel  appearing  for  the  students,

while  supporting  the  arguments  raised  by  Mr.  Dwivedi,   additionally

argued that the Deemed University was not required to seek affiliation

under  Section  16  of  the  Act  as  it  was  declared  as

deemed-to-be-University  under  Section  2(f)  of  the  UGC  Act  as  per

notification dated June 27,  2008 issued by the Government  of  India,

Ministry  of  Human  Resource  Development,  Department  of  Higher

Education published in Gazette of India, Part-I.  Therefore, it was eligible

to conduct its own examinations and grant its own degrees.  He also

referred to Section 17 of the NCTE Act which, according to him, protects

the interest of the students.  On that basis, his submission was that as

the students had undertaken two years course and had been declared

18

successful after clearing examination, it is not permissible for the State

to punish the students.  In equity also, nothing is attributed against the

students and their career should not affected when they have acted on

the recognition given by Section 15(3)(a) to the University.  Under these

circumstances,  students  are  entitled  for  recognition  of  their  BTC

certificate in law.  Mr. Parekh also submitted that insofar as students are

concerned,  in  any  case,  they  are  entitled  to  the  relief  because  of

subsequent  development,  namely,  UP  Gazette  No.

210/79-5-2018-105-2014 dated February 08, 2018, the substituted Rule

No. 8 inter alia provides as under:

“…two year Diploma in Elementary Education (by whatever name known) in accordance with National Council of Teacher Education (Recognition, Norms and Procedure), Regulations or any training qualifications  to  be  added  by  National  Council  for  Teacher Education for the recruitment of teachers in Primary Education...”

22) Learned counsel appearing for the State of Uttar Pradesh refuted

the aforesaid submissions of the Deemed University as well as students.

He drew the attention of the Court to notification dated June 27, 2008

vide which University was granted status of  ‘deemed-to-be-university’

under Section 3 of the UGC Act for a period of three years with effect

from the  date  on  which  the  college  is  deaffiliated  from its  affiliating

university, namely, Kanpur University.  He also pointed out that it was

subject to the condition that the status conferred would be reviewed by

UGC with the help of expert committee before the expiry of three years

19

period. Further contention was that:

“The  status  shall  be  confirmed  only  on  the  basis  of  the inspection  and  assessment  report  of  UGC’s  Expert  Review Committee and subjected to  nullification of  its  present  short coming as pointed out by the Expert Committee.”

23) He also pointed out that copy of this notification was forwarded to

various  authorities  including  President,  Nehru  Gram  Bharati.  While

making  endorsement  to  the  President,  Nehru  Gram  Bharati,  it  was

mentioned that  the notification would  be further  subject  to  conditions

which were specifically mentioned therein.  As many as 14 conditions

were stipulated.  Conditions (v), (vi) and (vii) which are relevant for the

purpose of this case is reproduced below:

“(v) The  academic  programmes  being  offered  or  to  be offered by Nehru Gram Bharati will conform to the norms and standards prescribed by the relevant Statutory Councils such as  the  UGC,  AICTE  etc.   Nehru  Gram  Bharati  shall  not offer/award  as  the  case  may  be  any  degrees  that  are  not specified by the UGC.  Nehru Gram Bharati shall also ensure that the nomenclatures of the degrees, etc. to be awarded by it are specified by the UGC under Section 22 of the UGC Act, 1956.   

(vi) Nehru  Gram  Bharati  shall  not  start  new  academic courses without obtaining prior approval of Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and/or the concerned Statutory Councils such as MCI, AICTE etc. as the case may be.

(vii) Nehru Gram Bharati, as a deemed-to-be-university shall award degrees in respect of the courses run by the institution mentioned in para 4 of this notification only to those students who are admitted subsequent to the date of this notification. Accordingly, it shall make admission and enrolment of students to the academic courses of the said college under it (i.e. under Nehru  Gram  Bharati  only  with  effect  from  the  ensuing academic year (i.e. from 2008-2009).”

24) From  the  aforesaid  conditions,  the  argument  of  the  learned

20

counsel  was  that  the Deemed University was  specifically  required to

conform to the norms and standards prescribed by relevant  statutory

councils.   It  was  also  categorically  mentioned  that  the  Deemed

University shall not offer/award any degrees that are not specified by the

UGC.  Moreover, it was to ensure that the nomenclature of the degrees

etc. to be awarded by it are specified by the UGC under Section 22 of

the  UGC  Act.   Based  on  the  aforesaid  conditions  specified  in  the

notifications,  argument  of  the  learned counsel  was  that  the  Deemed

University failed to fulfill those conditions which has been recorded by

the High Court as well.   He submitted that  the judgment of the High

Court is correct as without the fulfillment of these conditions, it was not

open to the Deemed University to start such a course and confer the

degrees.   Learned  counsel  referred  to  the  judgment  in  the  case  of

Orissa Lift  Irrigation Corporation Limited  v.  Rabi Sankar Patro &

Ors.5.   

25) Taking  the  aforesaid  argument  further,  he  submitted  that  the

Deemed University has itself stated in the writ petition filed before the

High  Court  that  BTC  Course  is  a  Teacher  Training  Programme  for

primary level school and NCTE grants the recognition to the Teacher

Training Programme.  The right  to formulate the guidelines/standards

with  reference  to  courses  run  in  the  teacher  education  training

5 (2018) 1 SCC 468

21

institutions, such as the procedure for admission of the students in such

institutions,  minimum  qualifications  for  the  admission,  period  of  the

Training Programme and the determination of the course, is done by the

NCTE.  After the recognition is obtained from NCTE, Section 14(6) of the

NCTE Act stipulates that every examining body, on receipt of the order

under  sub-section  (4)  thereof,  shall  grant  affiliation  to  the  institution

where recognition has been granted.   Further, the appendix  1  to  13

about  the  norms  and  standards  of  different  Teacher  Training

Programmes has been mentioned in  para 9  of  the notification dated

August  31,  2009  of  NCTE.   Appendix  2  is  related  to  the  course  of

D.El.Ed. in the aforesaid and the provision has been made in Point 1 of

Appendix 2:

“(1)   The aim of  elementary  education  is  to  fulfill  the  basic learning  needs  of  all  children  in  an  inclusive  school environment bridging social and gender gaps with the active participation of the community.  The program aims at preparing teachers for elementary stage of education that is Classes 1 to VII/VIII.

(2)   The  elementary  teacher  education  programme  carries different nomenclatures like BTC Diploma in Education, TTC and so on.  Both the duration of training and entry qualification of the course are same, hence,  nomenclature of  the course shall  be  same  (D.El.Ed.)  across  all  states.  The  copy  of Appendix  2  is  marked  and  annexed  herewith  as  Annexure CA-06.”

26) He also sought sustenance from the following provision that has

been made about the admission in Point 3(3) of Appendix – 2 mentioned

above:

22

“...Admissions 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/UT Administration.”

27) The argument on the basis of the aforesaid provision was that the

admission had to be made not only on merits but ‘as per the policy of the

State  Government/UT  Administration’.   Here,  according  to  learned

counsel, the Deemed University faltered and, therefore, cannot seek any

benefit.  The counsel for the NCTE supported the aforesaid submissions

put forth by the learned counsel for the State.

28) From  the  aforesaid  arguments  of  the  learned  counsel  for  the

appellants as well as Deemed University, it becomes clear that the entire

case primarily rests upon the submission that after it became Deemed

University by virtue of notification dated June 27, 2008 issued by UGC

under Section 3 of the UGC Act, Deemed University had right to hold

examinations on its  own as it  became the ‘examining body’  for  BTC

Course.  However, as noticed above, notification dated June 27, 2008

granting status of Deemed University was subject to certain conditions.

Section 22 of  UGC Act  gives right  upon such Deemed University  to

confer degrees.  However, sub-section (3) thereof defines the meaning

of degree under that provision which reads as under:

“(3)  For the purposes of this section, “degree’ means any such degree  as  may,  with  the  previous  approval  of  the  Central Government, be specified in this behalf by the Commission by notification in the Official Gazette.”

23

29) It is clear that the right which was given to the Deemed University

to confer degrees pertain to those degrees which are specified by the

UGC in the Official Gazette.  Admittedly, BTC is not one of the degrees

mentioned therein. The reason is obvious.  Insofar as BTC is concerned,

it  is  a  Teachers  Training  Course  which  was  regulated  entirely  and

exclusively by NCTE Act and the Regulations framed therein. First thing

which follows, therefore, is that mere conferment of Deemed University

status did not entitle this University to give BTC degrees to its students.

Having regard to the same, the judgments cited by Mr. Dwivedi will have

no application to the present case.   

30) This  brings  us  to  the  provisions  of  NCTE Act  and  Regulations

therein.  A University was granted permission by the NCTE to start two

years BTC Course vide letter dated August 16, 2005. However, this was

subject  to  fulfillment  of  eight  conditions  mentioned  therein.   These

conditions  are  summarised  by  the  High  Court,  in  the  impugned

judgment, which reads as under:

“Condition 'a' required appointment of the faculty members and staff duly qualified as per the norms of NCTE/State Government/SCERT to be completed before the commencement of the course. It is not in dispute that at the relevant time SCERT was the examining body for the  BTC  course.  Therefore,  it  was  but  necessary  for  the  Post Graduate Degree College to have appointed qualified teachers and staff as per the SCERT norms read with NCTE norms.

Under clause 'b' countersigned statement of faculty members from the Director, SCERT was required to be submitted before the commencement of the academic session.

24

Under clause 'c' the institution had to agree to adhere to all other regulations and guidelines as framed by NCTE from time to time.

Under clause 'd' the institution had to within one month of the receipt of Recognition order, convert the Endowment Fund account into a Joint Account in the form of FDR for a period of not less than 60 months (five years) in a Nationalized Bank only to be operated along with an official of the Regional Committee.

Under clause 'e' the Reserve Fund for an amount equalant to three months salary of the Teachers & Staff had to be created within one month from the date of issuance of the letter and maintained in the form of FDR in favour of the management/institution, for a period not less than sixty months (five years) in a Nationalized Bank.

Under clause 'f' prior permission of the competent authority for conducting the entrance exam and approval of the curriculum for the course had to be obtained.

Under  clause  'g'  it  is  specified  that  in  case  the  institution starts  the  training  programme  without  prior  permission  of  the competent authority/examining body regarding the curriculum they have  adopted  and  conducts  examination  for  award  of Diploma/certificate  the  recognition  of  such  institution  shall  be withdrawn.

Under clause 'h' it was specified that non-compliance of the above mentioned conditions shall cause action under section 17(1) of the NCTE Act, 1993.”  

31) The  High  Court  has  concluded  that  many  of  the  aforesaid

conditions were not  fulfilled by the Deemed University which position

could not be disputed even before us inasmuch as non-compliance was

admitted  in  the  supplementary  affidavit  filed  before  the  High  Court.

Discussion in the impugned judgment in this behalf reads as under:

“Paragraph 4 contemplated that recognition is subject to fulfillment of  all  such  other  requirements  as  may  be  prescribed  by  other regulatory bodies like SCERT/State Government etc. The institution was obliged to submit a Self-Appraisal Report at the end of each academic  year  along  with  a  copy  of  the  approval  of  affiliating body/State Directorate of Education. It was again reiterated that any

25

violation  of  the  above  mentioned  conditions  or  of  the  NCTE Act would result in withdrawal of the recognition under the provisions of NCTE Act.

Such non-compliance of the statutory conditions is more or less admitted in paragraph 5 to 9 of the supplementary affidavit filed by the Deemed University dated 5.10.2016. It is stated that under the policy decision of the State of U.P., private colleges were not given  recognition  for  running  of  BTC course  despite  there  being permission by the NCTE. The issue in that regard came to be settled under  the  judgment  of  the  Division  Bench  of  this  Court  dated 31.07.2009  wherein  a  direction  was  issued  requiring  the  State Government to formulate a policy and not to create any impediment in running of BTC course by private institutions also who fulfill the norms prescribed by NCTE.

It  is  needless  to  emphasize  that  under  the  same Division Bench judgment,  it  has clarified that mere grant of permission by NCTE does not amount to automatic affiliation for running the BTC course, until and unless the institution fulfills the norms which are prescribed by the NCTE.

From paragraph 9 of the short counter affidavit of Deemed University, it is admitted that the State Government in terms of the Division Bench judgment of this court took a policy decision to grant recognition/affiliation to private institutions also for imparting training of BTC course under Government Order dated 15.01.2010.

What logically follows is that the question of any recognition being granted to a private institution up to 15.01.2010 for the BTC course in the State of U.P. does not arise.

It is further admitted by the Deemed University in paragraph 20 of the same affidavit that during the transition period I.e. between 2005  to  2008,  formalities  as  required  for  recognition  from  the examining body had not been completed and now BTC course is being run as per the norms of NCTE. In paragraph 21 of the same affidavit,  it  is admitted that teachers were duly appointed in 2010 and  onwards  and  entrance  examination  of  the  students  was conducted after making advertisement in the newspaper.”

32) Mr. Dwivedi  has tried to argue that  insofar  as this  University is

concerned, Regulations,  2002 applied and not Regulations,  2009. He

has submitted that Regulation 6 of Regulations, 2002 contemplated an

NOC  from  the  State  Government  at  a  pre-condition  stage  and

26

sub-clause (x) of this regulation dispense with the requirement of NOC

with  regard  to  institution  already  recognised  by  NCTE for  running  a

B.Ed. Course.   This argument, according to us,  is totally extraneous.

The case of the respondents is not about non-fulfillment of conditions

contained in Regulations, 2009 or Regulations, 2005.  As noticed above,

the gravamen of the charge is that the very conditions which were laid

down by the NCTE in giving the recognition have not been fulfilled.   

33) Conscious of this fact, attempt was also made by Mr. Dwivedi to

project that the findings of the High Court about the non-compliance with

the conditions contained in the recognition letter issued by NCTE is an

erroneous finding.  We have already held above that merely because

the  college  was  conferred  the  status  of  Deemed  University,  these

conditions did not  cease to apply as BTC is not  one of  the degrees

mentioned in the degrees specified by the UGC in the Official Gazette

and that insofar as BTC is concerned, it would still be governed by the

NCTE Act and regulations.  It would be pertinent to mention here that

the  Deemed  University  has  later  on  fulfilled  the  conditions  and  got

recognition  from  NCTE  in  respect  of  BTC  Course  itself  but  it  has

happened only from the year 2012 onwards.  

 34) It  hardly  needs  to  be  re-emphasised  that  insofar  as  issue  of

non-fulfillment  of  conditions  is  concerned,  the  High  Court  has  rightly

27

pointed  out  that  it  is  more  or  less  stands  admitted  by  the  Deemed

University in its supplementary affidavit dated October 5, 2016.

35) We also do not agree with the contention of Mr. Dwivedi that since

the policy of fulfilling the conditions was set aside by the single Judge of

the High Court vide judgment dated May 8, 2007 and this decision was

affirmed by the Division Bench on July 31, 2009, it no more remained an

obligation upon Deemed University to fulfill  those conditions.  On this

very  aspect,  the  High  Court  in  the  impugned  judgment  had  rightly

pointed out that in the aforesaid judgment dated July 31, 2009 rendered

by the Division Bench of the High Court, a direction was issued requiring

the  State  Government  to  formulate  a  policy  and  not  to  create  any

impediment of running a BTC Course by private institutions also, who

fulfill  the  norms  prescribed  by  NCTE.   Thus,  fulfillment  of  norms

prescribed  by  NCTE  was  necessary.   The  impugned  judgment  also

points out that the Division Bench in the aforesaid judgment dated July

31, 2009 has clarified that mere grant of permission by NCTE does not

amount to automatic affiliation for  running the BTC Course,  until  and

unless  the  institution  fulfills  the  norms  which  are  prescribed  by  the

NCTE.  This Deemed University had also admitted in its counter affidavit

filed before the High Court that the State Government, in terms of the

Division Bench judgment dated July 31, 2009, took a policy decision to

grant  recognition/affiliations  to  private  institutions  also  for  imparting

28

training  of  BTC  Course  under  Government  order  dated  January  15,

2010.  As a corollary, it follows that there was no question of granting

recognition to  the private institutions upto  January 15,  2010 for  BTC

Course in the State of Uttar Pradesh.  As this was the legal position

prevailing, coupled with the fact that the Deemed University approached

the NCTE/SCERT for recognition of BTC Course and is given the said

recognition only from the year 2012 onwards, the admission of students

in BTC Course for the Academic Sessions i.e. 2008-09 and 2009-10 was

not  permissible  and  such  degrees  cannot  be  treated  as  validly

recognised.  It may be harsh for the students who took admission in the

Academic Sessions 2008-09 and 2009-10.  However, the Court cannot

countenance  the  position  where  the  unrecognised  course  is  given

imprimatur  of  validity  only on the ground of  equity.  Because of  this

reason itself, the High Court has awarded compensation to the students.

Therefore, we find it difficult to agree to the submissions advanced by

Mr. Parekh on behalf of the students as well.

36) In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is not possible to accede to

the  request  of  the  Deemed  University  to  waive  the  order  of

compensation made by the High Court.  As a result, all these appeals

are bereft of any merit and are accordingly dismissed.  

29

.............................................J. (A.K. SIKRI)

.............................................J. (ASHOK BHUSHAN)

NEW DELHI; OCTOBER 24, 2018.