Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1227 OF 2011 [Arising out of SLP(C) No.4725/2006]

CHAIRMAN, BHARTIA EDUCATION  SOCIETY & ANR.

.......APPELLANTS  

Vs.

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH &  ORS

.....RESPONDENTS

WITH  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1228 OF 2011 [Arising out of SLP(C) NO. 5346 of 2006]

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1229 OF 2011 [Arising out of SLP(C) NO. 15722 of 2006]

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1230-1231 OF 2011 [Arising out of SLP(C) NO. 18835-18836 of 2007]

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1232-1233 OF 2011 [Arising out of SLP(C) NO. 19217-19218 of 2007]

O R D E R

R.V.Raveendran J.,

Leave granted. Heard.

2. Bhartia Education Society (‘Society’ for short) runs  

an institute known as Rameshwari Teachers Training Institute  

(‘Institute’  for  short)  at  Gandhi  Nagar,  Kullu,  Himachal

Pradesh. The Institute was recognized by National Council for  

Teacher  Education  (for  short,  ‘NCTE’)  by  order  dated  

17.7.2000 for conducting Two-year Junior Basic Training (JBT)  

course with an intake of 50, from the academic session 2000-

2001.  NCTE increased the intake to 100 from the academic  

session 2002-2004. After getting recognition, the Institute  

applied  for  affiliation  to  the  Examining  Body  –  Himachal  

Pradesh  Board  of  School  Education  (‘Board’  for  short)  on  

31.8.2001. The Board granted affiliation to the Institute for  

the two-year JBT course (2001-2003) by two orders that is  

order dated 31.12.2001 for the first year of the two-year  

course (2001-2002) and order dated 27.12.2002 for the second  

year of the two-year course (2002-2003). The Board however  

did not grant affiliation for the subsequent JBT courses and  

in  fact  refused  affiliation  by  order  dated  20.1.2004.  

Ultimately it is stated that affiliation to the Institute was  

granted  by  the  Board  only  in  the  year  2009.  The  State  

Government by letter dated 17.10.2002, however granted one  

time  relaxation  in  regard  to  students  admitted  by  the  

Institute for the academic sessions 1999-2001 and 2000-2002  

and directed the Board to conduct the examination for those  

students.  In  compliance  thereof  the  Board  permitted  the  

eligible students of 1999-2001 and 2000-2002 batches to take  

the examination in December 2002.

3. The students admitted by the Institute to the two-

year JBT Course in the year 1999 filed CWP Nos.819 of 2003,  

1178, 1188, 1194, 1204 of 2004 and 50 of 2005, before the  

High Court praying for a direction to the Board to declare  

the first year JBT course results of 1999-2001 batch and a  

further  direction  to  the  Board  to  hold  the  second  year  

examinations  for  the  students  belonging  to  the  1999-2001  

batch. A student admitted by the Institute to the JBT course  

in the year 2002 filed CWP No.622 of 2004 seeking a direction  

to the Board to conduct the examinations for the students  

admitted for the academic session 2002-2004. The High Court,  

by its common judgment dated 13.1.2006, rejected the prayers  

in the said petitions relating to 1999-2001 and 2002-2004  

batches but however a different relief to the students who  

had filed the writ Petitions by directing the Society and the  

Institute to refund the fee paid by them and also pay each of  

them Rs.50,000/- as damages.  

4. CWP Nos.170 of 2005 and 1231 of 2005 were filed by  

some of the students admitted by the Institute in the year  

2003, seeking a direction to the Board to take steps to grant  

affiliation to the Institute and permit the students of 2003-

2005 batch to appear for the examinations. CWP Nos.251 and  

252 of 2005 were filed by the Society/Institute seeking a  

direction  to  the  Board  to  grant  an  affiliation  for  the

academic sessions 2004-2006 and 2005-2007 and a direction to  

the Government to sponsor students for admission for the said  

2004-2006 and 2005-2007 academic sessions. These four writ  

petitions were disposed of by another common judgment dated  

12.7.2007.  CWP  Nos.251  and  252  of  2005  filed  by  the  

Society/Institute  were dismissed.  CWP Nos.170  and 1231  of  

2005 filed by the students of 2003-2005 batch were disposed  

of by directing the Society and the Institute to refund the  

fees  received  from  those  students  and  pay  Rs.50,000/-  as  

damages to each of them.  

5. CA  Nos.1227/2011  is  filed  by  the  Society/Institute  

against  the  judgment  dated  13.1.2006  in  CWP  No.622/2004  

relating to 2002-2004 batch. CA No.1228/2011 is filed by the  

society/Institute  and  CA  No.1229/2011  is  filed  by  the  

students  admitted  in  1999,  against  the  judgment  dated  

13.1.2006 in CWP No.819/2003, 1178, 1188, 1194, 1204 of 2004  

and 50/2005, relating to the 1999-2001 batch. CA Nos.1230-

1231/2011  are  filed  by  the  Society/Institute  against  the  

judgment  dated 12.7.2007  in CWP  No.170/2005 and  1231/2005  

relating to 2003-2005 batch. CA Nos. 1232-1233/2011 are filed  

by the society/Institute against the judgment dated 12.7.2007  

in CWP Nos.251 and 252 of 2005 relating to academic sessions  

2004-2006 and 2005-2007.

CA Nos.1228 & 1229 of 2011 (Admissions made in 1999)

6. The Institute admitted 160 students to the two-year  

JBT course, in the year 1999. The state government by letter  

dated  17.10.2002  addressed  to  the  Board,  communicated  its  

decision to grant one-time relaxation in respect of admission  

of students made by the Institute for the academic session  

1999-2001 and directed the Board to conduct the examination  

for them. In pursuance of such one-time relaxation by the  

State Government, the Board considered the eligibility of the  

160 students admitted for the 1999-2001 academic session and  

found 68 students to be eligible and permitted them to take  

examination and announced their results. The Board found that  

the  remaining  92  students  were  ineligible  (either  because  

they had not passed the matriculation examination in second  

division or did not fall within the prescribed age limit).  

The Board however permitted those 92 candidates also to take  

the  first  year  examination,  but  their  results  were  not  

announced nor were they permitted to take the second year  

examination.  Learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  students  

contended that there was some confusion in regard to the  

eligibility criteria/norms adopted by the state government  

and the Board, and benefit of the doubt/confusion should be  

extended to the students who did not possess the required  

second division in the matriculation or were beyond the age

limits prescribed. They therefore sought a direction to the  

Board  to  declare  the  first  year  results  and  conduct  the  

second year examination, for the 1999-2001 batch students.  

7. It is well settled that admission to a course can be  

given only to those candidates who are eligible as per the  

regulations of the Examining Body and the State Government.  

Therefore,  unless  the  students  fulfilled  the  eligibility  

requirements stipulated by the Board which is the affiliating  

and examining authority, their admissions will be invalid and  

they cannot be permitted to take the examination. As the  

Board found that 92 students did not fulfil the eligibility  

requirements,  it  rightly  rejected  their  admission  to  the  

course. But more important than the non-fulfilment of the  

eligibility requirements of the Board, is the absence of NCTE  

recognition in the year 1999. As noticed above recognition  

was granted by NCTE to the Institute only on 17.7.2000, from  

the  academic  session  2000-2002.  The  question  therefore  is  

whether the admissions made in 1999, before recognition by  

NCTE, are valid.  

8. The Society/Institute submitted that they applied to  

NCTE on 11.4.1997, seeking recognition; that NCTE responded  

by stating that it will consider the request for recognition,  

on the Institute obtaining an NOC from the State Government;

that the State Government gave its NOC on 20.9.1999; and that  

therefore, they proceeded bona fide under the impression that  

the Institute could make the admissions from 1999 onwards.  

The Society/Institute therefore submitted that the admissions  

made  in  the  year  1999  should  be  deemed  to  have  been  

regularized, when the Institute was recognized on 17.7.2000.  

9. Section  14  of  the  National  Council  for  Teacher  

Education  Act,  1993  ('NCTE  Act'  for  short)  relates  to  

recognition of institutions offering course or training in  

teacher  education.  Sub-section  (1)  thereof  provides  that  

every institution offering or intending to offer a course or  

training in teacher education on or after the appointed day,  

may,  for  grant  of  recognition  under  the  Act,  make  an  

application to the Regional Committee concerned in such form  

and in such manner as may be determined by regulations. NCTE  

Act came into force on 1.7.1995 and the appointed day under  

the said Act is stated to be 17.8.1995. A combined reading of  

sections 14(1) and (5), 15, 16, and 17(3) and (4) of NCTE Act  

make it clear that after the appointed day, no institution  

can  commence  or  offer  a  course  or  training  in  teacher  

education without recognition by the NCTE and consequently,  

no student could be admitted to such course or training nor  

could be permitted to appear in any examination relating to  

such course or training. The Society established and started

the Institute after the appointed day. The Society applied to  

NCTE for recognition on 11.4.1997. NCTE required the Society  

to obtain and furnish an NOC from the Government of Himachal  

Pradesh. The said NOC was granted on 20.9.1999. In pursuance  

of  it,  NCTE  granted  recognition  to  the  Institute  on  

17.7.2000.  The  order  of  NCTE  made  it  clear  that  the  

recognition  was  for  conducting  the  Two  Years  JBT  course  

commencing from the academic year 2000-2001 with an annual  

intake of 50 students. Having regard to the clear provisions  

of  the  NCTE  Act,  before  NCTE  granted  recognition  on  

17.7.2000, the Institute could not offer the JBT course nor  

admit any students to such course.  Therefore, the admissions  

made  by  the  Institute  in  the  year  1999  for  the  academic  

session 1999-2001 are illegal and irregular and could not be  

approved, recognised or regularised.

10. The students pointed out that the State Government  

and the Board have accepted and regularized the admissions of  

68 students of 1999-2001 batch and therefore they should not  

be denied similar benefit. The fact that the State Government  

and the Board chose to ignore the absence of NCTE recognition  

and  permitted  the  students  admitted  in  1999  to  take  the  

examination or announced the results of 68 students who were  

eligible as per the criteria prescribed by the State/Board,  

cannot be a ground for us to ignore the mandatory statutory

requirements  of  NCTE  Act  and  perpetuate  an  illegality  by  

requiring  the  Board  to  conduct  the  examinations  for  the  

remaining 92 students admitted in the year 1999 or declare  

their results. In State of Tamil Nadu vs. St. Joseph Teachers  

Training Institute – (1991) 3 SCC 87, this Court disapproved  

the  grant  of  any  direction  to  permit  the  students  of  an  

unrecognized  teachers  training  institute  to  take  the  

examination, even in pre-NCTE era. This Court observed :  

“There is no dispute that the respondent educational  institutions were established for imparting education  in  Teachers  Training  Course  without  obtaining  recognition from the Education Department of the State  Government.  In  the  absence  of  recognition  from  the  Education  Department,  the  students  pursuing  their  studies in these institutions could not appear at the  public examination held by the Education Department.  The  Full  Bench  rightly  held  that  students  of  unrecognized  educational  institutions  could  not  be  permitted to appear at the public examination held by  the government. On its own findings, the Full Bench  should have refused relief to the petitioners, but it  was  persuaded  to  issue  directions  on  humanitarian  grounds which were in effect destructive of its own  findings, and the law laid down by it. The Full Bench  issued  directions  permitting the students to appear  at  the  examination  and  directing  the  appellant  authorities  to  make  a  special  provision  for  supplementary  examination.  These  directions  in  our  opinion were unauthorized and wholly unjustified. ……… …..Courts  cannot  grant  relief  to  a  party  on  humanitarian  grounds  contrary  to  law.  Since  the  students of unrecognized institutions were legally not  entitled  to  appear  at  the  examination  held  by  the  Education Department of the government, the High Court  acted in violation of law in granting permission to  such  students  for  appearing  at  the  public  examination.”  

11. The  practice  of  admitting  students  by  unrecognized

institutions and then seeking permission for the students to  

appear for the examinations have been repeatedly disapproved  

by this Court [See : N. M. Nageshwaramma vs. State of AP –  

(1986)  Supp.  SCC  166,  A.P.  Christian  Medical  Education  

Society vs. Government of AP – (1986) 2 SCC 667,  and State  

of Maharashtra vs. Vikas Sahelrao Roundale – (1992) 4 SCC  

435]. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the  

decision  of  the  High  Court  rejecting  the  prayer  of  the  

students admitted in 1999 to regularize their admissions by  

directing the Board to permit them to appear for the JBT  

examination conducted by it.  The two appeals (CA Nos.1228  

and 1229 of 2011) filed by the Society/Institute and the  

students  in  regard  to  the  1999  admissions  are  therefore  

liable to be dismissed.

CA Nos.1227 and 1230-1231 of 2011 (Admissions made in 2002  

and 2003)

12. When the Institute made admissions to JBT course in  

the years 2002 and 2003 (for 2002-2004 and 2003-2005 academic  

sessions), the Institute had the recognition from NCTE vide  

order dated 17.7.2000. The admissions made by the Institute  

were  within  the  permitted  intake.  The  students  admitted  

during 2002 and 2003 have completed the course. The students  

were also permitted by the Board to take the examination and

only their results remain to be declared.   

13. After  securing  recognition  from  NCTE  on  17.7.2000,  

the Institute applied to the Board for affiliation for the  

academic session 2000-2002. The Board informed the Institute,  

by letter dated 31.8.2001 that it did not have jurisdiction  

to grant affiliation to JBT training institutions. However,  

by  subsequent  order  dated  31.12.2001,  the  Board  granted  

affiliation for the two year JBT course for the year 2001-

2002 only, with a condition that the institution shall have  

to seek fresh affiliation for the second year of the course.  

The State Government by letters dated 20.1.2004 and 8.3.2004  

rejected  the  request  of  the  Society  to  regularize  the  

admissions of the 2002-2004 batch and conduct examination for  

them, on the ground that the Institute had made admissions by  

ignoring  the admission  procedures prescribed  by the  State  

Government. By letter dated 30.10.2004, the State Government  

instructed  the  Board  not  to  grant  affiliation  to  the  

Institute because of frequent irregularities in admissions.  

The High Court refused relief to the students admitted to  

2002-2004  and  2003-2005  sessions  on  the  ground  that  the  

admission of students by the Institute without affiliation to  

the Examining Body, was illegal and invalid.   

14. Learned  counsel  for  the  Institute  submitted  that

having regard to the provisions of section 14(6) of the NCTE  

Act, the examining body is bound to grant affiliation to an  

institution in regard to which recognition has been granted  

by NCTE. He submitted that where an institution is granted  

recognition by NCTE, the affiliation with the examining body  

should  automatically  follow  and  in  view  of  such  deemed  

affiliation, the Examining Body had no discretion to deny  

affiliation. He submitted that when NCTE granted recognition  

on  17.7.2000,  the  institute  bona  fide proceeded  on  the  

assumption that the affiliation with the Examining Body was  

automatic and therefore it had proceeded to make admissions  

without awaiting any specific order of affiliation.  

15. The  purpose  of  ‘recognition’  and  ‘affiliation’  are  

different. In the context of NCTE Act, ‘affiliation’ enables  

and  permits  an  institution  to  send  its  students  to  

participate  in  the  public  examinations  conducted  by  the  

Examining Body and secure the qualification in the nature of  

degrees,  diplomas,  certificates.  On  the  other  hand,  

‘recognition’ is the licence to the institution to offer a  

course or training in teacher education. Prior to NCTE Act,  

in  the  absence  of  an  apex  body  to  plan  and  co-ordinate  

development  of  teacher  education  system,  respective  

regulation and proper maintenance of the norms and standards

in  the  teacher  education  system,  including  grant  of  

‘recognition’ were largely exercised by the State Government  

and Universities/Boards. After the enactment of NCTE Act, the  

functions  of  NCTE  as  ‘recognising  authority’  and  the  

Examining  Bodies  as  ‘affiliating  authorities’  became  

crystallized,  though  their  functions  overlap  on  several  

issues. NCTE Act recognizes the role of examining bodies in  

their sphere of activity.   

16. Section 14 of the NCTE Act requires recognition of  

the institution by the NCTE, before the institute could offer  

any course or training in teacher education. Sub-section (4)  

of Section 14 provides that every order granting or refusing  

recognition to an Institution for a course or training in  

teacher education under sub-section (3) shall be published in  

the  Official  Gazette  and  communicated  in  writing  for  

appropriate action to such institution and to the concerned  

examining body, the local authority or the State Government  

and the Central Government. Sub-section (6) of section 14  

requires every Examining Body on receipt of the order under  

sub-section (4), grant affiliation to the institution, where  

recognition has been granted; or cancel the affiliation of  

the institution, where recognition has been refused. Section  

16  of  NCTE  Act  provides  that  notwithstanding  anything  

contained in any other law for the time being in force, no

examining body shall grant affiliation whether provisional or  

otherwise, to any institution, or hold  examination for a  

course  or training  conducted by  a recognized  institution,  

unless  the  institution  concerned  has  obtained  recognition  

from  the  Regional  Committee  of  NCTE  under  section  14  or  

permission for a course or training under section 15 of the  

Act.

17. Sub-section (6) of section 14 no doubt mandates every  

examining body to grant affiliation to the institution on  

receipt of the order of NCTE granting recognition to such  

institution. This only means that recognition is a condition  

precedent for affiliation and that the examining body does  

not have any discretion to refuse affiliation with reference  

to any of the factors which have been considered by the NCTE  

while granting recognition. For example, NCTE is required to  

satisfy  itself  about  the  adequate  financial  resources,  

accommodation,  library,  qualified  staff,  and  laboratory  

required  for  proper  functioning  of  an  institution  for  a  

course  or  training  in  teacher  education.  Therefore,  when  

recognition is granted by NCTE, it is implied that NCTE has  

satisfied  itself  on  those  aspects.  Consequently,  the  

examining body may not refuse affiliation on the ground that

the institution does not have adequate financial resources,  

accommodation,  library,  qualified  staff,  or  laboratory  

required for proper functioning of the institution. But this  

does  not  mean  that  the  examining  body  cannot  require  

compliance with its own requirements in regard to eligibility  

of  candidates  for  admissions  to  courses  or  manner  of  

admission  of  students  or  other  areas  falling  within  the  

sphere of the State government and/or the examining body.  

Even the order of recognition dated 17.7.2000 issued by NCTE  

specifically  contemplates the  need for  the institution  to  

comply with and fulfil the requirement of the affiliating  

body and state government, in addition to the conditions of  

NCTE. We extract below conditions 4, 5 & 6 of the order of  

recognition issued by NCTE in this behalf :

“4. The admission to the approved course shall be given  only to those candidates who are eligible as per the  regulations governing the course and in the manner laid  down by the affiliating University/State Government.

5. Tuition fee and other fees will be charged from the  students  as  per  the  norms  of  the  affiliating  University/State  Government  till  such  time  NCTE  regulations in respect of fee structure come into force.

6.  Curriculum  transaction,  including  practical  work/activities,  should  be  organized  as  per  the  NCTE  norms and standards for the course and the requirements  of the affiliating University/Examining body.”

The examining body can therefore impose its own requirements  

in  regard  to  eligibility  of  students  for  admission  to  a

course in addition to those prescribed by NCTE. The state  

government  and  the  examining  body  may  also  regulate  the  

manner  of  admissions.  As  a  consequence,  if  there  is  any  

irregularity in admissions or violation of the eligibility  

criteria prescribed by the examining body or any irregularity  

with reference to any of the matters regulated and governed  

by the examining body, the examining body may cancel the  

affiliation  irrespective of  the fact  that the  institution  

continues  to  enjoy  the  recognition  of  the  NCTE.  

Sub-section (6) of section 14 cannot be interpreted in a  

manner so as to make the process of affiliation, an automatic  

rubber-stamping consequent upon recognition, without any kind  

of discretion in the examining body to examine whether the  

institution deserves affiliation or not, independent of the  

recognition.  An institution requires the recognition of NCTE  

as well as affiliation with the examining body, before it can  

offer a course or training in teacher education or admit  

students to such course or training. Be that as it may.

18. Certain facts peculiar to this case requires to be  

noticed.  The  Institute  apparently  proceeded  under  the  

mistaken  impression  that  the  recognition  by  NCTE  on  

17.7.2000,  which  was  granted  after  the  State  Government  

issued  a  NOC,  resulted  in  automatic  affiliation  with  the  

examining  body.  The  Board  had  granted  affiliation  to  the

Institute  for  an  earlier  period  and  has  also  granted  

affiliations for the subsequent period. The students admitted  

in 2002 and 2003 have already completed the course and have  

also been permitted by the Board which is the examining and  

affiliating authority to appear for the examinations. In the  

peculiar circumstances, to do complete justice, we are of the  

view that the admissions of students to the Institute in the  

years  2002  and  2003  should  be  regularized  subject  to  

fulfilling the eligibility criteria prescribed by the Board  

and their results should be declared. To this limited extent,  

the appeals relating to 2002 and 2003 admissions succeed. CA  

No.1227/2011 and 1230-1231/2011 are disposed of accordingly.

19. The  High  Court  has  directed  that  the  Society  and  

Institute having violated the statutory provisions and norms,  

should refund the fees taken from all students who were writ  

petitioners  and  also  pay  to  each  of  them  Rs.50,000/-  as  

damages. The said direction of the High Court to pay damages  

of  Rs.50,000/-  to  each  student,  is  set  aside  insofar  as  

students admitted in the years 2002 and 2003.  

Civil Appeal Nos. 1232-1233/2011 (re : 2004-2006 and 2005-

2007)

20. These appeals arise from the dismissal of the writ

petitions (WP No.251-252/2005) filed by the society and the  

institute  for  the  following  reliefs:  (a)  for  grant  of  

affiliation to the Institute for 2004-2006 and 2005-2007; (b)  

for quashing the Notifications dated 20.6.2002 and 25.6.2002;  

and (c) for a direction to the State Government and the Board  

to sponsor students for the academic sessions 2004-2006 and  

2005-2007.

21. Admittedly no candidates were allotted by the state  

government  to  the  Institute,  nor  did  the  Institute  

independently admit any candidate for the academic sessions  

2004-2006 and 2005-2007. As we are in the year 2011, the  

prayer seeking a direction to the Board to allot candidates  

for 2004-2006 and 2005-2007 does not survive. In view of  

grant of affiliation to the Institute in the year 2009 and in  

the absence of any students being admitted for the academic  

sessions 2004-2006 and 2005-2007, the question of granting  

affiliation for those years is academic and does not arise  

for consideration.

22. The  Notifications  dated  20.6.2002  and  26.5.2002  

related to constitution of a committee to examine whether the  

Institute  had  committed  any  irregularities  in  making

admissions in the past before the recognition by NCTE. There  

was nothing erroneous in constitution of such a committee. At  

all events, after recognition by NCTE and affiliation with  

the Board in 2009, this issue is academic. Consequently, CA  

Nos.1232-1233/2011  are  liable  to  be  dismissed  as  having  

become infructuous.

Conclusion:

23. We accordingly dispose of the appeals as follows :

(i) CA No.1228/2011 and 1229/2011 are dismissed  

(ii) CA No.1227/2011 and 1230-1231/2011 are disposed of in  

terms of paras 18 and 19 above.   

(iii)CA  Nos.1232-1233/2001  are  dismissed  as  having  become  

infructuous.

(iv) As the students admitted in 1999 have been prosecuting  

the  litigation  from  2003,  we  direct  that  if  these  

students seek fresh admission to the Institute in 2011,  

they shall be permitted to join the course, if they meet  

the  eligibility  criteria,  by  relaxing  only  the  age  

requirement. As they have paid the fees for the course

in 1999-2001, they shall not be charged any further fee  

by the Institute.  

 ....................J.              ( R.V. RAVEENDRAN )

  ....................J. New Delhi; ( A.K. PATNAIK ) February 02, 2011.