REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.11215 OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.28473 of 2011)

Shri Morvi Sarvajanik Kelavni Mandal  Sanchalit MSKM B.Ed. College …Appellant

Versus

National Council for Teachers’ Education & Ors. …Respondents

With

CIVIL APPEAL NO.11216 OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.28528 of 2011)

Shri Yogananda Education and  Charitable Trust …Appellant

Versus

National Council for Teachers’ Education & Ors. …Respondents

1

J U D G M E N T

T.S. THAKUR, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals arise out of an order dated 7th October,  

2011 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad,  

whereby Special Civil Application No.9485 of 2011 has been  

dismissed and order dated 20th July, 2011 as modified by  

order  dated  24th August,  2011  issued  by  the  Western  

Regional  Committee  under  Section  17  of  the  National  

Council of Teachers’ Education (for short ‘NCTE’) Act, 1993  

withdrawing the recognition of the B.Ed. College established  

by the appellant upheld.

3. The  appellant-Trust  has  established  a  college  under  

the name and style Shri Morvi Sarvajanik Kelavni Mandal  

Sanchalit MSKM B.Ed. College, Rajkot. The college had the  

benefit of recognition granted in its favour in terms of an  

order dated 29th May, 2007 under Section 14 (3)(a) of the  

NCTE Act for offering a B.Ed. with an annual intake of 100  

2

students. Shortly after the grant of the said recognition, the  

NCTE issued a notice dated 27th July, 2008 to the appellant  

to show cause why the recognition should not be withdrawn  

in terms of Section 17 of the Act in view of the deficiencies  

pointed out in the notice like inadequacy of built-up area  

available  to  the  institution,  the  land  underlying  the  

structure not being in the name of the appellant-Trust and  

the college being run in a building that is used by two other  

institutions.   

                    4. The recognition was finally withdrawn by the NCTE on  

29th November, 2008 primarily because the appellant had  

failed to respond to the show cause notice within the period  

stipulated  for  the  purpose.  The  withdrawal  order  was,  

however, successfully challenged before the High Court by  

the appellant with the High Court issuing certain directions  

including a direction to the appellant-college to remove the  

defects pointed out by the NCTE and to offer the institution  

for a fresh inspection by the NCTE.  The High Court also  

directed that while admissions for the current year shall not  

be affected by the withdrawal of recognition, in the event of  

3

non-compliance with the requirements of the Regulations,  

the institution shall not be permitted to admit any student  

for the next year. The NCTE was given liberty to have a  

fresh inspection conducted and pass appropriate orders in  

accordance with law after issuing a notice to the institution.  

5. In compliance with the directions of the High Court,  

the  appellant  by  its  letter  dated  20th December,  2010  

intimated to the NCTE that the deficiencies in question had  

been removed and invited the NCTE to depute a team for a  

fresh  inspection  of  the  college.  An  inspection  was  

accordingly  conducted  that  culminated  in  the  issue  of  a  

fresh  notice  to  the  appellant  again  pointing  out  several  

deficiencies in the institution including inadequacy of space,  

staff and the fact that the college had no land in its own  

name and that the institution was being run in a building  

which was being used by two other colleges. The appellant  

appears to have sent a reply to the said show-cause notice  

but before a final decision could be taken on the same, the  

appellant filed Special Civil Appeal No.6507 of 2011 before  

the High Court for a mandamus to the University to allot  

students to the appellant-college.  By an order dated 14th  

4

June, 2011, the High Court directed the University to allot  

the  students  to  the  appellant-college  for  the  academic  

session  2011-2012.   In  the  meantime,  the  Western  

Regional  Committee  issued  an  order  on  20th July,  2011  

withdrawing  the  recognition  granted  to  the  appellant-

college in exercise of its powers under Section 17 of NCTE  

Act. The order contained as many as nine different grounds  

for  the  said  withdrawal.  Aggrieved,  the  appellant  filed  

Special Civil Application No.9485 of 2011 before the High  

Court,  inter  alia,  contending  that  the  withdrawal  of  

recognition was on grounds that went beyond the show-

cause notice issued to the institution. It was also contended  

that  pursuant  to  the  directions  of  the  High  Court  the  

University had allotted 60 students to the college who were  

on its  rolls  and whose future  was likely  to  be  adversely  

affected by the withdrawal order.   

6. While the writ petition filed by the appellant was still  

pending,  Western  Regional  Committee  issued  a  modified  

withdrawal order dated 24th August, 2011 relying upon the  

visiting team report which found the following deficiencies:

5

(i) The  Institution  neither  had  land  on  the  date  of  submission  of  application  as  per  Clause  7(D)  of  the  NCTE regulations 2002, nor does it have the land even  today.

(ii) The  Institution  is  running  in  a  flat  of  Multi  Storied  Residential Building.

(iii) Registered  lease  deed  of  the  flat  was  executed  on  18.03.2011,  that  is  beyond  the  time  limit  of  31.12.2010 as prescribed by the Hon’ble High Court.

(iv) One of the lecturers was not qualified as on the date of  appointment.    

7. The High Court was not happy with the above order as  

is evident from an interim order dated 30th August, 2011  

whereby  the  Regional  Director,  Western  Regional  

Committee, National Council for Teacher Education, Bhopal,  

was directed to send a new team to inspect the institution  

and  submit  a  fresh  report  regarding  the  defects  and  

deficiencies in the infrastructure provided by the college. An  

inspection committee was accordingly deputed by the NCTE  

who filed a report before the High Court in a sealed cover.  

The report, inter alia, stated:

“The team had done the inspection  of  infrastructure,  institutional facilities etc.  The C.D. is enclosed.  The  videography had been in a continuous manner.   The  four corners of land and four corners of the buildings  are prominently picturised.  The photography of land,  

6

building, instructional facilities, staff is also done.  (C.D.  and album enclosed).

The  Hon’ble  High  Court  has  directed  to  do  the  inspection  with  regards  to  the  defects  shown  in  the  withdrawal order.

The inspection is done accordingly following the orders  of the Hon’ble High Court.

The  observations  of  the  visiting  team regarding  the  defects/deficiencies are noted below:

(i)         It is true that the institution does not   have  the  registered  land  document  and  is  occupying  the  land  belonging  to  Shri  Uma  Education Trust.

(ii) It is true that the institution has submitted the  building plan of Shri Uma Education Trust. This  building plan was approved by Sarpanch, Vajdi  (Virda).  The  approval  of  Rajkot  Urban  Development Authority is still not obtained by  the Uma Education Trust.

(iii) It  is  true  that  the  land  use  certificate   submitted by the Institution is about the land  of Uma Education Trust.

(iv) It is true that the Institution does not have its   own  land  and  building.   The  institution  is   running on the premises of the Uma Education  Trust.

(v) The teaching staff  profile is approved by In- charge  Vibhagiya  Officer,  Saurashtra  University on 18.02.2009 on 11.05.2011 and  13.05.2011.  Four  lecturers  have  no  M.Ed.  qualifications.  One common observed that all   lists  were  approved  by  in-charge,  Vibhagiya  Officer of the Unversity.

(vi) Uma B.Ed. college and Jalaram B.Ed. College  are being run on the same premises.

7

(vii) It is true that the institution has submitted the  building  plan  of  Shri  Uma  Education  Trust.  This  building  plan  was  approved  by  the  Sarpanch,  Vajdi  (Virda).  The  approval  of  Rajkot  Urban  Development  Authority  is  still   not obtained by the Uma Education Trust.

(viii) Morvi Sarvajanik Kelevani Mandal and Jalaram  Education  Trust  are unilaterally  merged with  Uma  Education  Trust  without  due  authorisation of the competent authority and  also  without  the  approval  of  the  WRC.  The  matter is still under correspondence.

(ix) The  institution/Morvi  Sarvajanik  Kelavani  Mandal did not possess adequate land or govt.   land acquired on long terms lease basis or on  ownership.”

8. The High Court upon a consideration of the relevant  

records  including  the  inspection  report  placed  before  it,  

dismissed the writ petition relying upon the decisions of this  

Court in Chairman, Bhartia Education Society and Anr.  

v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. (2011) 4 SCC  

527,  N.M.  Nageshwaramma  v.  State  of  Andhra  

Pradesh and Anr. (1986) Supp. SCC 166, Students of  

Dattatraya  Adhyapak  Vidyalya  v.  State  of  

Maharashtra  and  Ors.  SLP  (C)  No.2067  of  1991,  

decided  on  19.2.1991,  Andhra  Kesari  Educational  

Society v. Director of School Education (1989) 1 SCC  

392  and  a  few  others.  The  High  Court  held  that  the  

8

appellant  was  not  entitled  to  any  relief  in  the  writ  

proceedings filed  on its  behalf  and accordingly  dismissed  

the writ petition.  Hence the present appeals, assail the said  

judgment and order.

9. We have  heard  learned  counsel  for  the  parties  and  

perused the record.

10. Mushroom growth  of  ill-equipped,  under-staffed  and  

un-recognised educational institutions was noticed by this  

Court  in  State  of  Maharashtra  v.  Vikas  Sahebrao  

Roundale  and  Ors.  (1992)  4  SCC  435.  This  Court  

observed that the field of education had become a fertile,  

perennial  and  profitable  business  with  the  least  capital  

outlay  in  some States  and  that  societies  and  individuals  

were establishing such institutions without complying with  

the  statutory  requirements.  The  unfortunate  part  is  that  

despite  repeated  pronouncements  of  this  Court  over  the  

past  two  decades  deprecating  the  setting  up  of  such  

institutions. The mushrooming of the colleges continues all  

9

over the country at times in complicity with the statutory  

authorities,  who  fail  to  check  this  process  by  effectively  

enforcing  the  provisions  of  the  NCTE  Act  and  the  

Regulations framed thereunder.  

11. The  present  is  one  such  case  where  the  institution  

established by the appellant has been inspected more than  

once  and  several  deficiencies  that  seriously  affect  its  

capacity to impart quality education and training to future  

teachers specifically pointed out. Inadequacy of space and  

staff,  apart from other requirements stipulated under the  

provisions  of  the  Act  and  the  Regulations,  is  something  

which disqualifies any institution from seeking recognition.  

Such deficiencies have not been disputed before us nor can  

the same be disputed in the light of the reports submitted  

by the inspecting teams from time to time, including the  

report submitted on the basis of the latest inspection that  

was  conducted  pursuant  to  the  directions  issued  by  the  

High Court.   It is difficult to appreciate how the institution  

could have reported compliance with the requirements of  

the regulations  and complete  removal  of  the deficiencies  

10

after  the  order  passed  by  the  High  Court  when  the  

institution had neither the land standing in its name nor the  

building constructed in which it could conduct the training  

programme.  The fact that the institution was being run in a  

building which was shared by two other colleges was itself  

sufficient to justify withdrawal of the recognition granted in  

its favour.  It was also noted by the inspecting team that  

four lecturers employed by the appellant did not have the  

requisite  M.Ed.  qualification.  Suffice  it  to  say  that  the  

institution was lacking in essential  infrastructural facilities  

which clearly justified withdrawal of the recognition earlier  

granted to it.

12. Confronted with the above position,  learned counsel  

for the appellant argued that the students admitted to the  

college  for  the  academic  session  2011-2012  could  be  

allowed to appear in the examination to avoid prejudice to  

them and to save their careers. A similar contention urged  

before the High Court has been rejected by it relying upon  

the decisions of this Court in which decisions this Court has  

not favoured grant of such relief to students admitted to  

unrecognised  institution  on  consideration  of  misplaced  

11

sympathy. The High Court has also noted that the students  

had been transferred to other recognised colleges and that  

in  any  case  students  admitted  for  the  academic  session  

2011-2012  could  not  be  allowed  to  continue  in  an  

institution which did not have the requisite infrastructure  

prescribed under the NCTE Regulations and norms. It was  

argued on behalf of the appellants that the High Court was  

not right in observing that students had been transferred to  

other  institutions.  At  any  rate  the  order  withdrawing  

recognition  could  not,  according  to  the  learned  counsel,  

affect students admitted to the institution for the academic  

session 2011-2012 as the withdrawal order could only be  

prospective in nature and having been passed in August,  

2011  was  relevant  only  for  the  academic  session  2012-

2013.  We do not think so, firstly, because the recognition  

of the institution stood withdrawn on 20th July, 2011 which  

meant that while it had no effect qua admissions for the  

academic session 2010-2011 it was certainly operative qua  

admissions made for the academic session 2011-12 which  

commenced from 1st August, 2011 onwards. The fact that  

there was a modification of the said order of withdrawal on  

12

24th August, 2011 did not obliterate the earlier order dated  

20th July, 2011. The modifying order would in our opinion  

relate back and be effective from 20th July, 2011 when the  

recognition  was  first  withdrawn.  Such  being  the  position  

admissions made for the academic session 2011-2012 were  

not protected under the statute.   

13. Secondly,  because  this  Court  has  in  a  long  line  of  

decisions  rendered  from  time  to  time  disapproved  of  

students  being  allowed  to  continue  in  unrecognised  

institutions only on sympathetic  considerations.   In  N.M.  

Nageshwaramma (supra) this Court while dealing with  

the prayer for grant of permission to the students admitted  

to unrecognised institution observed:

“3.  xxxxxx

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.  The  Teachers  Training  Institutes  are  meant  to  teach  children  of  impressionable  age  and  we  cannot  let  loose  on  the  innocent  and  unwary  children,  teachers  who  have  not  

13

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.   We have no hesitation in dismissing the writ petitions with  costs.”

(emphasis supplied)

14. To  the  same  effect  is  the  decision  of  this  Court  in  

Managing  Committee  of  Bhagwan  Budh  Primary  

Teachers  Training  College  and  another  v.  State  of  

Bihar & Ors. (1990) Supp. SCC 722, where this Court  

observed:

“2.   It is not possible to grant any such permission as  prayed for because the granting of such permission would  be clearly  violating the provisions  of  the Education Act  (see the judgments in S.L.P. No. 12014 of 1987 decided  on November 25, 1987 and the  A.P.  Christians Medical  Educational Society v. Government of A.P.)….”.  

15. In  State  of  Tamil  Nadu and Ors.  v.  St.  Joseph  

Teachers  Training Institute  and Anr.  (1991)  3 SCC  

87, this Court once again found fault with the grant of relief  

to  students  admitted  to  unrecognised  institutions  on  

humanitarian grounds.  This Court said:

“6.  The practice  of  admitting students by unauthorised  educational  institutions  and  then  seeking  permission  for  permitting the students to appear at the examination has  been looked with disfavour by this Court. ………... In  A.P.  

14

Christians  Medical  Educational  Society v.  Government  of  A.P (1986) 2 SCC 667, a similar request made on behalf of   the  institution  and  the  students  for  permitting  them to  appear at the examination even though affiliation had not  been  granted,  was  rejected  by  this  Court.  The  court  observed  that  any  direction  of  the  nature  sought  for   permitting  the  students  to  appear  at  the  examination  without the institution being affiliated or recognised would  be in clear transgression of the provision of the Act and  the regulations. The court cannot be a party to direct the  students  to  disobey  the  statute  as  that  would  be  destructive of the rule of law. The Full Bench noted these  decisions and observations and yet it granted relief to the  students  on  humanitarian  grounds.  Courts  cannot  grant  relief to a party on humanitarian grounds contrary to law.   Since the students of unrecognised 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.  The  directions issued by the Full Bench are destructive of the  rule of law. Since the Division Bench issued the impugned  orders  following  the  judgment  of  the  Full  Bench,  the  impugned orders are not sustainable in law.”

(emphasis supplied)

16. Reference  may  also  be  made  to  State  of  

Maharashtra  v.  Vikas  Sahebrao  Roundale  and  Ors.  

(supra)  and Chairman, Bhartia  Education Society v.  

Himachal Pradesh & Ors. (supra).   In the latter case  

this Court observed :

“15. The  practice  of  admitting  students  by  unrecognised  institutions and then seeking permission for the students to  appear  for  the  examinations  has  been  repeatedly  disapproved  by  this  Court  (see  N.M.  Nageshwaramma v.  State of A.P,  A.P. Christian Medical Educational Society v.  Govt. of A.P. and  State of Maharashtra v.  Vikas Sahebrao  

Roundale4). We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with  the decision of the High Court rejecting the prayer of the  students admitted in 1999 to regularise their admissions by  

15

directing the Board to permit them to appear for the JBT  examination  conducted by it.  The two appeals  (CAs 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.”

17. There is no distinguishing feature between the cases  

mentioned above and the case at hand for us to strike a  

discordant note. The institution established by the appellant  

is not equipped with the infrastructure required under the  

NCTE Act  and the Regulations.  It  is  not  in  a position  to  

impart  quality  education,  no  matter  admissions  for  the  

session  2011-2012  were  made  pursuant  to  the  interim  

directions issued by the High Court.  We have, therefore,  

no  hesitation  in  rejecting  the  prayer  for  permitting  the  

students to continue in the unrecognised institution of the  

appellant or directing that they may be permitted to appear  

in the examination. We, however, make it clear that this  

order  will  not  prevent  the  respondent-University  from  

examining the feasibility of reallocating the students who  

were admitted through the University process of selection  

and counselling to other recognised colleges to prevent any  

prejudice to such students.  Such re-allocation for the next  

session may not remedy the situation fully qua the students  

16

who  may  have  to  start  the  course  afresh  but  it  would  

ensure  that  if  such  admissions/reallocation  is  indeed  

feasible,  the  students  may  complete  their  studies  in  a  

recognised college instead of wasting their time in a college  

which  does  not  enjoy  recognition  by  the  NCTE.  We,  

however, leave this aspect entirely for the consideration of  

the University at the appropriate level, having regard to its  

Rules and Regulations and subject to availability of seats  

for  such  adjustment  to  be  made  as  also  the  terms  and  

conditions on which the same could be made.  This order  

shall also not prevent the affected students from seeking  

such reliefs against the appellant college as may be legally  

permissible  including  relief  by  way  of  refund  of  the  fee  

recovered from them.  

18. With the above observations,  these appeals fail  and  

are hereby dismissed with costs assessed at Rs.20,000/-.  

             ……………………..……..…J. (Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)

17

……………………..……..…J. (T.S. THAKUR)

New Delhi December 16, 2011

18