Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 276 OF 2012

Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila  Mahavidyalaya …  Appellant

Versus

State of U.P. & Ors. …  Respondents

WITH

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 296 of 2012

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 306 of 2012

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 307 of 2012

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 329 of 2012

Civil Appeal No.    9062          of 2012 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 24976 of 2012)

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 354 of 2012

Civil Appeal No.         9063              of 2012 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 25666 of 2012)

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 345 of 2012

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 346 of 2012

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 347 of 2012

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 350 of 2012 1

Page 2

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 349 of 2012

Civil Appeal No.    9064         of 2012 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 21527 of 2012)

Civil Appeal No.      9065            of 2012 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 21643 of 2012)

Civil Appeal No.        9066               of 2012 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 21671 of 2012)

Civil Appeal No.         9067              of 2012 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 21695 of 2012)

Civil Appeal No.         9068              of 2012 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 21720 of 2012)

Civil Appeal No.        9069               of 2012 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 21873 of 2012)

Civil Appeal No.       9070                of 2012 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 21874 of 2012)

Civil Appeal No.       9071                of 2012 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 21876 of 2012)

Civil Appeal No.       9072                of 2012 (Arising out of SLP(C) 10No. 21877 of 2012)

Civil Appeal No.       9073                of 2012 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 21878 of 2012)

Civil Appeal No.       9074                of 2012 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 21881 of 2012)

Civil Appeal No.       9075                of 2012 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 21882 of 2012)

Civil Appeal No.        9076               of 2012 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 21890 of 2012)

2

Page 3

Civil Appeal No.    9077                of 2012 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 24959 of 2012)

10Civil Appeal No.        9078               of 2012 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 22351 of 2012)

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 395 of 2012

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 389 of 2012 Writ Petition (Civil) No. 397 of 2012

J U D G M E N T

Swatanter Kumar, J.

1. Leave granted in all the Special Leave Petitions.

2. In  the  case  of  College  of  Professional  Education  and  

Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [Civil Appeal No.5914 of 2011  

decided on 22nd July,  2011],  this  Court recorded that for  the  

academic year 2012-2013 and subsequent academic years, the  

institutions and the State Government have arrived at a broad  

consensus regarding the procedure and terms and conditions of  

admission,  recognition  and  affiliation.    The  terms  and  

conditions  which  have  been  agreed  and  had  received  the  

approval  of  the  court  were  noticed  in  great  detail  in  that  

3

Page 4

judgment.    For the academic year 2012-2013 and subsequent  

years, the following schedule for admission was provided :

1. Publication of Advertisement 01.02.2011 2. Sale of Application Forms and their  

submission 10.02.2012 to  10.03.2012

3. Date of Entrance Examination 20.04.2012 to  25.04.2012

4. Declaration of Result 25.05.2012 to  30.05.2012

5. Commencement and completion of  counseling  

01.06.2012 to  25.06.2012

6. Last  Date  of  Admissions  after  counseling

28.06.2012

7. Commencement  of  Academic  Session

01.07.2012

3. The  Court  further  directed  that  for  the  academic  year,  

there would be only one counseling.  It was to continue for a  

period  of  25  days  and  was  to  be  conducted  as  per  the  

directions contained in the judgment.   Having provided for the  

various  facets  in  relation  to  the  manner,  procedure  and  

methodology  to  be  adopted  for  admissions,  the  court  also  

provided for the time by which affiliation should be granted to  

the colleges for the relevant academic year.    Clause VI(b) of  

the  judgment  which  has  bearing  upon  the  matters  in  issue  

before us reads as under:-

4

Page 5

“(b)  After  the  counseling  is  over,  the  concerned University will continue to allot the  candidates from the above mentioned waiting  list against the vacant seats till all the seats in  the  colleges  are  filled  up.    It  is  further  submitted  that  the  organizing  university  will  provide  students  only  to  the  existing  B.Ed.  College and all those B.Ed. Colleges which will  get affiliation upto dated 07.07.2011 will  not  be considered for counseling to the year 2011- 12  and  for  the  next  consecutive  years  and  onward the colleges which will be get affiliated  on or before 10th of May of that year, would be  considered for counseling.”

4. As is clear, the Court had fixed a cut-off date for affiliation.  

The colleges which were affiliated upto 7th July, 2011 only were  

permitted  to  participate  in  the  counseling  for  the  academic  

year 2011-2012.   For the next consecutive academic years, the  

colleges which were permitted to participate in the counseling  

were the ones’ which received affiliation on or before 10th May  

of that year.  In other words, the colleges which did not receive  

affiliation by the said cut-off date were not to be included in the  

counseling.

5. Some of the colleges in the State of Uttar Pradesh which  

had not received affiliation filed writ petitions challenging the  

order of the universities declining grant of affiliation to them.  

These  writ  petitions  came  to  be  dismissed  by  different  

5

Page 6

judgments  of  the  High  Court  of  Judicature  at  Allahabad,  

Lucknow Bench, inter alia, but primarily on the ground that the  

court had no jurisdiction to extend the cut-off date as provided  

in  the  judgment  of  this  Court  in  the  case  of  College  of  

Professional Education (supra).

6. In  17  special  leave  petitions,  different  petitioners  have  

challenged the judgments of the concerned High Court before  

this  Court.    The  petitioners  in  15  writ  petitions  have  

approached this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of  

India  challenging  the  order  of  the  university/authorities  

declining to grant affiliation again in view of the cut-off date  

fixed by this Court.

7. These  writ  petitions  and  appeals  have  raised  common  

questions  of  law  on  somewhat  different  facts.   Thus,  we  

propose to dispose of these writ petitions and appeals by this  

common judgment.   Before we dwell upon the real controversy  

arising for consideration of the Court in the present case, it will  

be necessary for the court to refer to the facts in some of the  

writ petitions/appeals.

6

Page 7

Facts

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 276 of 2012

8. It  is  the  case  of  the  petitioner  that  Maa  Vaishno  Devi  

Shiksha Samiti, a society registered under the provisions of the  

Societies Registration Act, 1860 had been imparting education  

in various disciplines as main object.     In furtherance to its  

stated objects,  the  society  opened Maa Vaishno Devi  Mahila  

Mahavidyalaya (for short, the “College”) to conduct courses in  

education (B.A., B.Ed.) in the year 2007.  Initially, the college  

started with B.A. course and was granted affiliation by Dr. Ram  

Manohar Lohia Avadh University (for short, the ‘University’) in  

accordance  with  law.   Thereafter,  the  college  intended  to  

conduct B.Ed course for which it applied for grant of affiliation  

and  recognition  to  the  respective  authorities.   On  24th  

September, 2010, the National Council  for Teacher Education  

(for short “NCTE”) granted recognition to the petitioner college  

for  conducting  B.Ed.  courses  of  secondary  level  of  one year  

with annual intake for 100 students from the academic session  

2010-2011.

7

Page 8

9. In furtherance to the request of the College, the University  

conducted  inspection  of  the  College  and  thereupon  

recommended its case to the State Government.  On 6th July,  

2011  the  State  Government  granted  permission  to  accord  

temporary affiliation  to the petitioner to run B.Ed classes for  

one  year  on  self-finance  basis  for  the  academic  year  2011-

2012.  Subsequently, on 22nd July, 2011, as already noticed, the  

judgment  of  this  Court  came  to  be  passed  in  the  case  of  

College of  Professional  Education and Ors. (supra)  fixing the  

time schedule for grant of affiliation.  A strict timeline was laid  

down for application, examination, counseling and admissions  

with the academic session to begin on 1st July, 2012.

10. Para VI of the judgment dated 22nd July, 2011 does have  

an element of ambiguity.   While noticing the submissions and  

passing appropriate directions, the court noticed “it is further  

submitted that the organizing university will provide students  

only to the existing B.Ed. College and all those B.Ed. colleges  

which  will  get  affiliation  dated  7th July,  2011  will  not  be  

considered for counseling to the year 2011-12 and for the next  

consecutive  year  and  onward,  the  colleges  which  will  get  

affiliated  on  or  before  10th of  May  of  that  year  would  be  8

Page 9

considered  for  counseling…..”.     It  is  obvious  that  there  is  

something  amiss  prior  to  the  words  ‘will  not’  appearing  

immediately after the date of 7th July, 2011.   Obviously, what  

the court meant was that the colleges which are affiliated or  

which will get affiliation upto 7th July, 2011 are the colleges to  

which the organizing university will provide students, but other  

colleges  which  get  affiliation  after  7th July,  2011  will  not  be  

considered  for  counseling  for  the  year  2011-2012.  

Furthermore, for subsequent academic years,  the colleges to  

which  the  students  will  be  provided  would  be  the  colleges  

which attain affiliation by 10th May of that year.   That is the  

spirit of the directions.  Thus, we must read and construe the  

judgment in that fashion.

11. Reverting to the facts of the present case, the University  

granted temporary affiliation to the college for the academic  

year 2011-12 on 27th August, 2011 with intake capacity of 100  

seats.   The petitioner college claims that it had got permanent  

recognition from NCTE for B.Ed. courses.   In face of this, the  

name  of  the  petitioner  college  was  inducted  in  the  list  of  

colleges for which the counselling was held by the organizing  

university  for the academic year 2011-12.   Since the petitioner  

9

Page 10

college had received temporary affiliation for B.Ed. classes only  

for one year,  it again approached the University and the State  

Government  for  grant  of  permanent  affiliation  for  the  

subsequent academic years and completed all the formalities  

as well as requested the authorities to constitute an Inspection  

Team  as  required  under  the  law.    In  the  meanwhile,  the  

Department of Higher Education, State of Uttar Pradesh, issued  

an office order dated 11th January, 2012 vide which the time  

schedule for  seeking affiliation as  directed by the court  was  

fixed.    The  last  date  for  submission  of  proposal  to  the  

concerned  university  was  10th March,  2012.   The  proposal  

received  was  to  be  forwarded  to  the  Government  by  the  

University latest by 25th March, 2012 and the State Government  

was required to grant approval by 10th April, 2012.    This date  

of 10th April, 2012, in fact, stood extended upto 10th May, 2012,  

the date fixed by this Court.  The  University  constituted  a  

three member team to inspect the college which submitted its  

report on 26th February, 2012.  The Report is stated to have  

been submitted finding that  the petitioner  was possessed of  

adequate  building,  infrastructure  and  funds  for  running  the  

B.Ed. course and recommended permanent affiliation.   It is the  

10

Page 11

case of the petitioner that all relevant documents and fees for  

grant of permanent affiliation were submitted to the University  

on 5th March,  2012,  i.e.,  five days  prior  to  the  last  date  for  

submission of proposal.   The University took lot of time and  

finally on 10th April, 2012, it informed the petitioner that some  

more documents were required to be submitted.  The petitioner  

submitted the required documents on 11th April,  2012.   This  

application  was  forwarded  by  the  University  to  the  State  

Government  only  on  20th April,  2012  along  with  approval  in  

Form ‘A’.    For  the  academic  year  2012-13,  the  organizing  

university had held the Joint Entrance Test for all UP colleges on  

23rd April,  2012.   The  result  of  the  same was  declared  and  

admission and counseling sessions were scheduled to be held  

between 7th June,  2012  to  22nd June,  2012.    The petitioner  

college  seriously  apprehended  that  it  may  not  be  able  to  

participate in the counseling for the academic year 2012-2013  

because of the delay caused by the University and the State  

Government,  particularly  keeping  in  view the  cut-off  date of  

10th May, fixed by the Court.     Consequently,  the petitioner  

along with others filed writ petition being Writ Petition (Civil)  

No.  2417(M/S)  of 2012  in  the  High  Court  of  Judicature  at  

11

Page 12

Allahabad,  Lucknow Bench.    This  Writ  Petition  came to  be  

disposed of by the order of the Court dated 9th May, 2012.   The  

Court, while noticing the directions of this Court as contained in  

its  order  dated  22nd July,  2011,  directed  the  respondents  to  

consider  petitioner’s  case  on  the  basis  of  their  eligibility  as  

required for affiliation and take decision while expressing the  

hope  that  the  State  would  do  its  best  in  the  matter.   The  

petitioner has contended that though a number of deficiencies  

were noticed in  the other  colleges,  yet  most  of  the colleges  

were granted conditional permission for affiliation giving time  

to remove the deficiencies  pointed out  in  the order.   Unlike  

other colleges, the State Government vide its Order dated 10th  

May, 2012, had rejected the application of the petitioner and  

pointed out various deficiencies.   The relevant part of the order  

reads as under:-

“(3) In the sequence of the said orders of the  Hon’ble High Court, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow,  after the last date i.e. 25.03.2012 prescribed by  the Government, the proposals for affiliation for  B.Ed.  course  of  the  referred  university  were  considered.    After  due  consideration,  in  the  impugned  affiliation  proposal  the  following  discrepancies have been found:-

1. For granting of affiliation, on the  University  level  the  certificate  of  the  

12

Page 13

committee  organized  has  not  been  received.

2. The  inspection  report  of  the  inspection board and the details of the  area  of  classes  in  the  letter  of  the  University have not been mentioned.

3. The  boundary  walls  of  the  university  are  not  plastered  and  the  photograph  of  the  boundary  walls  of  only one side has been received and on  the  second  floor  of  the  university  construction work is partly going on.   In  front of the rooms of the second floor  railings have not been constructed due  to which a serious accident is possible.

4. The result of B.Ed. has not been  received.     The  University  with  the  deficiency of the result of examination  has made conditional recommendation  on the Format-A.

5. In relation to not being charged  with  group  cheating/copying  the  educational session in the report of the  controller of examination is not clear.

6. The fire  extinguishing certificate  has been issued on 15.02.2009.   The  certificate  till  date  has  not  been  received.

7. The NBC has been signed by the  Additional  Engineer/Superintending  Engineer but the letter umber and date  is not mentioned.

8. The  details  of  payment  of  monthly  salary  from  the  bank  to  the  teachers are not received.   The record  

13

Page 14

of the months of December 2011 and  January  and  February  2012  has  been  made available.

(4) Therefore, in view of the abovementioned  discrepancies  the  State  Government  under  section 37(2) of the U.P.  State University Act,  1973 (as amended by the U.P. State University  Amendment Act, 2007) at Graduation level has  for  Maa  Vaishno  Devi  Women  University,  Siyaram Nagar,  Devrakot,  Faizabad under  the  Education system has not found it eligible for a  prior  permission of  affiliation  for  B.Ed.  course  with  a  capacity  of  100 seats  since under  the  autonomous scheme from educational  session  2012-2013.   In sequence of it the writ petition  no.  2417(M/S)/2012  and  in  others  also  which  are  in  question,  in  compliance  to  the  order  dated 09.05.2012 of the Hon’ble High Court the  application  of  Sh.  Chedi  Lal  Verma,  Manager,  Maa Vaishno Devi Women University,  Siyaram  Nagar, Devrakot, Faizabad dated 09.05.2012 is  accordingly dismissed.”  

12. The  petitioner  has  submitted  that  it  removed  the  

objections as pointed out in the said letter and informed the  

authorities on 18th May,  2012.   On the same very date,  the  

petitioner  made  a  representation  to  the  State  Government  

stating that objections had been removed and the case of the  

petitioner may be considered for affiliation.   No response was  

received to the said representation.   Being left with no other  

option, the petitioner filed another writ petition being WP (M/S)  

No.3499 of 2011 before the same court praying inter alia that  14

Page 15

the  order  dated  10th May,  2012  passed  by  the  State  

Government be quashed, for issuance of a direction requiring  

respondent  No.  2  to  include  the  petitioner  college  in  the  

counseling for B.Ed. course for the academic year 2012-13 and  

for  direction  that  the  petitioner  college  be  deemed  to  have  

received affiliation, temporarily at least.   This writ petition was  

finally disposed of by a Bench of that Court vide its order dated  

13th June, 2012.  The relevant part of the order reads as under:-

“The  arguments  of  the  learned  counsel  for  the  petitioner  in  view  of  the  recommendations  of  the  University  appears  to be correct.   Accordingly,  the order dated  10.5.2012 contained in Annexure-1 to the writ  petition is hereby set aside.   The matter is  remitted  back  to  the  State  Government  to  decide  it  afresh  in  the  light  of  the  recommendations  of  the  University  and  the  letter of the institution contained at page 50  subject  to  their  information  available  on  record and the State Government shall take a  decision, expeditiously, say within a period of  ten days’  from the date  a certified copy of  this order is produced before it.

Subject  to  above,  the writ  petition is  finally  disposed of.”

13. As  is  clear  from  the  above  direction,  the  matter  was  

remitted to the State Government.   The order dated 10th May,  

2012 was set aside and the State Government was directed to  

15

Page 16

consider the case afresh.   This was primarily on the basis that  

according to the petitioner, the University had recommended  

the case and had forwarded its approval in Form A showing no  

deficiencies.    The State Government, without any inspection,  

had rejected the request for affiliation and other colleges had  

been given temporary affiliation.

14. On the very next day i.e. on 14th June, 2012, the petitioner  

again  made  a  representation  to  the  State  Government  to  

consider its case in accordance with the directions of the Court  

in the order dated 13th June, 2012.   Again, vide order dated 21st  

June, 2012, the State Government rejected the application of  

the petitioner.   The State Government referred to the schedule  

for counseling as well as for grant of affiliation in terms of the  

order  of  this  Court  dated  22nd July,  2011.   The  State  

Government referred to the Schedule for counseling as well as  

for grant of affiliation in terms of order dated 22nd November,  

2011.  It rejected the application being beyond the cut-off date  

of 10th May. It also mentioned in paragraphs VI of the said order  

that certain compliances had not been done till that date by the  

college and again eight defects of non-compliance were pointed  

out in the said order.    

16

Page 17

15. The petitioner claims to have been seriously prejudiced by  

the order dated 21st June, 2012 as it was denied the chance to  

participate  in  the  counseling  process  for  the  academic  year  

2012-2013 onwards.

16. To  the  averred  facts  there  is  not  much  controversy.  

Primarily, the respondents have raised two pleas (i) firstly that  

the deficiencies  had not  been removed in  their  entirety and  

secondly that the cut-off date fixed by this Court by its order  

dated  22nd July,  2011  does  not  permit  the  State  to  grant  

affiliation  to  the  petitioner  college  for  the  current  academic  

year.     

SLP (C) No.21695 of 2012

17. The petitioner  is  a  private  unaided institution  run  by  a  

registered  society  namely  Aman  Educational  and  Welfare  

Society.   The Society started the Aman Institution of Education  

and Management (for short the “College”) and had applied for  

grant of recognition for running the B.Ed. course.   The college  

was inspected and recognition was granted by the NCTE on 30th  

September,  2008.    The  State  Government  had  granted  

affiliation  subject  to  fulfillment  of  conditions  stated  therein,  

17

Page 18

which amongst others contained a stipulation that admission of  

the  students  shall  be  made  only  after  affiliation  by  the  

examining body before  the commencement  of  the academic  

session and admission shall be completed well before the cut-

off  date.    For the academic year 2009-2010,  the University  

conducted the inspection on 12th March, 2011 and forwarded its  

recommendation  for  grant  of  permanent  affiliation.    Similar  

recommendations  were  also  made  on  7th July,  2011  for  the  

academic year 2011-2012.  The State Government, in view of  

these  recommendations  granted  permission  for  temporary  

affiliation for one year with effect from 1st July,  2011 for the  

academic year 2011-2012.   The students were also provided to  

the college against the sanctioned 100 seats for that academic  

year.    The  petitioner  college  had  applied  for  extension  of  

affiliation  for  the  academic  session  2012-2013  and  the  

University  had  sent  its  recommendations  to  the  State  

Government vide its letter dated 3rd December, 2011.   Vide  

letter dated 9th April, 2012, respondent No. 1 had brought out  

certain  deficiencies.   On  13th April,  2012,  the  petitioner  

submitted  necessary  documents.    However,  again  certain  

deficiencies were pointed out by the State Government vide its  

18

Page 19

letter  dated 18th April,  2012.   The petitioner  claims to  have  

removed  these  deficiencies  and  intimated  respondent  No.  1  

vide its letter dated 20th April, 2012. Thereafter the University  

had sent its recommendations vide letter dated 9th May, 2012.  

According to the petitioner,  thereafter the State Government  

did not point out any substantive deficiencies and, in fact, no  

deficiencies.    According  to  them,  though  there  were  no  

deficiencies, the State Government vide its letter dated 9th May,  

2012 refused to grant affiliation to the petitioner and pointed  

out certain deficiencies and informed that the institution was  

not  found  fit  for  grant  of  affiliation  for  100  seats.    The  

petitioner had challenged this order of the State Government  

before the High Court.  It was the case of the petitioner that  

there  were  no  shortcomings  or  deficiencies  in  the  Institute.  

Furthermore, number of other similarly placed institutions had  

been granted permission/affiliation and had been given time to  

remove the deficiencies.  Thus, the order of the respondent was  

arbitrary.    

18. It may be noticed that apprehending its exclusion from the  

counseling, the petitioner had filed a writ  petition being Writ  

Petition  (M/S)  No.2572  of  2012  before  the  High  Court  of  19

Page 20

Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in which vide its order  

dated 28th May, 2012, the Court had directed the respondent  

authorities to consider the case of the petitioner college afresh.  

In this order, the court had also noticed “the court finds that all  

shortcomings as pointed out by the State Government stand  

removed.    Therefore,  in  these circumstances,  it  is  provided  

that the State Government may take a fresh decision in light of  

the  present  facts  and  additional  evidence  which  had  been  

brought on record by the petitioner and pass fresh orders in  

accordance  with  law,  within  a  period  of  ten  days.”    In  

furtherance  to  the  order  of  the  High  Court,  the  State  

Government  still  persisted  with  the  fact  that  there  were  

deficiencies in the infrastructure and other requirements of the  

petitioner  college  and  while  noticing  the  deficiencies  which  

were still  persisting,  the State Government vide letter  dated  

11th June, 2012 rejected the application for grant of affiliation.  

The following deficiencies were noticed:-

“1. Lasted  inspection  report was not found

Deficiency is still  exists  there.

2. Certificate  from  the  Bank  for  the  payment  to teachers and details  

Certificate  of  payment  of  was  not  provided  with the representation

20

Page 21

3. Affidavits  and  Agreement  of  the  proposed  teachers  for  the  year  2008-2009  not  provided  and  for  

Deficiency is still exists. Balance sheet  of  CA is  provided  Deficiency is still exists Deficiency is still exists

4. Appointment  letters  of  proposal  teachers  are  not provided  

5. C.A. Balance Sheet for  one Year only

6. Fire fighting certificate  is not mentioned  

7. Certificate from NCB or  equivalent  officer  (Executive Engineer)

8. Affidavit of manager on  stamp paper of Rs. 50/-  is not mentioned

xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

10. In respect B.Ed. Education course in the Special  Leave Petition bearing no. 13040/2010, titled College of  professional Education and ors vs. UP State and others,  Vide order  dt.  22.7.2011 passed by the Hon’ble High  Court in the said petition for fixing the time table to the  concerned and fixed last date for permission 10.5.2012,  and after expiry of the aforesaid all the deficiency have  to  be  fulfilled,  otherwise  it  shall  be  contempt  of  the  Court.

Therefore in the precept the petitioner Institute, there is  no occasion to provide a chance, if the proposal of the  petitioner university proposed for the year 2013-14 the  same  can  be  considered  accordingly,  therefore  the  representation of the petitioner dt. 30.5.2012.

Therefore, the orders in the Writ Petition no. 2972 (MS)  2012 of the petitioner, Aman Institute of Management  and  education,  Duhai,  Ghaziabad,  Vs.  UP  State,  In  compliance of order dated 28.5.2012 is being sent.”

21

Page 22

19. The petitioner challenged the legality and correctness of  

the order dated 11th June, 2012 before the High Court in Writ  

Petition (M/S) No. 3607 of 2012.   The High Court dismissed the  

writ  petition  but  made  certain  observations  which  were  in  

favour of the petitioner.   The operative part of the order reads  

as under:-

“Assuming that the petitioner is qualified to  be affiliated, even then petitioner cannot be  granted any indulgence on account of cut-off  date fixed by the apex court i.e. 10.5.2012.  This  Court  does  not  have  any  power  to  reschedule  the  time schedule  fixed  by  the  apex court.   The petitioner, if is aggrieved  by  the  said  cut-off  date,  is  at  liberty  to  approach the apex court for clarification and  further  orders,  so  that  they  are  able  to  convince  the  apex  court  regarding  their  rightful claim.

In  the  present  case,  the  Court  feels  that  there  is  no  shortcoming  in  the  petitioner- institution  at  the  moment  and  the  State  Government  has  acted  unmindfully,  but  it  has  to  be  looked  into  at  this  juncture  whether the cut-off date can be by-passed.  No such direction is possible at the hands of  this 3 Court and, therefore, any direction in  favour  of  the  petitioner  will  amount  to  violating  the  orders  passed  by  the  apex  court.

The  argument  of  learned  counsel  for  the  petitioner  that  the  opposite  parties  

22

Page 23

themselves  have  not  followed  the  time  schedule as fixed by the apex court can be  looked into and can be gone into by the apex  court.    But  this  Court  feels  that  no  such  direction  for  allocation  of  students  can  be  issued  in  favour  of  the  petitioner  at  this  juncture.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

20. Aggrieved from the said judgment, the college has filed  

the appeal by way of special leave.

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 350 of 2012

21. This  petition  has  been  filed  under  Article  32  of  the  

Constitution  of  India  by  three  petitioner  colleges  which  are  

being run and managed by the Society registered under the  

Societies  Registration  Act,  1860.    Vide  order  dated  24th  

January, 2007, the NCTE at its 113th Meeting held on 18th/19th  

January,  2007 considered the  application  moved by the first  

petitioner for grant of recognition to run B.Ed. courses in the  

institution  and  granted  the  same.    However,  in  its  141st  

Meeting,  the Northern Regional  Committee  (for  short  “NRC”)  

refused recognition to the first petitioner vide order dated 25th  

January,  2010.    This order was subsequently modified upon  

appeal by the first petitioner, but without any effective relief.  

23

Page 24

Being  dissatisfied,  the  first  petitioner  filed  Writ  Petition  No.  

3836  (M/B)  of  2010  before  the  High  Court  of  Judicature  at  

Allahabad.   The Court passed order dated 14th May, 2010, in  

furtherance  to  which  an  inspection  was  conducted  under  

Section  17  of  the  NCTE  Act,  1993.   Thereafter  the  first  

petitioner filed another Writ Petition No. 7248 of 2010 before  

the same court in which vide order dated 20th April, 2011, the  

Court took note of the fact that the NCTE had failed to comply  

with the direction of passing final order within one month and  

directed  the  concerned authorities  to  comply  with  the  order  

dated  14th May,  2010,  and  required  them  to  explain  their  

conduct.   However,  in  the meanwhile,  this  Court  passed the  

order  dated  22nd July,  2011  in  the  case  of  the  College  of  

Professional  Education  (supra)  fixing  10th May  as  the  cut-off  

date for grant of affiliation to colleges for running of courses for  

the current academic year.   The petitioner colleges Nos. 1 and  

2  got  affiliation  from  the  Ram  Manohar  Lohiya  Avadh  

University,  Faizabad,  Uttar  Pradesh,  in  accordance  with  the  

Uttar  Pradesh  State  Universities  Act,  1973  (for  short,  ‘the  

Universities  Act’).   Petitioner  No.1  college  was  accorded  

affiliation vide order dated 25th August, 2011 for 100 seats in  

24

Page 25

the B.Ed. course for one year.   In furtherance to order of the  

High Court,  the petitioner  No.1 was asked to  furnish  certain  

details.  The  response  submitted  by  Petitioner  No.1  was  

considered by the NRC of the NCTE in its 190th Meeting and it  

decided to restore the recognition for B.Ed. courses with annual  

intake of 100 seats in continuation of the previous recognition  

order dated 24th January, 2007.  Accordingly, the order dated  

28th December,  2011,  was  passed by  the  NRC of  the  NCTE.  

Thereafter, the respondent-university, vide its letter dated 30th  

April, 2012 recommended to the State Government for grant of  

permanent  affiliation  to  petitioner  No.  1  to  run  the  B.Ed.  

courses.   For these reasons, the petitioner No. 1 claimed that it  

was entitled to be included in the Counseling as at that time,  

they had the recognition as well as the affiliation.  Petitioner  

Nos.2 and 3 were also placed in similar situation.   However,  

the State Government on insignificant shortcoming refused the  

affiliation to petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 vide order dated 10 th May,  

2011.   According  to  the  petitioner,  certain  other  colleges  

similarly placed were granted affiliation and even included in  

the list of counseling for the academic year 2012-2013.

25

Page 26

22. The petitioners challenged the non-grant of affiliation by  

the  State  Government  to  conduct  the  courses  of  B.Ed.  on  

account of their non-inclusion in the Bulletin for Counseling and  

admission  to  their  colleges.   The  petitioners,  thus,  are  

aggrieved from non-inclusion in counseling process as well as  

non-grant of affiliation on account of the cut-off  date of 10 th  

May of the current academic year.

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 346 of 2012

23. This  is  also  a  petition  filed  under  Article  32  of  the  

Constitution  of  India.     The  petitioner  is  an  unaided  self-

financing institution run by a registered society named J. Milton  

Shiksha Samiti.  The petitioner college was granted recognition  

by the NCTE vide its order dated 14th May, 2008 for conducting  

B.Ed. courses for the academic year 2008-2009 whereafter the  

petitioner  obtained  affiliation  from  Dr.  Bhimrao  Ambedkar  

University, U.P., Respondent No.2, for that academic year and  

has  been  conducting  the  said  course  till  the  academic  year  

2011-2012.    The  respondent  No.2-University  granted  

provisional  affiliation to the petitioner  for  the academic year  

2011-2012 vide letter dated 7th July, 2011, subject to fulfillment  

26

Page 27

of certain conditions.   Vide letter dated 21st December, 2011,  

the petitioner informed the University (respondent No.2) about  

fulfillment of the conditions as required by the letter dated 7th  

July, 2011 and requested the University to consider the case of  

the petitioner for grant of extension of provisional affiliation or  

grant of permanent affiliation.   For the academic year 2012-

2013,  respondent  No.3-University  conducted  Joint  Entrance  

Test  for  admission  to  UP B.Ed.  Colleges on  23rd April,  2012.  

Counseling was scheduled to be held from 7th June, 2012 to 22nd  

June, 2012.   As noticed earlier, this Court had passed the order  

dated  22nd July,  2011  directing  the  last  date  for  grant  of  

affiliation as 10th May of the concerned academic year.   Vide  

letter dated 13th June, 2012, respondent No. 2 University had  

forwarded the affiliation proposal of the petitioner to the State  

Government.    Although, the State Government did not pass  

any  written  order  rejecting  the  case  of  the  petitioner,  but  

according to the petitioner, they were orally informed that their  

case could not be processed now for the current academic year  

in view of the order passed by this Court.    

24. The  petitioner  filed  writ  petition  being  Misc.  Single  

No.4040 of 2012 before the Allahabad High Court.   The High  

27

Page 28

Court,  vide  its  order  dated  25th July,  2012,  directed  the  

respondents to pass fresh order.   

25. It is the case of the petitioner that denial of affiliation and  

permission to participate in the counseling by the respondent is  

on  account  of  the  cut-off  dates  fixed  by  this  Court  and,  

therefore,  has approached this Court under Article 32 of the  

Constitution of India with the above prayers.

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 345 of 2012

26. Writ Petition (Civil)  No.345/2012 and Writ Petition (Civil)  

No.  347 of  2012 also has similar  facts  where the petitioner-

college was  granted recognition  by  the  NCTE and had even  

been  granted  affiliation  for  the  academic  year  2011-2012.  

However,  its  application  for  extension  of  affiliation  for  the  

academic year 2012-2013 or grant of permanent affiliation was  

not  decided  and  subsequently  the  petitioner  was  denied  

affiliation and permission to participate in the counseling for  

the  current  academic  year  2012-2013 in  view of  the  cut-off  

date fixed by this Court.   In both these writ petitions, the writ  

petitioners challenged the action of the respondents, and their  

non-inclusion in the list for counseling.    

28

Page 29

27. It is not necessary for us to note the facts of each case  

separately as in all other cases the facts are somewhat similar  

to either of the writ petitions, the facts of which we have afore-

referred.  

28. For  regulation  and  proper  maintenance  of  norms  and  

standards in the teacher education system and for all matters  

connected therewith, it was considered to establish a Central  

National Council for Teacher Education, for which purpose the  

Indian  Parliament  enacted  the  National  Council  for  Teacher  

Education Act, 1993 (for short, the ‘Act’).  The NCTE was to be  

established in terms of Section 3 of the Act and was to consist  

of the persons specified therein.  For the purpose of the present  

case, we are required to refer to certain provisions of the Act.  

The first relevant provision which can be referred to is Section  

12  of  the  Act  which  states  the  functions  that  are  to  be  

performed by the NCTE.   Section 13 places an obligation upon  

the  NCTE  to  conduct  inspection  of  the  Institute  in  the  

prescribed manner.  Other very significant provision is Section  

14 that  deals  with  the  recognition  of  the  Institution  offering  

course or training in teacher education.  One of the important  

powers of  the NCTE is  the power of delegated legislation as  

29

Page 30

contained in Section 32 of the Act.  We shall deal with these  

provisions along with some other relevant provisions in some  

detail.   

29. Under the Scheme of the Act, in terms of Section 12, it  

shall be the duty of the NCTE to take all such steps as it may  

think fit for ensuring planned and coordinated development of  

teacher education, as per the Preamble of the Act.  It has to lay  

down guidelines for compliance by recognized institutions for  

starting new courses of training and for providing physical and  

instructional  facilities,  staffing  pattern  and  staff  qualification  

amongst  others,  to  examine  and  review  periodically  the  

implementation  of  the  norms,  guidelines  and  standards  laid  

down  by  the  NCTE  and  to  suitably  advise  the  recognised  

institutions  and  foremost,  it  must  ensure  prevention  of  

commercialization of teacher education.  For the purposes of  

ascertaining whether the recognised institutions are functioning  

in accordance with the provisions of this Act, the Council may  

cause inspection of any such institution to be made by such  

person  as  it  may  direct  and  in  such  manner  as  may  be  

prescribed.   A complete procedure has been provided under  

Section 13 for conducting inspection of the institution.  After  

30

Page 31

coming  into  force  of  the  Act,  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 the Regulations.  Section 14(3)(a) provides the  

scope and requirement for establishing such institution.  The  

recognition  may  be  granted  to  an  institution  when  it  has  

adequate financial resources, accommodation, library, qualified  

staff, laboratory and it fulfills such other conditions required for  

proper functioning of the institution for a course or training in  

teacher education as may be determined by regulations and  

upon such conditions as may be imposed.  If an institution does  

not  satisfy  the requirements  of  Section 14(3)(a),  the Council  

may pass an order  refusing recognition to the institution for  

reasons to be recorded.  Such grant and/or refusal has to be  

published in the Official Gazette and communicated in writing  

to the institution and to the concerned examining body or the  

State Government and the Central Government in accordance  

with Section 14(4).  Section 14(6) will be of some significance  

once we deal  with  the  facts  of  the  present  case,  as  it  is  a  

31

Page 32

provision  providing  interlink  between  recognition  of  an  

institution by the NCTE, on the one hand and affiliation by the  

examination body, on the other.  Section 14(6) reads as under :

“14(6) Every  examining  body  shall,  on  receipt of the order under sub-section (4), -

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

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

30. Linked to this very provision is the provision of Section 16  

of the Act that reads as follows :

“16. AFFILIATING  BODY  TO  GRANT  AFFILIATION  AFTER  RECOGNITION  OR  PERMISSION BY THE COUNCIL

Notwithstanding anything contained in any  other  law for  the  time being  in  force,  no  examining  body  shall,  on  or  after  the  appointed day,--

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

(b) hold  examination,  whether  provisional or otherwise, for a course or  training  conducted  by  a  recognized  institution,

Unless  the  institution  concerned  has  obtained  recognition  from  the  Regional  Committee concerned, under Section 14 or  

32

Page 33

permission for  a  course or  training under  Section 15.”

31. The institution which does not comply with the terms and  

conditions imposed or contravenes any terms and conditions  

subject to which the recognition was granted, any regulation,  

orders made under the Act and/or any provision of the Act, the  

NCTE may withdraw recognition of such recognized institution  

for  reasons  to  be  recorded  in  writing  under  Section  17(1)  

subject to compliance of the conditions stated therein.  Once  

the  recognition  is  withdrawn,  the  following  very  serious  

consequences follow in terms of Section 17(3) of the Act :

1. such institution shall discontinue the course or training in  

teacher education;

2. the  concerned  University  or  the  examining  body  shall  

cancel affiliation of the institution in accordance with the  

order passed under sub-section (1) with effect from the  

end of the academic session next following the date of  

communication of the said order.

32. Following  the  date  of  communication  of  such  order,  an  

institution which carries on and offers any course of training in  

33

Page 34

teacher  education  in  terms  of  Section  17(4),  the  degree  

obtained from such an institution shall not be treated as valid  

qualification for  employment under any State Government or  

the  Central  Government,  Government  University  or  school,  

college or any other Government institution.   

33. From the reading of the above provisions, it is clear that  

the NCTE is expected to perform functions of a very high order  

and to ensure maintenance of higher standards of education in  

teachers training.  Default in compliance of its orders/directions  

can  result  in  very  serious  consequences  and,  in  fact,  would  

render  the  concerned  institute  ineffective  and  inoperative.  

Where  the  recognition  by  the  NCTE  gives  benefits  of  wide  

magnitude to an institute, there the withdrawal of recognition  

not only causes impediments in dispensation of teacher training  

courses  by  that  institution  but  the  institution  is  obliged  to  

discontinue such courses from the specified time.   

34. Section 16 opens with a non obstante language and has an  

overriding effect over all other laws for the time being in force.  

It  requires that unless the institution concerned has obtained  

recognition  from  the  Regional  Committee  concerned,  no  

34

Page 35

examining body ‘shall’,  on  or  after  the appointed day,  grant  

affiliation,  whether  provisional  or  otherwise,  or  even  hold  

examination, whether provisional or otherwise, for the courses  

in the teacher training programme.  On the other hand, Section  

17(3)  also  uses  the  expression  ‘shall’  thereby  making  it  

mandatory for the University or the examining body to cancel  

affiliation of the institution in accordance with the order passed  

by  the  NCTE  withdrawing  the  recognition  of  the  Institution.  

These  provisions  convey  the  significant,  vital  and  overriding  

effect of this Act in comparison to other laws in force.

35. To  perform  its  functions,  the  NCTE  constitutes  regional  

committees which are divided into four different regions.  The  

purpose of  constitution  of  these committees  is  to  effectively  

deal  with  the aspect  of  grant,  continuation or  refusal  of  the  

recognition.  It has two objectives to attain – (1) convenience for  

all stakeholders; and (2) more effective implementation of the  

provisions of the Act.  Section 32 empowers the NCTE to make  

regulations not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act and  

the  Rules  made  thereunder,  generally  to  carry  out  the  

provisions of the Act.  The Regulations are to deal with various  

subjects including providing of norms, guidelines and standards  

35

Page 36

in respect of minimum qualification for a person to be employed  

as a teacher, starting of new courses or training in recognized  

institutions,  standards  in  respect  of  examinations  leading  to  

teacher education,  qualifications and other specified matters.  

The Central Government, in exercise of the power vested in it  

under  Section  31(1)  of  the  Act,  framed the  Rules  called  the  

‘National  Council  for  Teacher  Education Rules,  1997’.   These  

Rules,  in  detail,  deal  with  the expert  members  of  the NCTE,  

powers and duties of the Chair-person, appeals which a person  

could make in terms of Rule 10 in relation to the orders passed  

under Sections 15, 16 and 17 of the Act.  However, these Rules  

were  subjected  to  amendment  vide  notification  dated  15th  

September, 2003.   

36. Vide  notification  dated  13th November,  2002,  the  ‘NCTE  

(Form  of  application  for  recognition,  the  time  limit  of  

submissions  of  application,  determination  of  norms  and  

standards for recognition of teacher education programmes and  

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

were notified to deal with the prescribed procedure for making  

applications for recognition as well as how it is to be dealt with  

and grant and refusal of recognition.  Under Regulation 8, it was  

36

Page 37

specified  that  the  norms  and  standards  for  various  teacher  

education courses should be separately provided for separate  

courses.  Resultantly, under Appendix 3 to Appendix 14, norms  

and standards in relation to various courses, which were to be  

complied with by the applicant, were specified.  The object was  

to bring greater transparency and specialization into the entire  

process of grant of recognition to the institutions.  For example,  

norms  and  standards  for  secondary  teacher  education  

programme was provided under Appendix 7.   Similarly, other  

courses  were  provided  different  standards.   Appendix  1A  

prescribed the form of an application for grant of recognition of  

teacher education institutions/permission to start a new course  

or increase in intake.  This application contained all information  

that was necessary for the Regional Committee to entertain an  

application  and  know  the  requisite  details,  as  contemplated  

under Section 14(1)(a).   

37. Further, to facilitate the operation of the Regulations and  

for  removal  of  functional  difficulties,  after  consultation  with  

different quarters, the NCTE framed regulations under Section  

32  of  the  Act  which  were  called  the  ‘National  Council  for  

Teachers  Education  (Recognition,  Norms  and  Procedure)  

37

Page 38

Regulations,  2005’.   Under  these  Regulations,  different  time  

limits were provided within which the applications were to be  

dealt with and responded to by different stakeholders involved  

in  the  process  of  grant/refusal  of  recognition.   Under  these  

Regulations,  the  applications  which  were  complete  in  all  

respects had to be processed by the office of the concerned  

Regional  Committee  within  30  days  of  the  receipt  of  such  

application.  A written communication along with a copy of the  

application form submitted by the institution of the concerned  

State/Union Territory shall be sent to the State Government/UT  

Administration concerned.   On receipt  of  the application,  the  

State Government/UT Administration concerned was required to  

furnish  its  recommendations  to  the  office  of  the  Regional  

Committee concerned within 60 days from the receipt.  If the  

recommendation  was  negative,  the  State  Government  was  

required to provide detailed reasons/grounds thereof in terms of  

Regulation 7(3) of the Regulations.  Then, the expert team was  

to be appointed which was to visit the institution.  Video tapes  

of  the  visiting  team were  to  be  placed  before  the  Regional  

Committee along with its  recommendations and the Regional  

Committee  was  to  decide  grant  of  recommendation  or  

38

Page 39

permission  to  the  institution  only  after  all  the  conditions  

prescribed under the Act, Rules, Regulations and the norms and  

standards laid down were satisfied.  The institution concerned  

was required to be informed of the decision for grant/refusal of  

recognition or permission.  It could impose such conditions as  

the NCTE may deem fit and proper.   

38. Thereafter,  vide notification dated 27th November,  2007,  

again in exercise of its powers under sub-section (2) of Section  

32, the NCTE revised the Regulations and these are called the  

‘National  Council  for  Teacher  Education  (Recognition,  Norms  

and  Procedure)  Regulations,  2009’.   They  deal  with  the  

applicability, eligibility, manner of making application and time  

limits, processing fee, processing of applications, conditions for  

granting  recommendation,  norms  and  standards,  academic  

calendar,  power  to  relax  any  of  the  provisions  of  these  

Regulations, etc.  These Regulations are quite comprehensive  

and under  Regulation 13,  the Regulations of  2007 and 2005  

both are repealed and it is stated in Regulation 13(3) that the  

repeal of the said earlier Regulations shall not affect previous  

operation of any Regulation so repealed or anything duly done  

thereunder.  Under Regulation 5, the application has to be filed  

39

Page 40

in the manner prescribed and within the time specified.  Under  

Regulation 5(4), duly completed application in all respects may  

be submitted to the Regional Committee concerned during the  

period from 1st day of September, till 31st day of October of the  

preceding year to the academic session for which recognition  

has been sought.  Regulation 5(4), however, provided that the  

condition  of  last  date  for  submission  of  application  shall  not  

apply to  any innovative programme of  teacher  education for  

which separate guidelines have been issued by the NCTE.  The  

final decision on all the applications received, either recognition  

granted or refused, shall be communicated to the applicant on  

or  before  15th day  of  May  of  the  succeeding  year.   These  

Regulations take note of even minute details like that if there is  

any  omission  or  deficiency  in  the  documents,  the  Regional  

Committee shall point out the deficiency within 45 days of the  

receipt  of  the  application  which  the  applicant  shall  remove  

within 60 days from the date of receipt of communication of  

such deficiency.  In terms of Regulation 7(2), like in the 2007  

Regulations, a written communication along with a copy of the  

application has to be sent to the State Government or the Union  

Territory  Administration within  30 days from the date of  the  

40

Page 41

receipt  of  the  application  inviting  recommendations  or  

comments which are to be submitted by them within 45 days of  

the issue of letter to the State or the Union Territory, as the  

case may be.  After consideration of the recommendations, the  

Regional Committee shall  decide as regards the inspection of  

the institutions and communicate the same to the institution.  

The  Regional  Committee  shall  ensure  that  inspection  is  

conducted within 30 days from the date of this communication  

to the institution.  The experts are to visit the institution and  

submit their report.  The inspection has to be video-graphed.  

Considering the recommendation of the State Government, the  

Regional Committee shall grant or refuse the recognition within  

the specified date.  It is also required under these Regulations  

[Regulation 8(2)] that, in the first instance, an institution shall  

be considered for grant of recognition of only one course for the  

basic  unit  as  prescribed in  the norms and standards  for  the  

particular teacher education programme.  After completion of  

three academic sessions of the respective course, it can submit  

an application for one basic unit only of an additional course or  

for an additional unit of the existing recognized course before  

the cut-off date prescribed for submission of applications in the  

41

Page 42

year  succeeding  the  completion  of  three  academic  sessions.  

After the recognition has been granted in terms of Regulation  

11,  it  is  incumbent  upon the  affiliating  body to  regulate the  

process  of  admission  in  teacher  education  institutions  by  

prescribing  the  schedule  or  academic  calendar  in  respect  of  

each  of  the  courses  listed  in  Appendix  1  to  13  to  the  

Regulations and this has to be done at least three months in  

advance of the commencement of each academic session and  

upon due publicity.

39. This  is  the  scheme  of  grant  and/or  refusal  of  the  

recognition  to  an  institution  dealing  with  various  courses  of  

teacher training programme.

40. Under  the  scheme  of  the  NCTE   Act,  there  are  three  

principal  bodies  involved  in  processing  the  applications  for  

grant or refusal of recognition for running of teacher training  

courses by various institutions.  They are the NCTE, the State  

Government, the affiliating body or the University, as the case  

may  be.   Each  of  these  stakeholders  has  been  assigned  a  

definite role under the provisions of the NCTE Act and even the  

stage at  which  such  role  is  required  to  be  performed.   The  

42

Page 43

provisions of the NCTE Act even identify the scope and extent  

of power which each of these bodies is expected to exercise.  

As already noticed, the NCTE Act has been enacted with the  

object of constituting a National Council with a view to achieve  

planned  and  coordinated  development  of  teacher  education  

system throughout the country and also to ensure maintenance  

of proper norms and standards in teacher education system.  

The NCTE is  a  specialized  body and is  expected to  perform  

varied  functions  including  grant  of  recognition,  ensuring  

maintenance  of  proper  norms  and  standards  in  relation  to  

teacher education, inspection of the colleges through experts  

and to ensure strict adherence to the time schedule specified  

under the NCTE Act and rules and regulations framed therein.   

41. The NCTE Act is a special act enacted to cover a particular  

field, i.e. teacher training education and, thus, has to receive  

precedence  over  other  laws  in  relation  to  that  field.   No  

institution or body is empowered to grant recognition to any  

institution under the NCTE Act or any other law for the time  

being in force, except the NCTE itself.   Grant of recognition by  

the Council is a condition precedent to grant of affiliation by the  

examining body to an institute.   

43

Page 44

42. The  non-obstante  language  of  Section  16  requires  the  

affiliating  body  to  grant  affiliation  only  after  recognition  or  

permission has been granted by the NCTE.  The provisions of  

Section 16 give complete supremacy to the expert body/NCTE  

in relation to grant of recognition.  In fact, it renders the role of  

other  bodies  consequential  upon  grant  and/or  refusal  of  

recognition.   When  the  NCTE  is  called  upon  to  consider  an  

application for grant of recognition, it has to consider all  the  

aspects  in  terms  of  Section  14(1)(a)  of  the  NCTE Act.   The  

amplitude of this provision is very wide and hardly leaves any  

matter relatable to an educational institution outside its ambit.  

To put it simply, the NCTE is a supreme body and is vested with  

wide powers to be exercised with the aid of its expertise, in  

granting  or  refusing  to  grant  recognition  to  an  educational  

institution.  The NCTE is the paramount body for granting the  

approval/recognition not only for commencing of fresh courses  

but even for increase in intake, etc.   The Council has to ensure  

maintenance  of  educational  standards  as  well  as  strict  

adherence to the prescribed parameters for imparting of such  

educational courses, including the infrastructure.  The provision  

and  scheme of  the  NCTE Act  is  pari  materia to  that  of  the  

44

Page 45

Medical Council of India Act, 1956  and the All India Council for  

Technical Education Act, 1987  etc.   

43. Now,  we  may  examine  some  of  the  judgments  of  this  

Court which have dealt with these aspects.  In the case of State  

of Tamil Nadu and Anr. v. Adhiyaman Educational & Research  

Institute and Ors.  (1995) 4 SCC 104 , the Supreme Court while  

discussing various aspects in regard to constitutional validity of  

Tamil  Nadu  Private  College  Regulation  Act,  1976  and  the  

provisions of the All India Council for Technical Education Act  

clearly spelled out the preferential role of the Council as under:

“22.  The  aforesaid  provisions  of  the  Act  including its preamble make it abundantly clear  that the Council has been established under the  Act for coordinated and integrated development  of the technical education system at all levels  throughout  the  country  and  is  enjoined  to  promote  qualitative  improvement  of  such  education  in  relation  to  planned  quantitative  growth. The Council is also required to regulate  and ensure proper maintenance of norms and  standards  in  the  technical  education  system.  The  Council  is  further  to  evolve  suitable  performance  appraisal  system  incorporating  such norms and mechanisms in enforcing their  accountability.  It  is  also  required  to  provide  guidelines  for  admission  of  students  and  has  power to withhold or discontinue grants and to  de-recognise the institutions where norms and  standards laid down by it and directions given  by it from time to time are not followed. This  

45

Page 46

duty  and  responsibility  cast  on  the  Council  implies that the norms and standards to be set  should be such as would prevent a lopsided or  an isolated development of technical education  in the country.

...It  is  necessary  to  bear  this  aspect  of  the  norms and standards to be prescribed in mind,  for a major debate before us centered around  the right of  the States to prescribe standards  higher than the one laid down by the Council.  What is further necessary to remember is that  the Council has on it representatives not only of  the  States  but  also  of  the  State  Universities.  They  have,  therefore,  a  say  in  the  matter  of  laying  down  the  norms  and  standards  which  may  be  prescribed  by  the  Council  for  such  education from time to time. The Council  has  further the Regional Committees, at present, at  least, in four major geographical zones and the  constitution  and  functions  of  the  Committees  are to be prescribed by the regulations to be  made by the Council. Since the Council has the  representation of the States and the provisional  bodies  on  it  which  have  also  representation  from different States and regions, they have a  say in the constitution and functions of these  Committees as well....”

44. Further,  the  Court,  while  noticing  the  inconsistency  

between the Central and State statutes or the State authorities  

acting contrary to the Central statute, held as under :

“41. (vi) However,  when  the  situations/seats  are available and the State authorities deny an  applicant  the  same  on  the  ground  that  the  applicant  is  not  qualified  according  to  its  

46

Page 47

standards or qualifications, as the case may be,  although the  applicant  satisfies  the standards  or qualifications laid down by the Central law,  they  act  unconstitutionally.  So  also  when  the  State authorities de-recognise or disaffiliate an  institution  for  not  satisfying  the  standards  or  requirement  laid  down  by  them,  although  it  satisfied the norms and requirements laid down  by the Central authority,  the State authorities  act illegally.

XXX XXX XXX

43. As a result, as has been pointed out earlier,  the provisions of the Central statute on the one  hand and of  the  State  statutes  on  the other,  being  inconsistent  and,  therefore,  repugnant  with each other, the Central statute will prevail  and  the  de-recognition  by  the  State  Government  or  the  disaffiliation  by  the  State  University  on  grounds  which  are  inconsistent  with  those enumerated in  the Central  statute  will be inoperative.”

45. Still,  in  another  case  of  Jaya Gokul  Educational  Trust v.  

Commissioner  &  Secretary  to  Government  Higher  Education   

Deptt.,  Thiruvananthapuram,  Kerala  State  and  Anr. [2000)  5  

SCC 231],  the  Court  reiterating  the  above  principle,  held  as  

under:

“22. As held in the  Tamil Nadu case AIR 1995  SCW  2179,  the  Central  Act  of  1987  and;  in  particular,  Section  10(K)  occupied  the  field  relating the `grant of approvals' for establishing  technical institutions and the provisions of the  

47

Page 48

Central Act alone were to be complied with.  So  far  as  the  provisions  of  the  Mahatma Gandhi  University  Act  or  its  statutes  were  concerned  and  in  particular  statute  9(7),  they  merely  required the University to obtain the `views' of  the  State  Government.  That  could  not  be  characterised as requiring the "approval" of the  State  Government.  If,  needed,  the  University  statute  could  be  so  interpreted,  such  a  provision  requiring  approval  of  the  State  Government  would  be  repugnant  to  the  provisions  of  Section  10(K)  of  the  AICTE  Act,  1987 and would again be void. As pointed out in  the  Tamil  Nadu  case  there  were  enough  provisions in the Central Act for consultation by  the Council of the AICTE with various agencies,  including  the  State  Governments  and  the  Universities  concerned.  The  State  Level  Committee  and  the  Central  Regional  Committees  contained  various  experts  and  State representatives.  In case of difference of  opinion as between the various consultees, the  AICTE would  have  to  go  by  the  views  of  the  Central  Task  Force.  These  were  sufficient  safeguards  for  ascertaining  the  views  of  the  State  Governments  and  the  Universities.  No  doubt the question of affiliation was a different  matter and was not covered by the Central Act  but in the Tamil Nadu case, it was held that the  University  could  not  impose  any  conditions  inconsistent with the AICTE Act or its Regulation  or  the  conditions  imposed  by  the  AICTE.  Therefore,  the  procedure  for  obtaining  the  affiliation  and  any  conditions  which  could  be  imposed  by  the  University,  could  not  be  inconsistent with the provisions of the Central  Act. The University could not, therefore, in any  event have sought for `approval'  of  the State  Government.”

48

Page 49

46. This  view  of  the  Supreme  Court  was  reiterated  with  

approval by a larger Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of  

State  of  Maharashtra v. Sant  Dnyaneshwar  Shikshan  Shastra   

Mahavidyalaya and Ors. [(2006) 9 SCC 1]. While discussing in  

detail the various legal issues in relation to grant of affiliation/  

recognition  to  the  institution  and  permission  to  start  a  new  

college, the Court held as under:

“53.  The Court then considered the argument  put forward on behalf of the State that while it  would  be  open  for  the  Council  to  lay  down  minimum  standards  and  requirements,  it  did  not preclude the State from prescribing higher  standards and requirements.

54. Negativing the contention, the Court quoted  with approval the following observations of B.N.  Rau, J. in G.P. Stewart v. Brojendra Kishore Roy  Chaudhury (AIR 1939 Cal.  628 :  43 Cal.  W.N.  913) :

“It is sometimes said that two laws cannot  be  said  to  be  properly  repugnant  unless  there is  direct  conflict  between them, as  when one says `do' and the other 'dont',  there is no true repugnancy, according to  this view, if it is possible to obey both the  laws. For reasons which we shall set forth  presently, we think that this is too narrow  a  test;  there  may  well  be  cases  of  repugnancy  where  both  laws  say  `don't'  but in different ways. For example, one law  may  say  `no  person  shall  sell  liquor  by  retail, that is, in quantities of less than five  gallons  at  a  time'  and  another  law  may  

49

Page 50

say, `no person shall sell liquor by retail,  that  is,  in  quantities  of  less  than  ten  gallons  at  a  time'.  Here,  it  is  obviously  possible to obey both laws, by obeying the  more  stringent  of  the  two,  namely,  the  second one; yet it is equally obvious that  the  two  laws  are  repugnant,  for  to  the  extent to which a citizen is compelled to  obey one of them, the other,  though not  actually disobeyed, is nullified.”

XXX XXX XXX

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  Variyar  Thavathiru  Sundara  Swamigal   Medical  Educational  and Charitable Trust   Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 1996 DGLS (soft)  327 : 1996 (3) S.C.C. 15 : JT 1996 (2) S.C.  692  as  also  in  Jaya  Gokul  Educational  Trust.

XXX XXX XXX

74.  It  is  thus  clear  that  the  Central  Government has considered the subject of  secondary education and higher education  at the national level. The Act of 1993 also  requires  Parliament  to  consider  teacher- education  system  "throughout  the  country". NCTE, therefore, in our opinion,  is  expected to  deal  with  applications  for  establishing new Bed colleges or allowing  increase  in  intake  capacity,  keeping  in  view  the  1993  Act  and  planned  and  coordinated  development  of  teacher-  

50

Page 51

education  system  in  the  country.  It  is  neither open to the State Government nor  to  a  university  to  consider  the  local  conditions or apply "State policy" to refuse  such permission.  In  fact,  as held  by this  Court  in  cases  referred  to  hereinabove,  the  State  Government  has  no  power  to  reject  the  prayer  of  an  institution  or  to  overrule the decision of NCTE. The action  of  the State Government,  therefore,  was  contrary to law and has rightly been set  aside by the High Court.”

47. The  above  enunciated  principles  clearly  show  that  the  

Council is the authority constituted under the Central Act with  

the  responsibility  of  maintaining  education  of  standards  and  

judging  upon  the  infra-structure  and  facilities  available  for  

imparting such professional education. Its opinion is of utmost  

importance and shall  take precedence over  the views of  the  

State  as  well  as  that  of  the  University.  The  concerned  

Department of the State and the affiliating University have a  

role to play but it is limited in its application. They cannot lay  

down any guideline or policy which would be in conflict with the  

Central statute or the standards laid down by the Central body.  

State can frame its  policy for  admission to such professional  

courses but such policy again has to be in conformity with the  

directives  issued  by  the  Central  body.  In  the  present  cases,  

51

Page 52

there  is  not  much  conflict  on  this  issue,  but  it  needs  to  be  

clarified that while the State grants its approval, and University  

its affiliation, for increased intake of seats or commencement of  

a new course/college, its directions should not offend and be  

repugnant  to  what  has  been laid  down in  the  conditions  for  

approval granted by the Central authority or Council.  What is  

most  important  is  that  all  these authorities have to work  ad  

idem as  they  all  have  a  common  object  to  achieve  i.e.  of  

imparting of education properly and ensuring maintenance of  

proper standards of education, examination and infrastructure  

for  betterment  of  educational  system.  Only  if  all  these  

authorities work in a coordinated manner and with cooperation,  

will they be able to achieve the very object for which all these  

entities exist.

48. The NCTE Act has been enacted by the Parliament with  

reference  to  Entry  66  of  List  I  of  Schedule  VII  of  the  

Constitution.   There is no such specific power vested in the  

State Legislature under List II of the Seventh Schedule.  Entry  

25 of List III  of the Seventh Schedule is the other Entry that  

provides  the  field  for  legislation  both  to  the  State  and  the  

Centre, in relation to education, including technical education,  52

Page 53

medical  education  and  Universities;  vocational  and  technical  

training and labour.  The field is primarily covered by the Union  

List  and  thus,  the  State  can  exercise  any  legislative  power  

under Entry 25, List III but such law cannot be repugnant to the  

Central law.  Wherever the State law is irreconcilable with the  

Central  law,  the  State  Law  must  give  way  in  favour  of  the  

Central law to the extent of repugnancy.  This will  show the  

supremacy  of  the  Central  law  in  relation  to  professional  

education, including the teacher training programmes.  In the  

case of Medical Council of India  v.  State of Karnataka [(1998)  

6 SCC 131], the Court had the occasion to discuss this conflict  

as follows: -

“27. The  State  Acts,  namely,  the  Karnataka  Universities  Act  and the Karnataka  Capitation  Fee  Act  must  give  way  to  the  Central  Act,  namely, the Indian Medical Council  Act, 1956.  The Karnataka Capitation Fee Act was enacted  for the sole purpose of regulation in collection  of capitation fee by colleges and for that, the  State  Government  is  empowered  to  fix  the  maximum  number  of  students  that  can  be  admitted but that number cannot be over and  above that fixed by the Medical Council as per  the  regulations.  Chapter  IX  of  the  Karnataka  Universities  Act,  which  contains  provision  for  affiliation  of  colleges  and  recognition  of  institutions, applies to all types of colleges and  not  necessarily  to  professional  colleges  like  

53

Page 54

medical  colleges.  Sub-section  (10)  of  Section  53, falling in Chapter IX of this Act, provides for  maximum number of students to be admitted  to  courses  for  studies  in  a  college  and  that  number shall not exceed the intake fixed by the  university or the Government. But this provision  has again to be read subject to the intake fixed  by the Medical Council under its regulations. It  is  the  Medical  Council  which  is  primarily   responsible  for  fixing  standards  of  medical   education and overseeing that these standards   are maintained. It is the Medical Council which   is the principal body to lay down conditions for   recognition  of  medical  colleges  which  would   include the fixing of intake for admission to a   medical college. We have already seen in the  beginning of this judgment various provisions of  the  Medical  Council  Act.  It  is,  therefore,  the  Medical  Council  which  in  effect  grants  recognition  and  also  withdraws  the  same.  Regulations  under  Section  33  of  the  Medical  Council  Act,  which  were  made  in  1977,  prescribe  the  accommodation  in  the  college  and  its  associated  teaching  hospitals  and  teaching and technical staff and equipment in  various departments in the college and in the  hospitals. These regulations are in considerable  detail. Teacher-student ratio prescribed is 1 to  10,  exclusive of  the Professor  or  Head of  the  Department.  Regulations  further  prescribe,  apart  from  other  things,  that  the  number  of  teaching  beds  in  the  attached  hospitals  will  have to be in the ratio of 7 beds per student  admitted.  Regulations  of  the  Medical  Council,  which  were  approved  by  the  Central  Government  in  1971,  provide  for  the  qualification requirements for appointments of  persons  to  the  posts  of  teachers  and visiting  physicians/surgeons  of  medical  colleges  and  attached hospitals.

54

Page 55

XXX XXX XXX

29.  A medical student requires gruelling study  and that can be done only if  proper facilities   are  available  in  a  medical  college  and  the  hospital attached to it has to be well equipped   and the teaching faculty and doctors have to   be  competent  enough  that  when  a  medical   student comes out, he is perfect in the science   of treatment of human beings and is not found   wanting in any way. The country does not want  half-baked medical professionals coming out of  medical  colleges when they did  not  have full  facilities of teaching and were not exposed to  the  patients  and  their  ailments  during  the  course of their study. The Medical Council, in all  fairness,  does  not  wish  to  invalidate  the  admissions made in excess of that fixed by it  and  does  not  wish  to  take  any  action  of  withdrawing recognition of the medical colleges  violating the regulation.  Henceforth,  however,  these  medical  colleges  must  restrict  the  number  of  admissions  fixed  by  the  Medical  Council. After the insertion of Sections 10-A, 10- B  and  10-C  in  the  Medical  Council  Act,  the  Medical Council has framed regulations with the  previous  approval  of  the  Central  Government  which  were  published in  the  Gazette  of  India  dated  29-9-1993  (though  the  notification  is  dated  20-9-1993).  Any  medical  college  or   institution  which  wishes  to  increase  the   admission  capacity  in  MBBS/higher  courses   (including  diploma/degree/higher  specialities),   has  to  apply  to  the  Central  Government  for   permission  along  with  the  permission  of  the   State  Government and  that  of  the  university  with which it is affiliated and in conformity with  the regulations framed by the Medical Council.  Only the medical college or institution which is  recognised  by  the  Medical  Council  can  so  apply.”

55

Page 56

49. A Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Preeti  

Srivastava & Anr. v.  State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. [(1999) 7  

SCC  120],  while  dealing  with  the  provisions  of  the  Medial  

Council of India Act and referring to Entry 25 of List III and Entry  

66 of List I  with reference to the Articles 245, 246, 254 and  

15(4)  of  the  Constitution,  spelled  out  the  supremacy  of  the  

Council  and the provisions  of  the Central  Act,  particularly  in  

relation to the control and regulation of higher education.  It  

also  discussed  providing  of  the  eligibility  conditions  and  

qualifications and determining the standards to be maintained  

by the Institutions.  The Court in paragraph 36 of the judgment  

held as under: -

“36. It  would  not  be  correct  to  say  that  the  norms for  admission have no connection with  the standard of education, or that the rules for  admission are covered only by Entry 25 of List  III. Norms of admission can have a direct impact  on the standards of education. Of course, there  can be rules for admission which are consistent  with or do not affect adversely the standards of  education prescribed by the Union in exercise  of powers under Entry 66 of List I. For example,  a State may, for admission to the postgraduate  medical  courses,  lay  down  qualifications  in  addition to those prescribed under Entry 66 of  List I. This would be consistent with promoting  higher  standards  for  admission  to  the  higher  

56

Page 57

educational  courses.  But  any  lowering  of  the  norms laid down can and does have an adverse  effect  on  the  standards  of  education  in  the  institutes  of  higher  education.  Standards  of  education in an institution or college depend on  various factors. Some of these are:

(1) the calibre of the teaching staff;

(2) a  proper  syllabus  designed  to  achieve  a  high level of  education in the given span of  time;

(3) the student-teacher ratio;

(4) the  ratio  between  the  students  and  the  hospital beds available to each student;

(5) the calibre of the students admitted to the  institution;

(6) equipment  and  laboratory  facilities,  or  hospital facilities for training in the case of  medical colleges;

(7) adequate  accommodation  for  the  college  and the attached hospital; and

(8) the standard of examinations held including  the manner in which the papers are set and  examined  and  the  clinical  performance  is  judged.”

50. The principle of repugnancy and its effects were discussed  

by this Court in the case of S. Satyapal Reddy  v.  Government  

of A.P. (1994) 4 SCC 391, wherein it held as under:

“7. It  is  thus  settled  law that  Parliament  has  exclusive power  to  make law with  respect  to  any  of  the  matters  enumerated  in  List  I  or  

57

Page 58

concurrent power with the State Legislature in  List III of the VIIth Schedule to the Constitution  which shall prevail over the State law made by  the State Legislature exercising the power on  any of the entries in List III.  If the said law is  inconsistent with or incompatible to occupy the  same field, to that extent the State law stands  superseded or becomes void.  It  is settled law  that  when  Parliament  and  the  Legislature  derive that power under Article 246(2) and the  entry in the Concurrent  List,  whether prior  or  later to the law made by the State Legislature,  Article  246(2)  gives  power,  to  legislate  upon  any subject enumerated in the Concurrent List,  the law made by Parliament gets paramountcy  over  the  law  made  by  the  State  Legislature  unless  the  State  law  is  reserved  for  consideration of the President and receives his  assent.  Whether  there  is  an  apparent  repugnance  or  conflict  between  Central  and  State laws occupying the same field and cannot  operate  harmoniously  in  each  case  the  court  has to examine whether the provisions occupy  the  same  field  with  respect  to  one  of  the  matters enumerated in the Concurrent List and  whether there exists repugnancy between the  two  laws.  Article  254  lays  emphasis  on  the  words  “with  respect  to  that  matter”.  Repugnancy arises when both the laws are fully  inconsistent or are absolutely irreconcilable and  when  it  is  impossible  to  obey  one  without  disobeying  the  other.  The  repugnancy  would  arise  when  conflicting  results  are  produced  when both the statutes covering the same field  are applied to a given set of facts. But the court  has  to  make  every  attempt  to  reconcile  the  provisions  of  the  apparently  conflicting  laws  and court would endeavour to give harmonious  construction.  The  purpose  to  determine  inconsistency  is  to  ascertain  the  intention  of  Parliament  which  would  be  gathered  from  a  consideration of the entire field occupied by the  

58

Page 59

law.  The proper  test would be whether effect  can be given to the provisions of both the laws  or whether both the laws can stand together.  Section 213 itself  made the distinction of  the  powers  exercisable  by  the  State  Government  and  the  Central  Government  in  working  the  provisions of the Act. It is the State Government  that operates the provisions of the Act through  its officers. Therefore, sub-section (1) of Section  213 gives  power  to  the State  Government  to  create  Transport  Department  and  to  appoint  officers, as it thinks fit. Sub-section (4) thereof  also  preserves  the  power.  By  necessary  implication,  it  also  preserves  the  power  to  prescribe  higher  qualification  for  appointment  of officers of the State Government to man the  Motor Vehicles Department. What was done by  the  Central  Government  was  only  the  prescription of minimum qualifications, leaving  the  field  open  to  the  State  Government  concerned  to  prescribe  if  it  finds  necessary,  higher  qualifications.  The  Governor  has  been  given power under proviso to Article 309 of the  Constitution,  subject  to  any law made by the  State Legislature, to make rules regulating the  recruitment  which  includes  prescription  of  qualifications  for  appointment  to  an  office  or  post  under  the  State.  Since  the  Transport  Department under the Act is constituted by the  State Government and the officers appointed to  those posts belong to the State service, while  appointing  its  own  officers,  the  State  Government as a necessary adjunct is entitled  to  prescribe  qualifications  for  recruitment  or  conditions of service. But while so prescribing,  the  State  Government  may  accept  the  qualifications  or  prescribe  higher  qualification  but in no case prescribe any qualification less  than  the  qualifications  prescribed  by  the  Central  Government  under  sub-section  (4)  of  Section 213 of the Act. In the latter event, i.e.,  prescribing lesser qualifications, both the rules  

59

Page 60

cannot  operate  without  colliding  with  each  other.  When  the  rules  made  by  the  Central  Government  under  Section  213(4)  and  the  statutory  rules  made under  proviso  to  Article  309  of  the  Constitution  are  construed  harmoniously,  there  is  no  incompatibility  or  inconsistency in the operation of both the rules  to appoint fit persons to the posts or class of  officers of the State Government vis-a-vis the  qualifications  prescribed  by  the  Central  Government  under  sub-section  (4)  of  Section  213 of the Act.”

51. In the case of  Jaya Gokul Educational  Trust  (supra),  the  

Court,  while  referring to the case of  State of  Tamil  Nadu v.   

Adhiyaman Educational and Research Institute (supra), took the  

view that where the provisions of the State Act overlap and are  

in  conflict  with  the  provisions  of  the  Central  Act  in  various  

areas,  the  matters  which  are  specifically  covered  under  the  

Central Act cannot be undermined and they shall prevail.  The  

court  further  stated  that  a  provision  in  the  Universities  Act  

requiring the University to obtain merely the views of the State  

Government could not be characterized as requiring ‘approval’  

of the State Government.  If the University Statute could be so  

interpreted,  such a provision requiring approval  of  the State  

Government would be repugnant to the provisions of Section  

10(k) of the AICTE Act and would, therefore, be void.   

60

Page 61

52. In  the  case  of  Sant  Dnyaneshwar  Shikshan  Shastra  

Mahavidyalaya  (supra),  the  Court,  while  dealing  with  the  

provisions  of  the  Act  with  which  we  are  concerned  in  the  

present case, held that field of teachers’ education and matters  

connected  therewith  stood fully  and completely  occupied  by  

the  Act  and  hence  the  State  legislature  could  not  encroach  

upon that field.  In the case of  Engineering Kamgar Union  v.   

Electro Steels  Castings Ltd.  and Anr. [(2004) 6 SCC 36],  the  

Court  was  dealing  with  a  direct  conflict  between  the  two  

provisions of different Acts and stated that direct conflict arises  

not  only  where the provisions  of  one of  the  Acts  has  to  be  

disobeyed if the other is followed but also where both laws lead  

to different results.  Extending the doctrine of repugnancy to  

that situation, the Court held in paragraph 18 of the judgment  

that the Central Law shall prevail.  The said paragraph reads as  

under: -

“18. In terms of clause (2) of Article 254 of the  Constitution of India where a law made by the  legislature of a State with respect to one of the  matters  enumerated  in  the  Concurrent  List  contains  any  provisions  repugnant  to  the  provisions of an earlier law made by Parliament  or an existing law with respect to the matters,  then the law so made by the legislature of such  State  shall,  if  it  has  been  reserved  for  

61

Page 62

consideration of the President and has received  its  assent,  prevail  in  that  State.  It  is  not  in  dispute  that  the  1983  Act  has  received  the  assent  of  the  President  of  India  and,  thus,  would  prevail  over  any  parliamentary  law  governing the same field.”

53. From the above consistent view of this Court it  is clear  

that wherever the field is covered by the Parliamentary law in  

terms of List I and List III, the law made by the State Legislature  

would, to the extent of repugnancy, be void.  Of course, there  

has to be a direct conflict between the laws.  The direct conflict  

is  not  necessarily  to  be  restricted  to  the  obedience  of  one  

resulting in disobedience of other but even where the result of  

one would be in conflict with the other.  It is difficult to state  

any  one  principle  that  would  uniformly  be  applicable  to  all  

cases of repugnancy.  It will  have to be seen in the facts of  

each case while keeping in mind the laws which are in conflict  

with each other.  Where the field is occupied by the Centre,  

subject to the exceptions stated in Article 254, the State law  

would be void.

54. In the present case, we are concerned with the provisions  

of the NCTE Act which is a Central legislation referable to Entry  

66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule.  Thus, no law enacted by  

62

Page 63

the  State,  which  is  in  conflict  with  the  Central  Law,  can  be  

permitted to be operative.

55. Now, let us examine the conflict that arises in the present  

cases.   In  terms  of  the  provisions  of  the  Act,  the  Regional  

Committee  is  required  to  entertain  the  application,  consider  

State opinion, cause inspection to be conducted by an expert  

team and then to grant or refuse recognition in terms of the  

provisions of the Act.  Once a recognition is granted and before  

an Institution can be permitted to commence the course, it is  

required to take affiliation from the affiliating body, which is the  

University.    

56. Thus, grant of recognition or affiliation to an institute is a  

condition precedent to running of the courses by the Institute.  

If either of them is not granted to the institute, it would not be  

in  a  position  to  commence  the  relevant  academic  courses.  

There is a possibility of some conflict between a University Act  

or  Ordinance relating to affiliation with the provisions of  the  

Central Act.  In such cases, the matter is squarely answered in  

the case of Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya  

(supra) where the Court stated that after coming into operation  

63

Page 64

of the Central Act, the operation of the University Act would be  

deemed to  have  become unenforceable  in  case  of  technical  

colleges.  It also observed that provision of the Universities Act  

regarding  affiliation  of  technical  colleges  and  conditions  for  

grant  of  continuation  of  such  affiliation  by  university  would  

remain operative but the conditions that are prescribed by the  

university for grant and continuation of affiliation must be in  

conformity  with  the  norms and guidelines  prescribed by  the  

NCTE.

57. Under Section 14 and particularly in terms of Section 14(3)

(a)  of  the  Act,  the  NCTE  is  required  to  grant  or  refuse  

recognition to an institute.  It has been empowered to impose  

such conditions as it  may consider fit  and proper keeping in  

view the  legislative  intent  and  object  in  mind.   In  terms  of  

Section  14(6)  of  the  Act,  the  examining  body  shall  grant  

affiliation to the institute where recognition has been granted.  

In other words, granting recognition is the basic requirement  

for  grant  of  affiliation.   It  cannot  be  said  that  affiliation  is  

insignificant or a mere formality on the part of the examining  

body.   It  is  the requirement of law that affiliation should be  

granted  by  the  affiliating  body  in  accordance  with  the  

64

Page 65

prescribed  procedure  and  upon  proper  application  of  mind.  

Recognition and affiliation are expressions of distinct meaning  

and consequences.  In the case of Chairman, Bhartia Education  

Society v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. [(2011) 4 SCC 527],  

this Court held that the purpose of recognition and affiliation is  

different.   In  the  context  of  the  Act,  affiliation  enables  and  

permits  an  institution  to  send  its  students  to  participate  in  

public  examinations  conducted  by  the  examining  body  and  

secure the qualification in the nature of degrees, diploma and  

certificates.  On the other hand, recognition is the licence to the  

institution to offer a course or training in teaching education.  

The Court also emphasised that the affiliating body/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.   

58. The examining body can impose conditions in relation to  

its  own  requirements.   These  aspects  are  (a)  eligibility  of  

students  for  admission;  (b)  conduct  of  examinations;  (c)  the  

manner in which the prescribed courses should be completed;  

and (d) to see that the conditions imposed by the NCTE are  

complied with.  Despite the fact that recognition itself covers  

65

Page 66

the larger precepts of affiliation, still the affiliating body is not  

to grant affiliation automatically but must exercise its discretion  

fairly and transparently while ensuring that conditions of the  

law of the university and the functions of the affiliating body  

should be complementary to the recognition of NCTE and ought  

not to be in derogation thereto.   

59. In  the  case  of  St.  John  Teachers  Training  Institute v.  

Regional  Director,  National  Council  for  Teacher  Education  

[(2003) 3 SCC 321], this Court attempted to strike a balance  

between the role played by the NCTE, on the one hand and  

affiliating body and State Government, on the other.  Once the  

affiliating body acts within the fundamentals of Section 14 of  

the Act, possibility of a conflict can always be avoided.

60. In  these  appeals,  we  are  concerned  with  the  colleges  

which are affiliated to different universities.  Some of them are  

affiliated to Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Avadh University, Faizabad,  

some to Dr. Bhimarao Ambedkar University, Agra while others  

to the University of Meerut.  All these universities have been  

created  by  statutes  and  have  their  own  ordinances.   The  

Universities  Act  is  the  parent  statute  under  which  all  these  

66

Page 67

universities have been constituted.  Under Section 2(20) of the  

Universities Act, ‘University’ means an existing University or a  

new University established after the commencement of this Act  

in terms of Section 4 of this Act.  Section 4 empowers the State  

Government to establish a university in the manner prescribed  

by  its  notification  in  the  Official  Gazette.   The  provision  

provides for establishment of different universities and which  

had,  in  fact,  been  already  established.   Chapter  VII  of  the  

Universities Act deals with Affiliation and Recognition.  Section  

37(1) states that the section shall apply to different universities  

under which all the universities which are respondent in these  

appeals are covered.  In terms of Section 37(2), the Executive  

Council  may,  with  the  previous  sanction  of  the  State  

Government, admit any college which fulfils such conditions of  

affiliation as may be prescribed, to the privileges of affiliation or  

enlarge  the  privileges  of  any  college  already  affiliated  or  

subject to the provisions of sub-section (8), withdraw or curtail  

any such privilege.  It has further been provided that a college  

should  substantially  fulfill  the  conditions  of  affiliation  in  the  

opinion of  the  State Government,  for  it  to  sanction grant  of  

affiliation  to  the  college.   In  terms  of  Section  37(6),  the  

67

Page 68

Executive Council of the university shall cause every affiliated  

college  to  be  inspected  from  time  to  time  at  intervals  not  

exceeding five years.  Section 37(8) states that the privileges of  

affiliation of a college which fails to comply with any direction  

of the Executive Council under sub-section (7) or to fulfill the  

condition  of  affiliation  may,  after  obtaining  the  report  from  

management of the college and with previous sanction of the  

chancellor, be withdrawn or curtailed by the Executive Council  

in accordance with the provisions of the Statutes.   In terms of  

Section 37(10), a college which has been affiliated is entitled to  

continue the  course of  study for  which the admissions have  

already taken place.  To give an example, under the statute of  

the Meerut University, affiliation of new colleges is dealt with  

under statute 13.02 to 13.10 of Chapter XIII.  This requires that  

every application for affiliation of a college has to be made so  

as to reach the Registrar in less than 12 months before the  

commencement  of  the  course  and  before  an  application  is  

considered by the Executive Council, the Vice-Chancellor must  

be satisfied that there is due compliance with the provisions of  

statutes  3.05,  13.06  and  13.07.   Besides,  it  requires  the  

conditions  like  adequate  financial  resources,  suitable  and  

68

Page 69

sufficient  building,  adequate  library,  two  hectares  of  land,  

facilities  for  recreation  of  students,  etc.  to  be  fulfilled.   The  

constitution of the Management of every college has also been  

provided.   

61. The  fields  which  are  sought  to  be  covered  under  the  

provisions of Section 37 of the Universities Act and the Statutes  

of various universities are clearly common to the aspects which  

are squarely covered by the specific language under the Act.  

That being so, all State laws in regard to affiliation in so far as  

they are covered by the Act must give way to the operation of  

the provisions of the Act.  To put it  simply,  the requirements  

which have been examined and the conditions which have been  

imposed by the NCTE shall prevail and cannot be altered, re-

examined or infringed under the garb of the State Law.  The  

affiliating/examining  body  and  the  State  Government  must  

abide  by  the  proficiency  and  command  of  the  NCTE’s  

directions.  To give an example, existence of building, library,  

qualified  staff,  financial  stability  of  the  institution,  

accommodation,  etc.  are  the  subjects  which  are  specifically  

covered under Section 14(3)(b) of the Act.  Thus, they would  

not be open to re-examination by the State and the University.  

69

Page 70

If  the recognition itself  was conditional  and those conditions  

have  not  been  satisfied,  in  such  circumstances,  within  the  

ambit and scope of Sections 46 and 16 of the Act, the affiliating  

body may not give affiliation and inform the NCTE forthwith of  

the  shortcomings  and  non-compliance  of  the  conditions.   In  

such situation, both the Central and the State body should act  

in  tandem and,  with  due  coordination,  come  to  a  final  

conclusion as to the steps which are required to be taken in  

regard to both recognition and affiliation.   But  certainly,  the  

State Government and the University cannot act in derogation  

to the NCTE.

62. Now, we may deal with another aspect of this very facet of  

the case.  It is a very pertinent issue as to what the role of the  

State should be after the affiliation is granted by the affiliating  

body.  We have already discussed that the State opinion, as  

contemplated under  Section 37 of  the University  Act,  to  the  

extent it admits to overreach, is reconcilable and its results are  

not in its orientation to the directives of the NCTE are void and  

inoperative to the extent they can be resolved in which case  

clear precedence is to be given to the directives of the NCTE  

during such resolution.  The opinion of the State, therefore, has  

70

Page 71

to  be  read  and  construed  to  mean  that  it  would  keep  the  

factors determined by the NCTE intact and then examine the  

matter for grant of affiliation.  The role of the State Government  

is minimised at this stage which, in fact, is a second stage.  It  

should primarily be for the University to determine the grant or  

refusal  of  affiliation  and  role  of  the  State  should  be  bare,  

minimum non-interfering and non-infringing.   

63. It is on record and the Regulations framed under the Act  

clearly  show  that  upon  receiving  an  application  for  

recommendation, the NCTE shall send a copy of the application  

with its letter inviting recommendations/comments of the State  

Government on all aspects within a period of 30 days.  To such,  

application, the State is expected to respond with its complete  

comments  within  a  period  of  60  days.   In  other  words,  the  

opinion of the State on all matters that may concern it in any of  

the specified fields are called for.  This is the stage where the  

State and its Department should play a vital role.  They must  

take all  precautions  to  offer  proper  comments  supported  by  

due reasoning.  Once these comments are sent and the State  

Government gives its opinion which is considered by the NCTE  

and examined in conjunction with the report of the experts, it  

71

Page 72

may grant or refuse recognition.  Once it  grants recognition,  

then  such  grant  attains  supremacy  viz-a-viz  the  State  

Government as well  as the affiliating body.   Normally,  these  

questions  cannot  be  re-agitated  at  the  time  of  grant  of  

affiliation.  Once the University conducts inspection in terms of  

its Statutes or Act, without offending the provisions of the Act  

and conditions  of  recognition,  then  the  opinion  of  the  State  

Government  at  the  second stage is  a  mere  formality  unless  

there  was  a  drastic  and  unacceptable  mistake  or  the  entire  

process was vitiated by fraud or there was patently eminent  

danger to life of the students working in the school because of  

non-compliance of a substantive condition imposed by either of  

the bodies.  In the normal circumstances, the role of the State  

is a very formal one and the State is not expected to obstruct  

the  commencement  of  admission  process  and  academic  

courses once recognition is granted and affiliation is found to  

be acceptable.   

64. In  the  case  of  Sant  Dnyaneshwar  Shikshan  Shastra  

Mahavidyalaya (supra),  the  view  of  this  Court  was  that  the  

State Government has no role whatsoever.   However,  in the  

case of Bhartia Education Society (supra), it was stated that the  

72

Page 73

role  of  the  State  Government  was  limited  to  the  manner  of  

admission, eligibility criteria,  etc.  without interfering with the  

conditions of recognition prescribed by the NCTE.  The exercise  

of discretion by the State Government and affiliating body has  

to  be  within  the  framework  of  the  Act,  the  Regulations  and  

conditions of recognition.  Even in  St. John Teachers Training  

Institute (supra), the Court stated that the State Government or  

the  Union  Territory  has  to  necessarily  confine  itself  to  the  

guidelines issued by the NCTE while considering application for  

grant of ‘No Objection Certificate’.  Minimization of the role of  

the  State  at  the  second  stage  can  also  be  justified  on  the  

ground  that  affiliation  primarily  is  a  subject  matter  of  the  

University which is  responsible for admission of the students  

laying down the criteria thereof, holding of examinations and  

implementation of the prescribed courses while maintaining the  

standards of education as prescribed.   

65. Lastly, the question which is required to be discussed in  

light  of  the  facts  of  the  present  cases  is  adherence  to  the  

Schedule.  Once the relevant Schedules have been prescribed  

under  the  Regulations  or  under  the  Judge  made  law,  none,  

whosoever  it  be,  is  entitled  to  carve  out  exceptions  to  the  

73

Page 74

prescribed Schedule.  Adherence to the Schedule is the essence  

of granting admission in a fair and transparent manner as well  

as  to  maintain  the  standards  of  education.   The purpose  of  

providing  a  time  schedule  is  to  ensure  that  all  concerned  

authorities act within the stipulated time.  Where, on the one  

hand,  it  places   an  obligation  upon  the  authorities  to  act  

according  to  the  Schedule,  there  it  also  provides  complete  

clarity to other stakeholders as to when their application would  

either be accepted and/or rejected and what will be the time  

duration for  it  to be processed at different quarters.   It  also  

gives clear understanding to the students for whose benefit the  

entire process is set up as to when their examinations would be  

held,  when  results  would  be  declared  and  when  they  are  

expected  to  take admission  to  different  colleges  in  order  of  

merit obtained by them in the entrance examinations or other  

processes for the purposes of subject and college preference.

66. We  are  constrained  to  reiterate  with  emphasis  at  our  

command that the prescribed schedules under the Regulations  

and  the  judgments  must  be  strictly  adhered  to  without  

exceptions.  None in the hierarchy of the State Government,  

University, NCTE or any other authority or body involved in this  

74

Page 75

process  can  breach  the  Schedule  for  any  direct  or  indirect  

reason.  Anybody who is found to be defaulting in this behalf is  

bound  to  render  himself  or  herself  liable  for  initiation  of  

proceedings under  the provisions  of  the  Contempt of  Courts  

Act, 1971 as well as for a disciplinary action in accordance with  

the orders of the Court.  In the case of Parshavanath Charitable  

Trust & Ors. V. All India Council for Technical Education & Ors.   

(Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) 26086 of 2012), decided on the same  

date, this Court held as under :

“29… Time schedule is one such condition  specifically prescribed for admission to the  colleges.  Adherence to admission schedule  is  again  a  subject  which  requires  strict  conformity  by  all  concerned,  without  exception.  Reference in this regard can be  made  to  Ranjan  Purohit  and  Ors. V.  Rajasthan University of Health Science and   Ors. [(2012) 8 SCALE 71] at this stage, in  addition to the judgment of this Court in the  case of  Medical Council  of India v.  Madhu  Singh, [(2002) 7 SCC 258].”

67. Undoubtedly, adherence to Schedule achieves the object  

of  the  Act  and  its  various  aspects.   Disobedience  results  in  

unfair  admissions,  not  commencing  the  courses  within  the  

stipulated time and causing serious prejudice to the students of  

higher merit resulting in defeating the rule of merit.

75

Page 76

68. We  may  very  clearly  state  here  that  we  adopt  and  

reiterate  the  Schedule  stated  by  this  Court  in  the  case  of  

College  of  Professional  Education  (supra)  in  relation  to  

admission as well as recognition and affiliation.  This obviously  

includes the commencement of the courses in time.  However,  

in order to avoid the possibility of any ambiguity, we propose to  

state the schedule for recognition and affiliation in terms of the  

NCTE Regulations 2009 and the judgment of this Court in the  

case of College of Professional Education (supra) :

69. The  process  for  grant  of  recognition,  affiliation  and  

thereby sanctioning of commencement of the courses in terms  

of the Regulations and the orders of this Court gives an outer  

period  of  approximately  270  days,  i.e.  9  months,  from  1st  

September to 10th May of the year immediately preceding the  

concerned academic year.   Thus, for the entire process to be  

within this framework, it must be completed within the afore-

stated period.   The process  inter alia includes various steps  

including comments of the State, inspection of the institution  

and compliance  of  the  various  conditions  afore-noted  in  the  

order of recognition and affiliation by the affiliating body.

76

Page 77

70. There appear to be some over-lapping periods and even  

contradictions between the dates and periods stated under the  

regulations inter se and even with reference to the judgments  

of this Court prescribing the Schedule.   For example in terms of  

the judgment of this Court in the case of College of Professional   

Education (supra),  the last date for grant of affiliation is 10 th  

May of the concerned year, but as per Regulation 5.5 of the  

NCTE Regulations, 2009, the  last date for grant of recognition  

is 15th May of the relevant year. Similarly, there is an overlap  

between the period specified in Regulation 7.1 and that under  

Regulation  7.2.  Such  overlapping  is  likely  to  cause  some  

confusion in the mind of the implementing authority as well as  

the applicant.   Thus, it is necessary for this Court to put to rest  

these  avoidable  events  and  unnecessary  controversies.  

Compelled with these circumstances and to ensure that there  

exists no ambiguity, uncertainty and confusion, we direct and  

prescribe the following schedule upon a cumulative reading of  

the  Regulations  and  judgments  of  this  Court  in  relation  to  

recognition and affiliation.

Schedule  

1. Submission  of  applications 1st September  to  1st  

77

Page 78

for  recognition  in  terms  of  Regulation 5.4

October  of  the  year  immediately  preceding  the  relevant  academic  year

2. Communication  of  deficiencies,  shortcomings  or any other discrepancy in  the  application  submitted  by  the  applicant  to  the  applicant  in  terms  of  Regulation 7.1

Within 45 days from the  date  of  receipt  of  the  applications  

3. Removal  of  such  deficiencies  by  the  applicant  

Within 60 days from the  date  of  receipt  of  communication  

4. Forwarding  of  copy  of  the  application  to  the  State  Government/UT  Administration  for  its  recommendations/comment s in terms of Regulation 7.2

Within 90 days from the  date  of  receipt  of  the  application

5. Recommendations/  comments  of  the  State  Government/UT  Administration  to  be  submitted  to  the  Regional  Committee  under  Regulation 7.3

Within 30 days from the  date of issue of letter to  it.

6. If  recommendations/  comments are not received  within 30 days, the Regional  Committee shall send to the  State  Government/UT  Administration  a  reminder  letter for submission of the  recommendations/  comments.    

Within  seven  days  from  the date of expiry of the  period of 30 days.

7. State  Government/UT  Administration  shall  furnish  the  recommendations/  

Within 15 days from the  date  of  receipt  of  such  reminder letter

78

Page 79

comments 8. Intimation  regarding  

inspection  by  the  Regional  Committee to the applicant  under Regulation 7(4)

Within 10 days from final  scrutiny  of  the  application.    

9. Report  by  the  Inspection  Committee  under  Regulation 7(5)

20 days thereafter

10. Letter  of  intent  to  the  institution  with  respect  to  grant  or  refusal  of  recognition  in  terms  of  Regulation 7.9

10th of  February  of  the  succeeding year/relevant  year

11. Time to comply with certain  specified  conditions,  in  terms  of  Regulation  7(10)  and 7(11)

20 days from the date of  issuance  of  letter  of  intent  

12. Issuance of formal order of  recognition By 3rd March of each year

13. Last  date  for  submitting  proposal for affiliation By  10th March  of  each  

year 14. Forwarding  of  proposal  by  

the University  to the State  Government/UT  Administration  after  inspection by expert team

By  10th March  of  each  year

15. Comments to be submitted  by  the  State  Government/UT  Administration, if any

By  10th March  of  each  year

16. Final date for issuance/grant  of affiliation for the relevant  academic year

By  10th March  of  each  year

• All  notices/orders/requirements/letters  in  terms  of  the  

above schedule or  under  the provisions  of  the Act  or  79

Page 80

terms  and  conditions  of  already  granted  

recognition/affiliation  shall  be  sent  by  the  authority  

concerned by Speed Post/e-mail on the address given in  

the  application  for  correspondence  etc.  and  shall  be  

posted  on  the  website  of  the  concerned  

Authority/Committee/Council/ Government.  

• The  recognition  and  affiliation  granted  as  per  above  

schedule shall  be applicable for  the current  academic  

year.  For example recognition granted upto 3rd March,  

2013 and affiliation granted upto 10th May, 2013 shall be  

effective  for  the  academic  year  2013-2014  i.e.  the  

courses starting from 1st April, 2013.   For the academic  

year 2013-2014, no recognition shall be issued after 3rd  

March, 2013 and no affiliation shall be granted after 10th  

May, 2013.   Any affiliation or recognition granted after  

the  above  cut-off  dates  shall  only  be  valid  for  the  

academic year 2014-2015.

• We  make  it  clear  that  no  Authority/person/  

Council/Committee shall be entitled to vary the schedule  

80

Page 81

for any reason whatsoever.   Any non-compliance shall  

amount to violating the orders of the Court.  

71. In all the appeals and petitions before us, the basic issue is  

whether the university and the State Government were justified  

in  rejecting  the  application  or  not  granting  application  for  

affiliation on the ground that there was a cut-off date and/or the  

conditions of recommendation/affiliation had not been satisfied.  

In some cases, serious disputes have been raised with regard to  

the fulfillment of the conditions of recognition and/or affiliation.  

As far as the reason in relation to cut-off date is concerned, we  

cannot  find any fault  with  the view taken by the  authorities  

concerned.   10th of May has been provided as the cut-off date,  

after which no affiliation for the current academic year would be  

granted.  This, being the law stated by this Court, is binding on  

all  concerned,  including  any  authority.   The authorities  have  

rightly acted in declining to entertain and/or refusing affiliation  

to the institutions being beyond the cut-off date.   Adherence to  

the  schedule  was  the  obligation  of  the  authorities  and  the  

institutions cannot raise any grievance in that regard.   The said  

time  schedule  must  become  operative  in  all  respects  and  

81

Page 82

nobody  should  be  permitted  to  carve  exceptions  to  this  

mandatory direction.

72. Coming to the cases where the plea has been taken by the  

respondents University/State that conditions of affiliation have  

not  been satisfied.    It  is  not  for  this  Court  to  examine the  

compliance  or  breach  of  conditions  and  their  extent  in  the  

special leave petitions or writ petitions as the case may be.    In  

fact, the judgment of the High Court has been brought to our  

notice  where  it  has  been  recorded  that  conditions  in  some  

cases have been complied with, but still the State has taken the  

stand that besides cut-off date, other conditions are also not  

satisfied.    One of the examples relates to the matter where  

the  State/affiliating  body  has  found  that  even  the  building’s  

boundary wall was not complete and the fire equipments have  

not  been  installed  as  prescribed.   However,  these  were  

specifically  disputed  by  the  petitioners/appellants  who  

contended that all conditions had been satisfied.   Thus, these  

are disputes of very serious nature.    They will squarely fall  

beyond the ambit of appellate or writ jurisdiction by this Court.  

This is for the specialised bodies to examine the matters upon  

82

Page 83

physical verification and to proceed with the application of the  

institute in accordance with law.

73. We may mention that  firstly  vide order  dated 26th July,  

2012 a stay in regard to counseling and admission was granted  

by this Court.   However, this order was varied again by order  

dated 27th September, 2012 which reads as under:-

“By our interim order dated 26th July, 2012, we  had,  while  taking  note  of  the  fact  that  counselling  for  vacant  seats  in B.Ed. Course  for different private  colleges  in  the  State  of  Uttar  Pradesh  was  scheduled  from 27th  July,  2012 to 26th August,  2012,  directed that  the  counselling  will  not   be   held   for   the  time  being.

On 25th September, 2012, after hearing  writ  petition  and all  other connected matters,  we  had  called  upon  the  Universities  to  file  an  affidavit  on  the  issue  whether  the  students  admitted to the  institution  which  had  already  been affiliated will be  able  to  complete  the  course  during  the academic session as per the  Regulations of the NCTE if the interim order is  vacated or modified now.                  

Pursuant  to  the  aforesaid  orders  passed  on  25th  September,  2012,  an  affidavit  has  been  filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 - Dr. Ram  Manohar Lohia Awadh University and it  is  inter  alia stated therein that if the vacancies in the  seats  in  different  private  colleges  which  are  affiliated  are  filled  up  and  students  are  admitted, the University will still be in a position  to  complete  the  mandatory  requirements  of  

83

Page 84

200   days   as  per  the  NCTE  norms  and  Regulations, since the examinations for the last  academic  session  2011-12  have  commenced  from the second week of September, 2012 only.  Along  with  the  affidavit,  a  chart  has  been  annexed  to  indicate  that  there  were  13,435  vacant  seats  in  self-financing  colleges  which  are  affiliated  to  the  concerned  Universities  comprising  2762  vacant  seats  in  the  Arts  and  Commerce  Stream  and  10,673  seats in Science and Agriculture.                   

Considering  the  aforesaid  facts  stated  in  the  affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 2, we  vacate the interim and permit the authorities to  fill  up  the  vacant  seats  in  B.Ed.  Course  in  different  self-financing  colleges  which   have  already  been  granted  affiliation  as  well  as  Government  and  Government aided Colleges.  But we make it clear that the authorities  will  ensure that the students  are  admitted   strictly  as  per  the procedure that has been already  notified on the basis  of merit in the entrance  examination  and  fresh  counselling  will  take place after  a  fresh advertisement  in  the  newspapers  having circulation in the State of  Uttar  Pradesh  and  in   the   internet.   The  authorities will also ensure  that  the  students  admitted  complete  the  mandatory  period  of  200 days' course in  the  B.Ed. as per norms of  the NCTE.   

The matters are reserved for judgment.”

74. In furtherance to the above order, we are informed that  

the  admissions  had  been  granted  in  the  recognised  and  

affiliated  institutes.   In  the  colleges  which  were  neither  

recognised nor affiliated, whether or not included in the list of  

84

Page 85

counseling,  no  admissions  were  given  to  the  students.   The  

petitioner/appellant colleges fall in that category.   We do not  

propose to grant any relief to them in the present writ petitions  

and  appeals  except  issuance  of  certain  directions.  

Consequently and in view of our above discussion, we dispose  

of all these appeals/writ petitions with the following directions:-

A)  The  schedule  stated  in  the  case  of  College  of  

Professional Education (supra) and in this judgment in  

relation  to  admissions,  recognition,  affiliation  and  

commencement of courses shall be strictly adhered to  

by  all  concerned  including  the  NCTE,  the  State  

Government and the University/examining body.

B) In  the  event  of  disobedience  of  schedule  and/or  any  

attempt  to  overreach  or  circumvent  the  judgment  of  

this  Court  and  the  directions  contained  herein,  the  

concerned person shall render himself or herself liable  

for proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971  

and  even  for  departmental  disciplinary  action  in  

accordance with law.

C) We  hereby  direct  the  NCTE/  State  Government/  

Examining  or  affiliating  body  to  consider  the  

85

Page 86

applications  and  pass  appropriate  orders  granting  or  

refusing to grant recognition/affiliation to the petitioner  

institutions within three months from today.

D) If the institutions are aggrieved from the order passed  

by the authorities in terms of clause ‘C’ (supra), they  

will be at liberty to challenge the same in accordance  

with law.

E) The NCTE shall circulate the copy of this judgment to all  

Regional  Committees,  concerned  State  Governments  

and all affiliating bodies and also put the some on its  

website for information of all stakeholders and public at  

large.

F) The interim order dated 27th September, 2012 is made  

absolute.

75. All the writ petitions and appeals are accordingly disposed  

of, however, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

…….…………................J.   (A.K. Patnaik)

86

Page 87

...….…………................J.   (Swatanter Kumar)

New Delhi; December 13, 2012.

87