National Council for
Teacher Education and others Vs Shri Shyam Shiksha Prashikshan Sansthan and
others etc. etc.
JUDGMENT
G.S. Singhvi, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Whether the cut
off dates specified in clauses (4) and (5) of Regulation 5 of the National
Council for Teacher Education (Recognition, Norms and Procedure) Regulations,
2007 (for short, "the 2007 Regulations") as amended by Notification
F. No.48-3/(1)/2008/NCTE/N&S. dated 1.7.2008 for submission of application
for recognition and disposal thereof are mandatory and whether the learned
Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench was justified in issuing
directions, which have the effect of obliterating the cut off dates are the
questions which arise for consideration in these appeals filed by the National
Council for Teacher Education and its functionaries (hereinafter described as
"the appellants") against judgment dated 13.5.2009 of the Division
Bench of the High Court affirming the order of the learned Single Judge. Scheme
of the Act and the Regulations:
3. With a view to
achieve the object of planned and coordinated development for the teacher
education system throughout the country and for regulation and proper
maintenance of norms and standards in the teacher education system and for
matters connected therewith, Parliament enacted the National Council for
Teacher Education Act, 1993 (for short, "the Act"), which provides
for the establishment of a Council to be called the National Council for
Teacher Education (for short, "the NCTE") with multifarious functions,
powers and duties. Section 2(c) of the Act defines the term "Council"
to mean a Council established under sub-section (1) of Section 3. Section 2(i)
defines the term "recognised institution" to mean an institution recognised
under Section 14. Section 2(j) defines the term "Regional Committee" to
mean a Committee established under Section 20. Section 3 provides for
establishment of the Council which comprises of a Chairperson, a
Vice-Chairperson, a Member-Secretary, various functionaries of the Government,
thirteen persons possessing experience and knowledge in the field of education
or teaching, nine members representing the States and
Union Territories
Administration, three members of Parliament, three members to be appointed from
amongst teachers of primary and secondary education and teachers of recognised
institutions. Section 12 of the Act enumerates functions of the Council.
Section 14 provides for recognition of institutions offering course or training
in teacher education. Section 15 lays down the procedure for obtaining
permission by an existing institution for starting a new course or training.
Section 16 contains a non obstante clause and lays down that an examining body
shall not grant affiliation to any institution or hold examination for a course
or training conducted by a recognised institution unless it has obtained
recognition from the concerned Regional Committee under Section 14 or
permission for starting a new course or training under Section 15.
The mechanism for
dealing with the cases involving violation of the provisions of the Act or the
rules, regulations orders made or issued there under or the conditions of
recognition by a recognised institution finds place in Section 17. By an
amendment made in July, 2006, Section 17-A was added to the Act. It lays down
that no institution shall admit any student to a course or training in teacher education
unless it has obtained recognition under Section 14 or permission under Section
15. Section 31(1) empowers the Central Government to make rules for carrying
out the provisions of the Act. Section 31(2) specifies the matters in respect
of which the Central Government can make rules. Under Section 32(1) the Council
can make regulations for implementation of the provisions of the Act subject to
the rider that the regulations shall not be inconsistent with the provisions of
the Act and the rules made there under. Section 32(2) specifies the matters on
which the Council can frame regulations. In terms of Section 33, the rules
framed under Section 31 and the regulations framed under Section 32 are
required to be laid before the Parliament. By virtue of Section 34(1), the
Central Government has been clothed with the power to issue an order to remove any
difficulty arising in the implementation of the provisions of the Act. Sections
12, 14 to 16 and 17-A of the Act, which have bearing on the decision of these
appeals read as under: "12. Functions of the Council.- It shall be the
duty of the Council to take all such steps as it may think fit for ensuring planned
and coordinated development of teacher education and for the determination and
maintenance of standards for teacher education and for the purposes of
performing its functions under this Act, the Council may- (a) undertake surveys
and studies relating to various aspects of teacher education and publish the
result thereof; 5 (b) make recommendations to the Central and State Governments,
Universities,
University Grants
Commission and recognised institutions in the matter of preparation of suitable
plans and programmes in the field of teacher education; (c) coordinate and
monitor teacher education and its development in the country; (d) lay down
guidelines in respect of minimum qualifications for a person to be employed as
a teacher in schools or in recognised institutions; (e) lay down norms for any
specified category of courses or training in teacher education, including the
minimum eligibility criteria for admission thereof, and the method of selection
of candidates, duration of the course, course contents and mode of curriculum; (f)
lay down guidelines for compliance by recognised institutions, for starting new
courses or training and for providing physical and instructional facilities,
staffing pattern and staff qualifications; (g) xxx xxx xxx (h) xxx xxx xxx (i) xxx
xxx xxx (j) examine and review periodically the implementation of the norms,
guidelines and standards laid down by the Council and to suitably advise the
recognised institutions; (k) xxx xxx xxx (l) xxx xxx xxx (m) xxx xxx xxx (n)
perform such other functions as may be entrusted to it by the Central
Government
14. Recognition of
institutions offering course or training in teacher education.-(1) Every
institution offering or intending to offer a course or training in teacher
education on or after the appointed day, may, for grant of recognition under
this Act, make an application to the Regional Committee concerned in such form
and in such manner as may be determined by regulations: Provided that an institution
offering a course or training in teacher education immediately before the
appointed day, shall be entitled to continue such course or training for a
period of six months, if it has made an application for recognition within the
said period and until the disposal of the application by the Regional
Committee. (2)
The fee to be paid
along with the application under sub- section (1) shall be such as may be
prescribed. (3) On receipt of an application by the Regional Committee from any
institution under sub-section (1), and after obtaining from the institution
concerned such other particulars as it may consider necessary, it shall,- (a)
if it is satisfied that such institution has adequate financial resources,
accommodation, library, qualified staff, laboratory and that if fulfils such
other conditions required for proper functioning of the institution for a course
or training in teacher education, as may be determined by regulations, pass an
order granting recognition to such institution, subject to such conditions as
may be determined by regulations; or (b) if it is of the opinion that such
institution does not fulfill the requirements laid down in sub-clause (a), pass
an order refusing recognition to such institution for reasons to be recorded in
writing:
Provided that before
passing an order under sub-clause (b), the Regional Committee shall provide a
reasonable opportunity to the concerned institution for making a written
representation. (4) xxx xxx xxx (5) Every institution, in respect of which
recognition has been refused shall discontinue the course or training in
teacher education from the end of the academic session next following the date
of receipt of the order refusing recognition passed under clause (b) of
sub-section (3). (6) Every examining body shall, on receipt of the order under
sub-section (4),- (a) grant affiliation to the institution, where recognition
has been granted; or (b) cancel the affiliation of the institution, where recognition
has been refused. 15. Permission for a new course or training by recognised institution.-
(1) Where any
recognised institution intends to start any new course or training in teacher
education, it may make an application to seek permission there for to the
Regional Committee concerned in such form and in such manner as may be
determined by regulations. (2) The fees to be paid along with the application under
sub-section (1) shall be such as may be prescribed. (3) On receipt of an
application from an institution under sub-section (1), and after obtaining from
the recognised institution such other particulars as may be considered necessary,
the Regional Committee shall,- (a) if it is satisfied that such recognised
institution has adequate financial resources, accommodation, library, qualified
staff, laboratory, and that it fulfils such other conditions required for
proper conduct of the new course or training in teacher education, as may be
determined by regulations, pass an order granting permission, subject to such
conditions as may be determined by regulation; or (b) if it is of the opinion
that such institution does not fulfil the requirements laid down in sub-clause
(a), pass an order refusing permission to such institution, for reasons to be recorded
in writing: 8 Provided that before passing an order refusing permission under sub-clause
(b), the Regional Committee shall provide a reasonable opportunity to the
institution concerned for making a written representation. (4) xxx xxx xxx
16. Affiliating body
to grant affiliation after recognition or permission by the Council.-
Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in
force, no examining body shall, on or after the appointed day,- (a) grant
affiliation, whether provisional or otherwise, to any institution; or (b) hold
examination, whether provisional or otherwise, for a course or training
conducted by a recognised institution, unless the institution concerned has
obtained recognition from the Regional Committee concerned, under section 14 or
permission for a course or training under section 15. 17-A. No admission
without recognition.- No institution shall admit any student to a course or
training in teacher education, unless the institution concerned has obtained
recognition under section 14 or permission under section 15, as the case may
be."
4. In exercise of the
power vested in it under Section 32, the Council has, from time to time, framed
Regulations. In the first place, such Regulations were framed in 1995 with the
title "the National Council for Teacher Education (Application for
recognition, the manner for submission, determination of conditions for
recognition of institutions and permissions to start new course or training)
Regulations, 1995". In 2002, the Council framed "the National Council
for Teacher Education (Form of application for recognition, the time limit of
submission of application, determination of norms and standards for recognition
of teacher education programmes and permission to start new course or training)
Regulations, 2002". These regulations were amended six times between 2003
and 2005 and were finally repealed by "the National Council for Teacher
Education (Recognition, Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2005". The 2005
Regulations were repealed by the 2007 Regulations. The relevant provisions of
the 2007 Regulations are reproduced below: "
Eligibility The
following categories of institutions are eligible for consideration of their
applications under these regulations: (1) Institutions established by or under
the authority of Central/State Government/UT Administration; (2) Institutions
financed by Central/State Government/UT Administration; (3) All universities,
including institutions deemed to be universities, so recognized under UGC Act,
1956. (4) Self financed educational institutions established and operated by
`not for profit', Societies and Trusts registered under the appropriate law.
5. Manner of making
application and Time Limit (1) An institution eligible under Regulation 4,
desirous of running a teacher education programme may apply to the concerned
Regional Committee of NCTE for recognition in the prescribed form in triplicate
along with processing fee and requisite documents.
(2) The form can be
downloaded from the Council's website www.ncte-in.org, free of cost. The said
form can also be obtained from the office of the Regional Committee concerned
by payment of Rs.1000 (Rs. One thousand only) by way of a demand draft of a
Nationalized Bank drawn in favour of the Member Secretary, NCTE payable at the
city where the office of the Regional Committee is located. (3) An application
can be submitted conventionally or electronically on-line. In the latter case,
the requisite documents in triplicate along with the processing fee shall be
submitted separately to the office of the Regional Committee concerned. Those
who apply on-line shall have the benefit of not to pay for the form. (4) The
cut-off date for submission of application to the Regional Committee concerned
shall be 31st October of the preceding year to the academic session for which recognition
has been sought. (5) All complete applications received on or before 31st October
of the year shall be processed for the next academic session and final
decision, either recognition granted or refused, shall be communicated by 15th
May of the succeeding year.
7. Processing of
Applications (1) The applicant institutions shall ensure submission of applications
complete in all respects. However, in order to cover the inadvertent omissions
or deficiencies in documents, the office of the Regional Committee shall point
out the deficiencies within 30 days of receipt of the applications, which the
applicants shall remove within 90 days. No application shall be processed if
the processing fees of Rs.40,000/- is not submitted and such applications would
be returned to the applicant institutions. (2) Simultaneously, on receipt of
application, a written communication alongwith a copy of the application form 11
submitted by the institution(s) shall be sent by the office of Regional
Committees to the State Government/U.T.
Administration
concerned. (3) On receipt of the communication, the State Government/UT
Administration concerned shall furnish its recommendations on the applications
to the office of the Regional Committee concerned of the National Council for
Teacher Education within 60 days from receipt. If the recommendation is
negative, the State Government/UT Administration shall provide detailed reasons/grounds
thereof with necessary statistics, which shall be taken into consideration by
the Regional Committee concerned while deciding the application. If no
communication is received from the State Government/UT Administration within
the stipulated 60 days, it shall be presumed that the State Government/UT Administration
concerned has no recommendation to make.
After removal of all
the deficiencies and to the satisfaction of the Regional Committee concerned,
the inspection of infrastructure, equipments, instructional facilities etc, of
an institution shall be conducted by a team of experts called Visiting Team
(VT) with a view to assessing the level of preparedness of the institution to commence
the course. Inspection would be subject to the consent of the institution and
submission of the self- attested copy of the completion certificate of the building.
Such inspection, as far as administratively and logistically possible, shall be
in the chronological order of the date of receipt of the consent of the
institution. In case the consent from more than one institution is received on
the same day, alphabetical order may be followed. The inspection shall be
conducted within 30 days of receipt of the consent of the institution.
(5) xxx xxx xxx
(6) xxx xxx xxx 12
(7) xxx xxx xxx
(8) xxx xxx xxx
(9) The institution
concerned shall be informed, through a letter, of the decision for grant of
recognition or permission subject to appointment of qualified faculty members
before the commencement of the academic session. The letter issued under this
clause shall not be notified in the Gazette. The faculty shall be appointed on the
recommendations of the Selection Committee duly constituted as per the policy
of the State Govt/Central Govt/University/UGC or the concerned affiliating
body, as the case may be.
The applicant
institution shall submit an affidavit in the prescribed form that the Selection
Committee has been constituted as stated above. A separate staff list with the
details would be submitted in the prescribed form. The Regional Committee would
rely on the above affidavit and the staff list before processing the case for
grant of formal recognition. (10) All the applicant institutions shall launch
their own website soon after the receipt of the letter from the Regional
Committee under Regulation 7(9) covering, inter alia, the details of the
institution, its location, name of the course applied for with intake,
availability of physical infrastructure (land, building, office, classrooms, and
other facilities/amenities), instructional facilities (laboratory, library
etc.) and the particulars of their proposed teaching and non-teaching staff
etc. with photographs, for information of all concerned. (11)
The institution
concerned, after appointing the requisite faculty/staff as per Regulation 7(9)
above and fulfilling the conditions under Regulation 7(10) above shall formally
inform the Regional Committee concerned alongwith the requisite affidavit and
staff list. The Regional Committee concerned shall then issue a formal recognition
order that shall be notified as per provision of the NCTE Act. 13 (12) xxx xxx xxx
(13) xxx xxx xxx 8. Conditions for grant of recognition (1) An institution must
fulfill all the prescribed conditions related to norms and standards as
prescribed by the NCTE for conducting the course or training in teacher education.
These norms, inter alia, cover conditions relating to financial resources,
accommodation, library, laboratory, other physical infrastructure, qualified
staff including teaching and non-teaching personnel, etc. (2) In the first
instance, an institution shall be considered for grant of recognition for only
one course for the basic unit as prescribed in the norms & standards for
the particular teacher education programme.
An institution can
apply for one basic unit of an additional course from the subsequent academic
session. However, application for not more than one additional course can be
made in a year. (3) An institution shall be permitted to apply for enhancement
of course wise intake in teacher education courses already approved, after
completion of three academic sessions of running the respective courses. (4) An
institution shall be permitted to apply for enhancement of intake in Secondary
Teacher Education Programme - B.Ed. & B.P. Ed. Programme, if it has accredited
itself with the National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) with a
Letter Grade B developed by NAAC. (5) An institution that has been granted
additional intake in B.Ed. and B.P. Ed. teacher training courses after promulgation
of the Regulations, 2005 i.e. 13.1.2006 shall have to be accredited itself with
the National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) with a Letter Grade B
under the new grading system developed 14 by NAAC before 1st April, 2010
failing which the additional intake granted shall stand withdrawn w.e.f. the academic
session 2010-2011. (6) xxx xxx xxx (7) No institution shall be granted
recognition under these regulations unless it is in possession of required land
on the date of application. The land free from all encumbrances could be either
on ownership basis or on lease from Government/Govt institutions for a period
of not less than 30 years.
In cases where under
relevant State/UT laws the maximum permissible lease period is less than 30
years, the State Government/UT Administration law shall prevail. However, no
building could be taken on lease for running any teacher training course. (8) xxx
xxx xxx (9) xxx xxx xxx (10) At the time of inspection, the building of the
institution shall be complete in the form of a permanent structure on the land
possessed by the institution in terms of Regulation 8(7), equipped with all
necessary amenities and fulfilling all such requirements as prescribed in the norms
and standards. The applicant institution shall produce the original completion
certificate, approved building plan in proof of the completion of building and built
up area and other documents to the Visiting Team for verification.
No temporary
structure/asbestos roofing shall be allowed. (11) xxx xxx xxx (12) An
institution shall make admission only after it obtains order of recognition
from the Regional Committee concerned under Regulation 7(11), and affiliation
from the examining body. 15 (13) to (16) xxx xxx xxx" 5. Since the 2007
Regulations were notified on 10.12.2007 i.e. after the cut off date specified
in Regulation 5(4) for submission of application for academic session 2008-2009
was over, the Council issued Notification F. No.48-3/(1)/2008/NCTE/N&S
dated 1.7.2008 and fixed 31.8.2008 as the cut off date for processing and
disposal of all the pending applications. Paragraph 4 of that notification
reads as under: "4. Extent of Amendment.- Clause 5(5) of the NCTE (Recognition
Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2007, is modified as under only for grant of
recognition/permission for starting various teacher training courses for
current academic session i.e. 2008-2009. All complete applications pending with
the Regional Committees shall be processed for the current academic session i.e.
2008-2009 in accordance with the provisions of relevant Regulations and
maintaining the chronological sequence and final decision, either recognition
granted or refused, shall be communicated by 31st August, 2008."
6. By Notification
No.F.51-1/2009-NCTE (N&S) dated 31.8.2009, the 2007 Regulations were also
repealed by the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition, Norms and
Procedure) Regulations, 2009 (for short, "the 2009 Regulations"). The
provisions contained in these Regulations including the cut off dates specified
in clauses (4) and (5) of Regulation 5 are similar to the corresponding
provisions of the 2007 Regulations. 16 7. At this stage it will be apposite to
notice the guidelines issued by NCTE vide letter dated 2.2.1996 for ensuring
that the teacher training institutions are established keeping in view the
requirement of trained teachers in the particular State or the Union Territory.
The same read as under:
"1. The
establishment of teacher training institutions by the Government, private
managements or any other agencies should largely be determined by assessed need
for trained teachers. This need should take into consideration the supply of trained
teachers from existing institutions, the requirement of such teachers in
relation to enrolment projections at various stages, the attrition rates among
trained teachers due to superannuation, change of occupation, death, etc. and
the number of trained teachers on the live register of the employment exchanges
seeking employment and the possibility of their deployment. The States having
more than the required number of trained teachers may not encourage opening of
new institutions for teacher education or to increase the intake.
2. The States having
shortage of trained teachers may encourage establishment of new institutions
for teacher education and to increase intake capacity for various levels of teacher
education institutions keeping in view the requirements of teachers estimated
for the next 10-15 years.
3. Preference might
be given to institutions which tend to emphasise the preparation of teachers
for subjects (such as Science, Mathematics, English, etc.) for which trained
teachers have been in short supply in relation to requirement of schools.
4. Apart from the
usual courses for teacher preparation, institutions which propose to concern themselves
with new 17 emerging specialities (e.g. computer education, use of electronic
media, guidance and counselling, etc.) should receive priority. Provisions for
these should, however, be made only after ensuring that requisite manpower,
equipment and infrastructure are available. These considerations will also be kept
in view by the institution intending to provide for optional subjects to be
chosen by students such as guidance and counselling, special education, etc.
5. With a view to
ensuring supply of qualified and trained teachers for such specialities such as
education of the disabled, non-formal education, education of adults,
pre-school education, vocational education, etc. special efforts and incentives
may be provided to motivate private managements/voluntary organisations for
establishment of institutions, which lay emphasis on these areas.
6. With a view to
promoting professional commitment among prospective teachers, institutions
which can ensure adequate residential facilities for the Principal and staff of
the institutions as well as hostel facilities for substantial proportion of its
enrolment should be encouraged.
7. Considering that
certain areas (tribal, hilly regions, etc.) have found it difficult to attain
qualified and trained teachers, it would be desirable to encourage
establishment of training institutions in those areas.
8. Institutions
should be allowed to come into existence only if the sponsors are able to
ensure that they have adequate material and manpower resources in terms, for
instance, of qualified teachers and other staff, adequate buildings and other infrastructure
(laboratory, library, etc.), a reserve fund and operating funds to meet the
day-to-day requirements of the institutions, including payment of salaries, provision
of equipment, etc. Laboratories, teaching science methodologies and practicals
should have adequate gas plants, proper fittings and regular supply of water,
electricity, etc. They should also have adequate arrangements. Capabilities of
the institution for fulfilling norms prepared by NCTE may be kept in view. 18
9. In the
establishment of an institution preference needs to be given to locations which
have a large catchment area in terms of schools of different levels where
student teachers can be exposed to demonstration lessons and undertake practice
teaching. A training institution which has a demonstration school where
innovative and experimental approaches can be demonstrated could be given
preference." 8. The private respondents, namely, Shri Shyam Shiksha
Prashikshan Sansthan, Bhadra and Shri Shyam Sewa Samiti (respondent Nos.1 and 2
in the appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.17165 of 2009), Neelkanth Education Society
(respondent No.1 in the appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.17166 of 2009), Bhanwar
Kanwar Sujan Shiksha Mahavidyalaya, Inderpura, Udaipurwati and Dhamana Shekha
Sewa Trust (respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.17167
of 2009) and Varsha Education Society (respondent No.1 in the appeal arising
out of SLP(C) No.17168 of 2009) submitted their applications on 28.12.2007,
31.3.2008, 10.4.2008 and 17.4.2008 respectively for grant of recognition for
starting B.Ed. course for the academic year 2008-2009. They also applied to the
State Government for grant of `no objection certificates'. After considering
their applications, the Northern Regional Committee of the Council informed the
private respondents about the deficiencies in their applications. After the deficiencies
were removed, the premises of the private respondents were inspected by the
teams constituted by the Northern Regional Committee.
The inspection
reports were considered in the meeting of the Northern Regional Committee held
on 21.9.2008 but recognition was not granted to them apparently on the ground
that the cutoff date specified in the regulations was already over. 9. Feeling
aggrieved by the alleged failure of the Northern Regional Committee to grant
recognition, the private respondents filed writ petitions in the Rajasthan High
Court, Jaipur Bench, with the allegation that they have been discriminated
vis-a-vis other applicants and, in this manner, their right to equality
guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution has been violated.
By an interim order
dated 24.10.2008, the learned Single Judge of the High Court directed that the
applications made by the private respondents for grant of recognition be
considered by the Northern Regional Committee. By another interim order dated
27.11.2008, the learned Single Judge directed the Council to issue approval
letters and allot students to the private respondents. 10. The appellants
contested the writ petitions by relying upon clauses (4) and (5) of Regulation
5 and notification dated 1.7.2008 and pleaded that recognition could not be
given to the writ petitioners because their establishments were inspected after
31.8.2008. The learned Single Judge then directed the Council to file affidavit
to show whether 80 similarly situated institutions were granted recognition on
the basis of decision taken in the meeting of the Northern Regional Committee
held on 20-21.9.2008. In compliance of that order, affidavit dated 25.2.2009
was filed on behalf of the Council, wherein it was claimed that recognition was
granted to some institutions after 31.8.2008 in compliance of the orders passed
by the Delhi High Court.
11. After considering
the pleadings of the parties and taking cognizance of order dated
12.12.2008 passed in
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13038 of 2008 - Bright Future Teacher Training
Institute v. State of Rajasthan, the learned Single Judge framed the following
questions: "
(i) Whether once the
respondents have granted recognition to the thirteen Institutions whose
inspection has been carried out after 31.8.2008 then, it is permissible for the
respondents to justify denial of the recognition to other Institutions on the
ground that their inspections were carried out after 31.8.2008 i.e. the cut off
date?
(ii) Whether the
respondents are justified in making lame submission in the last additional
affidavit dated 25.2.2009 that the NRC Jaipur has committed serious irregularities
and therefore, the NRC has been terminated vide notification dated 13.2.2009
and new Committee has been constituted vide notification dated 17.2.2009 but no
action has been taken/proposed in the affidavit against the 13 institutions in
whose cases inspection was carried 21 out after 31.8.2008 and recognition was
granted in the 132nd meeting dated 20-21/9/2008?
(iii) Whether the
respondents who have not withdrawn recognition order in respect of the thirteen
institutions and allowed them to continue with the result that the students
have been admitted and the studies are going on and discrimination is
continuing against the petitioners and for removal of discrimination, they are
entitled for extension of the date i.e. 31.8.2008 till the meeting dated 20-21/9/2008?
(iv) Whether fixing
of the cut off date of inspection i.e. 31.8.2008 by the N.C.T.E. by Annexure
R-7 dated 1.7.2008 has no reasonable nexus with the aims and object of granting
recognition in the meeting dated 20- 21.9.2008 or the same is a fortuitous
circumstance?
(v) When the
concerned University has admitted students up to 15.1.09 and submitted that 180
teaching days can be completed before the start of next academic session, then the
petitioners who are not at fault, be allowed to suffer?" 12. While dealing
with the question of discrimination, the learned Single Judge noted that large
number of similarly situated institutions were granted recognition despite the
fact that their cases were considered in the meeting of the Northern Regional
Committee held on 20-21.9.2008 and observed: "It is true that two wrong
cannot make one right. Here, in the instant case, the present writ petitions
have been defended on the ground that since the inspection has been carried out
after 31.8.2008 i.e. the cut off date fixed by Annexure R-7 dated 1.7.2008 the
petitioners are not entitled for recognition.
The respondents have
granted recognition to 13 Institutions in whose cases inspection was carried
out after 31.8.2008, therefore, they cannot be permitted to say that although
they 22 have committed illegality but the same cannot be allowed to be perpetuated
by granting recognition to the petitioner Institutions. In my view, the entire issue
is to be examined with reference to the decision dated 31.10.2008 when the
recognition order was issued in favour of petitioner Institutions in compliance
to the interim direction of this Court dated 24.10.2008 as in the meeting dated
20-21.9.2008 minor defects were pointed out in case of recognition order passed
in favour of 80 colleges. The fixation of date - 31.8.2008 without considering
the applications and completion of formalities is fortuitous and arbitrary. In
view of the above, withholding recognition in the meeting dated 20-21/9/2008
and 31.10.2008 is not only discriminatory but arbitrary also and the said
action is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. I am of the
further view that the respondents who have not acted fairly cannot be allowed
to contend that the petitioners are not entitled to recognition on account of
inspection being carried out after 31.8.2008 in the aforesaid facts and
circumstances."
13. On the issue of
completion of minimum 180 teaching days, the learned Single Judge adverted to
the order passed in the case of Bright Future Teacher Training Institute
(supra) wherein it was held that the deficiency of teaching days could be
completed by holding extra classes on holidays and overtime classes and held
that similar mechanism could be adopted in the case of the private respondents.
The learned Single Judge further held that the cut off date i.e. 31.8.2008
fixed vide notification dated 1.7.2008 is discriminatory, arbitrary and
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The appeals filed against the
order of the learned Single Judge were dismissed by the Division Bench of the
High Court. 23 14. Shri Raju Ramachandran, learned senior counsel appearing for
the appellants fairly stated that this Court may not interfere with the
direction given by the learned Single Judge of the High Court, which has been confirmed
by the Division Bench, because in compliance thereof the Northern Regional
Committee has already granted recognition to the private respondents and by now
they must have admitted students against the sanctioned intake.
He, however, argued
that the reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge for striking down the cut
off date specified in clause (5) of Regulation 5 are legally untenable and to
that extent the order of the learned Single Judge and the judgment of the
Division Bench are liable to be set aside. Learned senior counsel emphasized
that the cut off dates have been prescribed for submission of application to
the Regional Committee and communication of the decision regarding grant or
refusal of recognition with a view to ensure that decision on the issue of
recognition of the colleges is not unduly delayed and the students admitted in
the recognized institutions are able to fulfil the requirement of attending at
least 180 teaching days during the academic session. Learned senior counsel
further submitted that the cut off dates specified in clauses (4) and (5) of
Regulation 5 have direct nexus with the object of ensuring time bound decision
of the applications submitted for grant of recognition so that the teaching and
training courses are completed by every institution well before commencement of
the examination and the candidates who fulfill the requirement of attending
minimum classes and training courses are able to take examinations.
Shri Ramachandran
then submitted that the 2007 Regulations contain a comprehensive mechanism for
grant of recognition to eligible applicants for starting courses and for
increasing the intake and provision for consultation with the concerned State
Government/Union Territory Administration has been made with a view to ensure
that unduly large number of institutions are not granted permission to start
the courses and the State may find it impossible to provide employment to the
students successfully completing the courses every year. Learned senior counsel
made a pointed reference to letter dated 27.1.2009 sent by Principal Secretary
of the Council to the Regional Director, Northern Regional Committee on the
question of grant of recognition for B.Ed., STC, Shiksha Shastri Courses in the
State of Rajasthan for academic session 2009-2010 to show that decision was
taken by the Council not to grant recognition keeping in view the fact that
there was virtually no requirement of trained teachers in the State.
15. We have given
serious thought to the arguments of the learned counsel. We shall first deal
with the question whether the cut off dates specified in clauses (4) and (5) of
Regulation 5 for submission of application to the Regional Committee,
processing thereof and communication of the final decision on the issue of
recognition are arbitrary, discriminatory, irrational and violative of Article
14 of the Constitution. 16. Article 14 forbids class legislation but permits reasonable
classification provided that it is founded on an intelligible differentia which
distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from those that are left
out of the group and the differentia has a rational nexus to the object sought
to be achieved by the legislation in question. In re the Special Courts Bill,
1978 (1979) 1 SCC 380, Chandrachud, C.J., speaking for majority of the Court
adverted to large number of judicial precedents involving interpretation of
Article 14 and culled out several propositions including the following: "
(2) The State, in the
exercise of its governmental power, has of necessity to make laws operating
differently on different groups or classes of persons within its territory to
attain particular ends in giving effect to its policies, and it must possess
for that purpose large powers of distinguishing and classifying persons or
things to be subjected to such laws. (3) The constitutional command to the
State to afford equal protection of its laws sets a goal not attainable by the
invention and application of a precise formula. Therefore, classification need
not be constituted by an exact or scientific exclusion or inclusion of persons
or things. The courts should not insist on delusive exactness or apply
doctrinaire tests for determining the 26 validity of classification in any
given case. Classification is justified if it is not palpably arbitrary. (4)
The principle underlying the guarantee of Article 14 is not that the same rules
of law should be applicable to all persons within the Indian territory or that
the same remedies should be made available to them irrespective of differences
of circumstances.
It only means that
all persons similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike both in privileges conferred
and liabilities imposed. Equal laws would have to be applied to all in the same
situation, and there should be no discrimination between one person and another
if as regards the subject-matter of the legislation their position is
substantially the same. (5) By the process of classification, the State has the
power of determining who should be regarded as a class for purposes of
legislation and in relation to a law enacted on a particular subject. This
power, no doubt, in some degree is likely to produce some inequality; but if a
law deals with the liberties of a number of well defined classes, it is not
open to the charge of denial of equal protection on the ground that it has no application
to other persons. Classification thus means segregation in classes which have a
systematic relation, usually found in common properties and characteristics.
It postulates a rational
basis and does not mean herding together of certain persons and classes
arbitrarily. (6) The law can make and set apart the classes according to the
needs and exigencies of the society and as suggested by experience. It can
recognise even degree of evil, but the classification should never be
arbitrary, artificial or evasive. (7) The classification must not be arbitrary
but must be rational, that is to say, it must not only be based on some qualities
or characteristics which are to be found in all the persons grouped together
and not in others who are left out but those qualities or characteristics must
have a reasonable relation to the object of the legislation. In order to pass
the test, two conditions must be fulfilled, namely, (1) that the classification
must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes those that
are grouped together from others and 27 (2) that that differentia must have a
rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the Act."
17. In Union of India
v. Parameswaran Match Works (1975) 1 SCC 305, this Court was called upon to
examine whether clause (b) of notification No.205/67-CE dated 4.9.1967 issued
by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance prescribing concessional rate
of duty in respect of units engaged in manufacture of match boxes, which were
certified as such by the Khadi and Village Industries Commission or units set
up in the cooperative sector was discriminatory and violative of Article 14 on
the ground that the cut off date i.e. 21.7.1967 specified in the notification
was arbitrary. The High Court of Madras allowed the writ petition filed by the respondents
and struck down the cut off date by observing that the classification of the
units engaged in the manufacturing of match boxes was irrational and arbitrary.
While reversing the order of the High Court, this Court referred to the
judgment in Louisville Gas Co. v. Alabama Power Co. (1927) 240 US 30 and held: "We
do not think that the reasoning of the High Court is correct. It may be noted
that it was by the proviso in the notification dated July 21, 1967 that it was
made necessary that a declaration should be filed by a manufacturer that the
total clearance from the factory during a financial year is not estimated to
exceed 75 million matches in order to earn the concessional rate of Rs 3.75 per
gross boxes of 50 matches each. The proviso, however, did not say, when the declaration
should be filed.
The purpose behind
that proviso was to enable 28 only bona fide small manufacturers of matches to
earn the concessional rate of duty by filing the declaration. All small manufacturers
whose estimated clearance was less than 75 million matches would have availed
themselves of the opportunity by making the declaration as early as possible as
they would become entitled to the concessional rate of duty on their clearance
from time to time. It is difficult to imagine that any manufacturer whose
estimated total clearance during the financial year did not exceed 75 million
matches would have failed to avail of the concessional rate on their clearances
by filing the declaration at the earliest possible date. As already stated, the
respondent filed its application for licence on September 5, 1967 and made the
declaration on that date. The concessional rate of duty was intended for small
bona fide units who were in the field when the notification dated September 4, 1967
was issued; the concessional rate was not intended to benefit the large units
which had split up into smaller units to earn the concession.
The tendency towards
fragmentation of the bigger units into smaller ones in order to earn the
concessional rate of duty has been noted by the Tariff Commission in its report
[see the extract from the report given at p. 500 (SCC, p. 431) in M. Match
Works v. Assistant Collector, Central Excise]. The whole object of the
notification dated September 4, 1967 was to prevent further fragmentation of
the bigger units into smaller ones in order to get the concessional rate of
duty intended for the smaller units and thus defeat the purpose which the
Government had in view. In other words, the purpose of the notification was to
prevent the larger units who were producing and clearing more than 100 million
matches in the financial year 1967-68 and who could not have made the
declaration, from splitting up into smaller units in order to avail of the concessional
rate of duty by making the declaration subsequently. To achieve that purpose,
the Government chose September 4, 1967, as the date before which the
declaration should be filed. There can be no doubt that any date chosen for the
purpose would, to a certain extent, be arbitrary. That is inevitable. The
concessional rate of duty can be availed of only by those who satisfy the
conditions which have been laid down under the notification.
The respondent was
not a manufacturer before 29 September 4, 1967 as it had applied for licence
only on September 5, 1967 and it could not have made a declaration before
September 4, 1967 that its total clearance for the financial year 1967-68 is
not estimated to exceed 75 million matches. In the matter of granting
concession or exemption from tax, the Government has a wide latitude of
discretion. It need not give exemption or concession to everyone in order that it
may grant the same to some. As we said, the object of granting the concessional
rate of duty was to protect the smaller units in the industry from the competition
by the larger ones and that object would have been frustrated, if, by adopting
the device of fragmentation, the larger units could become the ultimate
beneficiaries of the bounty.
That a classification
can be founded on a particular date and yet be reasonable, has been held by
this Court in several decisions. The choice of a date as a basis for
classification cannot always be dubbed as arbitrary even if no particular
reason is forthcoming for the choice unless it is shown to be capricious or
whimsical in the circumstances. When it is seen that a line or a point there
must be and there is no mathematical or logical way of fixing it precisely, the
decision of the legislature or its delegate must be accepted unless we can say
that it is very wide off the reasonable mark." (emphasis supplied) 18. The
ratio of the aforementioned judgment was reiterated by the Constitution Bench
in D.G. Gose and Co. (Agents) (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala (1980) 2 SCC 410. One
of the several issues considered in that case was whether the tax imposed under
Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 with retrospective effect from 1.4.1973 was
discriminatory and violative of Article 14.
The Constitution
Bench referred to the judgment in Union of India v. Parameswaran Match Works
(supra) and observed: 30 "It has not been shown in this case how it could
be said that the date (April 1, 1973) for the levy of the tax was wide of the reasonable
mark. On the other hand it would appear from the brief narration of the
historical background of the Act that the State legislature had imposed the
building tax under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1961, which came into force on
March 2, 1961, and when that Act was finally struck down as unconstitutional by
this Court's decision dated August 13, 1968, the intention to introduce a fresh
Bill for the levy was made clear in the budget speech of 1970-71. It will be
recalled that the Bill was published in June 1973 and it was stated there that
the Act would be brought into force from April 1, 1970. The Bill was introduced
in the Assembly on July 5, 1973. The Select Committee however recommended that
it may be brought into force from April 1, 1973. Two Ordinances were promulgated
to give effect to the provisions of the Bill.
The Bill was passed
soon after and received the Governor's assent on April 2, 1975. It cannot
therefore be said with any justification that in choosing April 1, 1973 as the
date for the levy of the tax, the legislature acted unreasonably, or that it
was "wide of the reasonable mark." 19. In State of Bihar v. Ramjee
Prasad (1990) 3 SCC 368, this Court reversed the judgment of the Patna High
Court which had struck down the cut off date fixed for receipt of the
application. After adverting to the judgments in Union of India v. Parameswaran
Match Works (supra) and Uttar Pradesh Mahavidyalaya Tadarth Shikshak
Niyamitikaran Abhiyan Samiti, Varanasi v. State of U.P. (1987) 2 SCC 453, the
Court observed: "In the present case as pointed out earlier the past
practice was to fix the last date for receipt of applications a month or one
and a half months after the date of actual publication of the 31 advertisement.
Following the past practice the State Government fixed the last date for
receipt of applications as January 31, 1988. Those who had completed the
required experience of three years by that date were, therefore, eligible to
apply for the posts in question.
The respondents and
some of the intervenors who were not completing the required experience by that
date, therefore, challenged the fixation of the last date as arbitrary and
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It is obvious that in fixing the
last date as January 31, 1988 the State Government had only followed the past practice
and if the High Court's attention had been invited to this fact it would
perhaps have refused to interfere since its interference is based on the
erroneous belief that the past practice was to fix June 30 of the relevant year
as the last date for receipt of applications. Except for leaning on a past
practice the High Court has not assigned any reasons for its choice of the
date. As pointed out by this Court the choice of date cannot be dubbed as
arbitrary even if no particular reason is forthcoming for the same unless it is
shown to be capricious or whimsical or wide off the reasonable mark. The choice
of the date for advertising the posts had to depend on several factors, e.g.
the number of vacancies in different disciplines, the need to fill up the
posts, the availability of candidates, etc. It is not the case of anyone that
experienced candidates were not available in sufficient numbers on the cut-off
date.
Merely because the respondents
and some others would qualify for appointment if the last date for receipt of
applications is shifted from January 31, 1988 to June 30, 1988 is no reason for
dubbing the earlier date as arbitrary or irrational." (emphasis supplied) 20.
The same view was reiterated in Dr. Sushma Sharma v. State of Rajasthan (1985)
Supp. SCC 45, University Grants Commission v. Sadhana Chaudhary (1996) 10 SCC
536, Ramrao v. All India Backward 32 Class Bank Employees Welfare Association
(2004) 2 SCC 76 and State of Punjab v. Amar Nath Goyal (2005) 6 SCC 754. 21. If
challenge to the cut off dates specified in clauses (4) and (5) of Regulation 5
is examined in the light of the propositions laid down in the above noted
judgments, it is not possible to find any fault with the decision of the
Council to prescribe 31st October of the year preceding the academic session
for which recognition is sought as the last date for submission of application
to the Regional Committee and 15th May of the succeeding year as the date for
communication of the decision about grant of recognition or refusal thereof.
The scheme of the
2007 Regulations envisages the following steps:
(1) The applications
received for recognition are scrutinized by the office of the Regional
Committee to find out the deficiency, if any.
(2) In case any
deficiency is found, the same is required to be brought to the notice of the
concerned applicant within 30 days of the receipt of application and the latter
is under an obligation to remove the deficiency within next 90 days.
(3) Simultaneously, a
written communication is required to be sent to the State Government/Union
Territory Administration. Within 60 days of the receipt of communication from
the Regional Committee, the concerned State Government/Union Territory
Administration has to send its recommendations/suggestions.
(4) After removal of
the deficiency, if any, and receipt of the recommendations/suggestions of the State
Government/Union Territory Administration, the Regional Committee is required
to constitute a team to inspect infrastructure, equipments and instructional
facilities made available by the applicant with a view to assess the level of
preparedness for commencement of the course.
(5) The inspection is
to be carried out by associating the representative(s) of the concerned
institution.
(6) Upon receipt of
the inspection report and after satisfying itself that the requirements
enumerated in clauses (10) and (11) of Regulation 7 have been fulfilled, the
Regional Committee has to take final decision on the issue of grant of
recognition to the applicant.
22. This entire
exercise is time consuming. Therefore, some date had to be fixed for submission
of application and some time schedule had to be prescribed for taking final
decision on the issue of recognition, which necessarily involves scrutiny of
the application, removal of deficiency, if any, receipt of recommendations/suggestions
of the State Government/Union Territory Administration, inspection of
infrastructure, equipments and other facilities in the institution and
consideration of the entire material including report of the inspection
committee. By fixing 31st October of the preceding year, the Council has
ensured that the Regional Committee gets at least 7 months for scrutiny of the
application, processing thereof, receipt of recommendation/suggestion from the State
Government/Union Territory Administration, inspection of the infrastructure,
etc. made available by the applicant before an objective decision is taken to
grant or not to grant recognition.
Likewise, by fixing 15th
May of the year succeeding the cut off date fixed for submission of application,
the Council has ensured that adequate time is available to the institution to
complete the course, teaching as well as training and the students get an
opportunity to comply with the requirement of minimum attendance. For academic
session 2008-2009, the cut off date was amended because the 2007 Regulations
were notified on 27.12.2007 and going by the cut off dates specified in clauses
(4) and (5) of Regulation 5, no application could have been entertained and no
institution could have been recognized for B.Ed. course.
23. In our view, the
cut off dates specified in the two clauses of Regulation 5 of the 2007
Regulations and notification dated 1.7.2008 are neither arbitrary nor
irrational so as to warrant a conclusion that the same are violative of Article
14 of the Constitution. The conclusion of the learned Single Judge that
31.8.2008 fixed vide notification dated 1.7.2008 is discriminatory and
violative of Article 14 appears to have been influenced by the fact that some
of the applicants, whose applications were considered in the meeting of the
Regional Committee held after the cut off date were granted recognition while
others like the writ petitioners were denied similar treatment on the pretext
that decision in their case could not be taken before the cut off date.
Unfortunately, the Division Bench of the High Court mechanically adopted the
reasoning of the learned Single Judge for holding that the said date was
unconstitutional.
24. The consultation
with the State Government/Union Territory Administration and consideration of
the recommendations/suggestions made by them are of considerable importance.
The Court can take judicial notice of the fact that majority of the candidates
who complete B.Ed. and similar courses aspire for appointment as teachers in
the government and government aided educational institutions. Some of them do
get appointment against the available vacant posts, but large number of them do
not succeed in this venture because of non-availability of posts.
The State Government/Union
Territory Administration sanctions the posts keeping in view the requirement of
trained teachers and budgetary provisions made for that purpose. They cannot
appoint all those who successfully pass B.Ed. and like courses every year. Therefore,
by incorporating the provision for sending the applications to the State
Government/Union Territory Administration and consideration of the
recommendations/suggestions, if any made by them, the Council has made an
attempt to ensure that as a result of grant of recognition to unlimited number
of institutions to start B.Ed. and like courses, candidates far in excess of
the requirement of trained teachers do not become available and they cannot be
appointed as teachers. If, in a given year, it is found that adequate numbers
of suitable candidates possessing the requisite qualifications are already
available to meet the requirement of trained teachers, the State
Government/Union Territory Administration can suggest to the concerned Regional
Committee not to grant recognition to new institutions or increase intake in
the existing institutions. If the Regional Committee finds that the
recommendation made by the State Government/Union Territory Administration is
based on valid grounds, it can refuse to grant recognition to any new
institution or entertain an application made by an existing institution for
increase of intake and it cannot be said that such decision is ultra vires the
provisions of the Act or the Rules.
25. The importance of
the role of the State Government in such matters was recognized in St. Johns
Teachers Training Institute v. Regional Director, National Council For Teacher
Education and another (2003) 3 SCC 321. In that case, vires of Regulation 5(e)
and (f) of the 1995 Regulations was challenged insofar as they incorporated the
requirement of obtaining NOC from the State Government. A learned Single Judge
of the Karnataka High Court held that Regulation 5(e) and (f) were ultra vires
the provisions of the Act. The order of the learned Single Judge was reversed by
the Division Bench of the High Court. This Court referred to Section 14 of the
Act and two clauses of Regulation 5, which were impugned in the writ petition
filed by the appellant and observed: "Sub-section (3) of Section 14 casts
a duty upon the Regional Committee to be satisfied with regard to a large
number of matters before passing an order granting recognition to an institution
which has moved an application for the said purpose.
The factors mentioned
in sub-section (3) are that the institution has adequate financial resources,
accommodation, library, qualified staff, laboratory and that it fulfils such
other conditions required for proper functioning of the institution for a
course or training in teacher education as may be laid down in the Regulations.
As mentioned earlier, there are only four Regional Committees in the whole
country and, therefore, each Regional Committee has to deal with applications
for grant of recognition from several States. It is therefore obvious that it will
not only be difficult but almost impossible for the Regional Committee to
itself obtain complete particulars and details of financial resources,
accommodation, library, qualified staff, laboratory and other conditions of the
institution which has moved an application for grant of recognition. The
institution may be located in the interior of the district in a faraway State.
38 The Regional
Committee cannot perform such Herculean task and it has to necessarily depend
upon some other agency or body for obtaining necessary information. It is for
this reason that the assistance of the State Government or Union Territory in
which that institution is located is taken by the Regional Committee and this
is achieved by making a provision in Regulations 5(e) and (f) that the
application made by the institution for grant of recognition has to be
accompanied with an NOC from the State or Union Territory concerned. The impugned
Regulations in fact facilitate the job of the Regional Committees in
discharging their responsibilities." After adverting to the guidelines
issued by the Council on 2.2.1996, the Court observed:
"A perusal of
the guidelines would show that while considering an application for grant of an
NOC the State Government or the Union Territory has to confine itself to the
matters enumerated therein like assessed need for trained teachers, preference
to such institutions which lay emphasis on preparation of teachers for subjects
like Science, Mathematics, English etc. for which trained teachers are in short
supply and institutions which propose to concern themselves with new and
emerging specialities like computer education, use of electronic media etc. and
also for speciality education for the disabled and vocational education etc.
It also lays emphasis
on establishment of institutions in tribal and hilly regions which find it
difficult to get qualified and trained teachers and locations which have catchment
area in terms of schools of different levels where student teachers can be
exposed to demonstration lessons and can undertake practice teaching. Para 8 of
the guidelines deals with financial resources, accommodation, library and other
infrastructure of the institution which is desirous of starting a course of
training and teacher education. The guidelines clearly pertain to the matters
enumerated in sub-section (3) of Section 14 of the Act which have to be taken
into consideration by the Regional Committee while considering the application
for granting recognition to an institution which wants to start a course for
training in teacher education. The guidelines have also direct nexus to the
object of the Act, namely, planned and 39 coordinated development of teacher
education system and proper maintenance of norms and standards. It cannot, therefore,
be urged that the power conferred on the State Government or Union Territory,
while considering an application for grant of an NOC, is an arbitrary or
unchannelled power.
The State Government
or the Union Territory has to necessarily confine itself to the guidelines
issued by the Council while considering the application for grant of an NOC. In
case the State Government does not take into consideration the relevant factors
enumerated in sub-section (3) of Section 14 of the Act and the guidelines
issued by the Council or takes into consideration factors which are not
relevant and rejects the application for grant of an NOC, it will be open to
the institution concerned to challenge the same in accordance with law. But,
that by itself, cannot be a ground to hold that the Regulations which require
an NOC from the State Government or the Union Territory are ultra vires or
invalid." While dealing with the argument of the learned counsel for the
appellant that the impugned Regulations have the effect of conferring the power
of considering the application for grant of recognition under Section 14 upon the
State Government, the Court referred to Regulation 6(ii) of the 2002 Regulations
and observed: "Regulation 6(ii) of these Regulations provides that the endorsement
of the State Government/Union Territory Administration in regard to issue of
NOC will be considered by the Regional Committee while taking a decision on the
application for recognition.
This provision shows
that even if the NOC is not granted by the State Government or Union Territory
concerned and the same is refused, the entire matter will be examined by the
Regional Committee while taking a decision on the application for recognition.
Therefore, the grant or refusal of an NOC by the State Government or Union Territory
is not conclusive or binding and the views expressed 40 by the State Government
will be considered by the Regional Committee while taking the decision on the
application for grant of recognition. In view of these new Regulations the challenge
raised to the validity of Regulations 5(e) and (f) has been further whittled
down. The role of the State Government is certainly important for supplying the
requisite data which is essential for formation of opinion by the Regional
Committee while taking a decision under sub-section (3) of Section 14 of the
Act.
Therefore no
exception can be taken to such a course of action." (emphasis supplied) 26.
In State of Tamil Nadu and another v. S.V. Bratheep and others (2004) 4 SCC
513, the Court interpreted the provisions of the All India Council for
Technical Education Act, 1987, referred to the Constitution Bench judgment in
Dr. Preeti Srivastava's case and observed that the State Government can
prescribe additional qualification to what has been prescribed by AICTE for
admission to engineering courses and no fault can be found with such a
provision. 27. In Govt. of A.P. and another v. J.B. Educational Society and another
(2005) 3 SCC 212, this Court considered the question whether the provision contained
in Section 20(3)(a)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 under which
obtaining of permission of the State Government was made sine qua non for
starting an institution for Teacher Training Course was ultra vires the
provisions of the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 and the
Regulations framed there under. While 41 rejecting the challenge, the Court
referred to Articles 245, 246 and 254(2) and Entries 66 of List-I and 25 of
List-III of Seventh Schedule to the Constitution and observed: "The
provisions of the AICTE Act are intended to improve technical education and the
various authorities under the Act have been given exclusive responsibility to
coordinate and determine the standards of higher education.
It is a general power
given to evaluate, harmonise and secure proper relationship to any project of
national importance. Such a coordinate action in higher education with proper
standard is of paramount importance to national progress. Section 20 of the A.P.
Act does not in any way encroach upon the powers of the authorities under the
Central Act. Section 20 says that the competent authority shall, from time to
time, conduct a survey to identify the educational needs of the locality under
its jurisdiction notified through the local newspapers calling for applications
from the educational agencies. Section 20(3)(a)(i) says that before permission
is granted, the authority concerned must be satisfied that there is need for
providing educational facilities to the people in the locality.
The State authorities
alone can decide about the educational facilities and needs of the locality. If
there are more colleges in a particular area, the State would not be justified
in granting permission to one more college in that locality. Entry 25 of the
Concurrent List gives power to the State Legislature to make laws regarding education,
including technical education. Of course, this is subject to the provisions of
Entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List I. Entry 66 of List I to which the
legislative source is traced for the AICTE Act, deals with the general power of
Parliament for coordination, determination of standards in institutions for higher
education or research and scientific and technical educational institutions and
Entry 65 deals with the union agencies and institutions for professional,
vocational and technical training, including the training of police officers,
etc.
The State has
certainly the legislative competence to pass the legislation in respect of
education including technical education and Section 20 of the Act is intended
for general welfare of the 42 citizens of the State and also in discharge of
the constitutional duty enumerated under Article 41 of the Constitution. The
general survey in various fields of technical education contemplated under
Section 10(1)(a) of the AICTE Act is not pertaining to the educational needs of
any particular area in a State. It is a general supervisory survey to be
conducted by the AICTE Council, for example, if any IIT is to be established in
a particular region, a general survey could be conducted and the Council can
very much conduct a survey regarding the location of that institution and
collect data of all related matters. But as regards whether a particular educational
institution is to be established in a particular area in a State, the State
alone would be competent to say as to where that institution should be established.
Section 20 of the
A.P. Act and Section 10 of the Central Act operate in different fields and we
do not see any repugnancy between the two provisions." (emphasis supplied)
28. In State of Maharashtra v. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya
and others (2006) 9 SCC 1, this Court considered the question whether, after
grant of recognition by NCTE, the State Government can refuse to issue no
objection certificate for starting B.Ed. colleges on the premise that a policy
decision in that regard had been taken. After adverting to the relevant
provisions of the Constitution, the Act and the Regulations and the judgment in
St. John Teachers Training Institute v. Regional Director, NCTE (supra), the
Court held that final authority to take decision on the issue of grant of
recognition vests with the NCTE and it cannot be denuded of that authority on
the ground that the State Government/Union Territory Administration has refused
to issue NOC.
29. In the light of
the above discussion, we hold that the cut off dates specified in clauses (4)
and (5) of Regulation 5 of the 2007 Regulations as also the amendment made in
Regulation 5(5) vide notification dated 1.7.2008 are not violative of Article
14 of the Constitution and the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of
the High Court were not right in recording a contrary finding qua the date
specified in notification dated 1.7.2008. We further hold that the provisions
contained in Section 14 and the Regulations framed for grant of recognition
including the requirement of recommendation of the State Government/Union
Territory Administration are mandatory and an institution is not entitled to
recognition unless it fulfils the conditions specified in various clauses of
the Regulations. The Council is directed to ensure that in future no
institution is granted recognition unless it fulfils the conditions laid down
in the Act and the Regulations and the time schedule fixed for processing the
application by the Regional Committees and communication of the decision on the
issue of recognition is strictly adhered to. 29. The appeals are disposed of in
the manner indicated above.
……………………………..J.
[G.S. Singhvi]
……...............................J.
[Asok Kumar Ganguly]
New
Delhi;
January
31, 2011.
Back