REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.11215 OF 2011
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.28473 of 2011)
Shri Morvi Sarvajanik Kelavni Mandal
Sanchalit MSKM B.Ed. College ...Appellant
Versus
National Council for Teachers'
Education & Ors. ...Respondents
With
CIVIL APPEAL NO.11216 OF 2011
(Arising out of SLP (C) No.28528 of 2011)
Shri Yogananda Education and
Charitable Trust ...Appellant
Versus
National Council for Teachers'
Education & Ors. ...Respondents
1
J U D G M E N T
T.S. THAKUR, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals arise out of an order dated 7th October,
2011 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad,
whereby Special Civil Application No.9485 of 2011 has been
dismissed and order dated 20th July, 2011 as modified by
order dated 24th August, 2011 issued by the Western
Regional Committee under Section 17 of the National
Council of Teachers' Education (for short `NCTE') Act, 1993
withdrawing the recognition of the B.Ed. College established
by the appellant upheld.
3. The appellant-Trust has established a college under
the name and style Shri Morvi Sarvajanik Kelavni Mandal
Sanchalit MSKM B.Ed. College, Rajkot. The college had the
benefit of recognition granted in its favour in terms of an
order dated 29th May, 2007 under Section 14 (3)(a) of the
NCTE Act for offering a B.Ed. with an annual intake of 100
2
students. Shortly after the grant of the said recognition, the
NCTE issued a notice dated 27th July, 2008 to the appellant
to show cause why the recognition should not be withdrawn
in terms of Section 17 of the Act in view of the deficiencies
pointed out in the notice like inadequacy of built-up area
available to the institution, the land underlying the
structure not being in the name of the appellant-Trust and
the college being run in a building that is used by two other
institutions.
4. The recognition was finally withdrawn by the NCTE on
29th November, 2008 primarily because the appellant had
failed to respond to the show cause notice within the period
stipulated for the purpose. The withdrawal order was,
however, successfully challenged before the High Court by
the appellant with the High Court issuing certain directions
including a direction to the appellant-college to remove the
defects pointed out by the NCTE and to offer the institution
for a fresh inspection by the NCTE. The High Court also
directed that while admissions for the current year shall not
be affected by the withdrawal of recognition, in the event of
3
non-compliance with the requirements of the Regulations,
the institution shall not be permitted to admit any student
for the next year. The NCTE was given liberty to have a
fresh inspection conducted and pass appropriate orders in
accordance with law after issuing a notice to the institution.
5. In compliance with the directions of the High Court,
the appellant by its letter dated 20th December, 2010
intimated to the NCTE that the deficiencies in question had
been removed and invited the NCTE to depute a team for a
fresh inspection of the college. An inspection was
accordingly conducted that culminated in the issue of a
fresh notice to the appellant again pointing out several
deficiencies in the institution including inadequacy of space,
staff and the fact that the college had no land in its own
name and that the institution was being run in a building
which was being used by two other colleges. The appellant
appears to have sent a reply to the said show-cause notice
but before a final decision could be taken on the same, the
appellant filed Special Civil Appeal No.6507 of 2011 before
the High Court for a mandamus to the University to allot
students to the appellant-college. By an order dated 14th
4
June, 2011, the High Court directed the University to allot
the students to the appellant-college for the academic
session 2011-2012. In the meantime, the Western
Regional Committee issued an order on 20th July, 2011
withdrawing the recognition granted to the appellant-
college in exercise of its powers under Section 17 of NCTE
Act. The order contained as many as nine different grounds
for the said withdrawal. Aggrieved, the appellant filed
Special Civil Application No.9485 of 2011 before the High
Court, inter alia, contending that the withdrawal of
recognition was on grounds that went beyond the show-
cause notice issued to the institution. It was also contended
that pursuant to the directions of the High Court the
University had allotted 60 students to the college who were
on its rolls and whose future was likely to be adversely
affected by the withdrawal order.
6. While the writ petition filed by the appellant was still
pending, Western Regional Committee issued a modified
withdrawal order dated 24th August, 2011 relying upon the
visiting team report which found the following deficiencies:
5
(i) The Institution neither had land on the date of
submission of application as per Clause 7(D) of the
NCTE regulations 2002, nor does it have the land even
today.
(ii) The Institution is running in a flat of Multi Storied
Residential Building.
(iii) Registered lease deed of the flat was executed on
18.03.2011, that is beyond the time limit of
31.12.2010 as prescribed by the Hon'ble High Court.
(iv) One of the lecturers was not qualified as on the date of
appointment.
7. The High Court was not happy with the above order as
is evident from an interim order dated 30th August, 2011
whereby the Regional Director, Western Regional
Committee, National Council for Teacher Education, Bhopal,
was directed to send a new team to inspect the institution
and submit a fresh report regarding the defects and
deficiencies in the infrastructure provided by the college. An
inspection committee was accordingly deputed by the NCTE
who filed a report before the High Court in a sealed cover.
The report, inter alia, stated:
"The team had done the inspection of infrastructure,
institutional facilities etc. The C.D. is enclosed. The
videography had been in a continuous manner. The
four corners of land and four corners of the buildings
are prominently picturised. The photography of land,
6
building, instructional facilities, staff is also done. (C.D.
and album enclosed).
The Hon'ble High Court has directed to do the
inspection with regards to the defects shown in the
withdrawal order.
The inspection is done accordingly following the orders
of the Hon'ble High Court.
The observations of the visiting team regarding the
defects/deficiencies are noted below:
(i) It is true that the institution does not
have the registered land document and is
occupying the land belonging to Shri Uma
Education Trust.
(ii) It is true that the institution has submitted the
building plan of Shri Uma Education Trust. This
building plan was approved by Sarpanch, Vajdi
(Virda). The approval of Rajkot Urban
Development Authority is still not obtained by
the Uma Education Trust.
(iii) It is true that the land use certificate
submitted by the Institution is about the land
of Uma Education Trust.
(iv) It is true that the Institution does not have its
own land and building. The institution is
running on the premises of the Uma Education
Trust.
(v) The teaching staff profile is approved by In-
charge Vibhagiya Officer, Saurashtra
University on 18.02.2009 on 11.05.2011 and
13.05.2011. Four lecturers have no M.Ed.
qualifications. One common observed that all
lists were approved by in-charge, Vibhagiya
Officer of the Unversity.
(vi) Uma B.Ed. college and Jalaram B.Ed. College
are being run on the same premises.
7
(vii) It is true that the institution has submitted the
building plan of Shri Uma Education Trust.
This building plan was approved by the
Sarpanch, Vajdi (Virda). The approval of
Rajkot Urban Development Authority is still
not obtained by the Uma Education Trust.
(viii) Morvi Sarvajanik Kelevani Mandal and Jalaram
Education Trust are unilaterally merged with
Uma Education Trust without due
authorisation of the competent authority and
also without the approval of the WRC. The
matter is still under correspondence.
(ix) The institution/Morvi Sarvajanik Kelavani
Mandal did not possess adequate land or govt.
land acquired on long terms lease basis or on
ownership."
8. The High Court upon a consideration of the relevant
records including the inspection report placed before it,
dismissed the writ petition relying upon the decisions of this
Court in Chairman, Bhartia Education Society and Anr.
v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. (2011) 4 SCC
527, N.M. Nageshwaramma v. State of Andhra
Pradesh and Anr. (1986) Supp. SCC 166, Students of
Dattatraya Adhyapak Vidyalya v. State of
Maharashtra and Ors. SLP (C) No.2067 of 1991,
decided on 19.2.1991, Andhra Kesari Educational
Society v. Director of School Education (1989) 1 SCC
392 and a few others. The High Court held that the
8
appellant was not entitled to any relief in the writ
proceedings filed on its behalf and accordingly dismissed
the writ petition. Hence the present appeals, assail the said
judgment and order.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
10. Mushroom growth of ill-equipped, under-staffed and
un-recognised educational institutions was noticed by this
Court in State of Maharashtra v. Vikas Sahebrao
Roundale and Ors. (1992) 4 SCC 435. This Court
observed that the field of education had become a fertile,
perennial and profitable business with the least capital
outlay in some States and that societies and individuals
were establishing such institutions without complying with
the statutory requirements. The unfortunate part is that
despite repeated pronouncements of this Court over the
past two decades deprecating the setting up of such
institutions. The mushrooming of the colleges continues all
9
over the country at times in complicity with the statutory
authorities, who fail to check this process by effectively
enforcing the provisions of the NCTE Act and the
Regulations framed thereunder.
11. The present is one such case where the institution
established by the appellant has been inspected more than
once and several deficiencies that seriously affect its
capacity to impart quality education and training to future
teachers specifically pointed out. Inadequacy of space and
staff, apart from other requirements stipulated under the
provisions of the Act and the Regulations, is something
which disqualifies any institution from seeking recognition.
Such deficiencies have not been disputed before us nor can
the same be disputed in the light of the reports submitted
by the inspecting teams from time to time, including the
report submitted on the basis of the latest inspection that
was conducted pursuant to the directions issued by the
High Court. It is difficult to appreciate how the institution
could have reported compliance with the requirements of
the regulations and complete removal of the deficiencies
10
after the order passed by the High Court when the
institution had neither the land standing in its name nor the
building constructed in which it could conduct the training
programme. The fact that the institution was being run in a
building which was shared by two other colleges was itself
sufficient to justify withdrawal of the recognition granted in
its favour. It was also noted by the inspecting team that
four lecturers employed by the appellant did not have the
requisite M.Ed. qualification. Suffice it to say that the
institution was lacking in essential infrastructural facilities
which clearly justified withdrawal of the recognition earlier
granted to it.
12. Confronted with the above position, learned counsel
for the appellant argued that the students admitted to the
college for the academic session 2011-2012 could be
allowed to appear in the examination to avoid prejudice to
them and to save their careers. A similar contention urged
before the High Court has been rejected by it relying upon
the decisions of this Court in which decisions this Court has
not favoured grant of such relief to students admitted to
unrecognised institution on consideration of misplaced
11
sympathy. The High Court has also noted that the students
had been transferred to other recognised colleges and that
in any case students admitted for the academic session
2011-2012 could not be allowed to continue in an
institution which did not have the requisite infrastructure
prescribed under the NCTE Regulations and norms. It was
argued on behalf of the appellants that the High Court was
not right in observing that students had been transferred to
other institutions. At any rate the order withdrawing
recognition could not, according to the learned counsel,
affect students admitted to the institution for the academic
session 2011-2012 as the withdrawal order could only be
prospective in nature and having been passed in August,
2011 was relevant only for the academic session 2012-
2013. We do not think so, firstly, because the recognition
of the institution stood withdrawn on 20th July, 2011 which
meant that while it had no effect qua admissions for the
academic session 2010-2011 it was certainly operative qua
admissions made for the academic session 2011-12 which
commenced from 1st August, 2011 onwards. The fact that
there was a modification of the said order of withdrawal on
12
24th August, 2011 did not obliterate the earlier order dated
20th July, 2011. The modifying order would in our opinion
relate back and be effective from 20th July, 2011 when the
recognition was first withdrawn. Such being the position
admissions made for the academic session 2011-2012 were
not protected under the statute.
13. Secondly, because this Court has in a long line of
decisions rendered from time to time disapproved of
students being allowed to continue in unrecognised
institutions only on sympathetic considerations. In N.M.
Nageshwaramma (supra) this Court while dealing with
the prayer for grant of permission to the students admitted
to unrecognised institution observed:
"3. xxxxxx
We are unable to accede to these requests. These
institutions were established and the students were
admitted into these institutes despite a series of press
notes issued by the Government. If by a fiat of the court
we direct the Government to permit them to appear at the
examination we will practically be encouraging and
condoning the establishment of unauthorised institutions.
It is not appropriate that the jurisdiction of the court either
under Article 32 of the Constitution or Article 226 should
be frittered away for such a purpose. The Teachers
Training Institutes are meant to teach children of
impressionable age and we cannot let loose on the
innocent and unwary children, teachers who have not
13
received proper and adequate training. True they will be
required to pass the examination but that may not be
enough. Training for a certain minimum period in a
properly organised and equipped Training Institute is
probably essential before a teacher may be duly launched.
We have no hesitation in dismissing the writ petitions with
costs."
(emphasis supplied)
14. To the same effect is the decision of this Court in
Managing Committee of Bhagwan Budh Primary
Teachers Training College and another v. State of
Bihar & Ors. (1990) Supp. SCC 722, where this Court
observed:
"2. It is not possible to grant any such permission as
prayed for because the granting of such permission would
be clearly violating the provisions of the Education Act
(see the judgments in S.L.P. No. 12014 of 1987 decided
on November 25, 1987 and the A.P. Christians Medical
Educational Society v. Government of A.P.)....".
15. In State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. v. St. Joseph
Teachers Training Institute and Anr. (1991) 3 SCC
87, this Court once again found fault with the grant of relief
to students admitted to unrecognised institutions on
humanitarian grounds. This Court said:
"6. The practice of admitting students by unauthorised
educational institutions and then seeking permission for
permitting the students to appear at the examination has
been looked with disfavour by this Court. ............ In A.P.
14
Christians Medical Educational Society v. Government of
A.P (1986) 2 SCC 667, a similar request made on behalf of
the institution and the students for permitting them to
appear at the examination even though affiliation had not
been granted, was rejected by this Court. The court
observed that any direction of the nature sought for
permitting the students to appear at the examination
without the institution being affiliated or recognised would
be in clear transgression of the provision of the Act and
the regulations. The court cannot be a party to direct the
students to disobey the statute as that would be
destructive of the rule of law. The Full Bench noted these
decisions and observations and yet it granted relief to the
students on humanitarian grounds. Courts cannot grant
relief to a party on humanitarian grounds contrary to law.
Since the students of unrecognised institutions were legally
not entitled to appear at the examination held by the
Education Department of the government, the High Court
acted in violation of law in granting permission to such
students for appearing at the public examination. The
directions issued by the Full Bench are destructive of the
rule of law. Since the Division Bench issued the impugned
orders following the judgment of the Full Bench, the
impugned orders are not sustainable in law."
(emphasis supplied)
16. Reference may also be made to State of
Maharashtra v. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale and Ors.
(supra) and Chairman, Bhartia Education Society v.
Himachal Pradesh & Ors. (supra). In the latter case
this Court observed :
"15. The practice of admitting students by unrecognised
institutions and then seeking permission for the students to
appear for the examinations has been repeatedly
disapproved by this Court (see N.M. Nageshwaramma v.
State of A.P, A.P. Christian Medical Educational Society v.
Govt. of A.P. and State of Maharashtra v. Vikas Sahebrao
Roundale4). We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with
the decision of the High Court rejecting the prayer of the
students admitted in 1999 to regularise their admissions by
15
directing the Board to permit them to appear for the JBT
examination conducted by it. The two appeals (CAs Nos.
1228 and 1229 of 2011) filed by the Society/Institute and
the students in regard to the 1999 admissions are therefore
liable to be dismissed."
17. There is no distinguishing feature between the cases
mentioned above and the case at hand for us to strike a
discordant note. The institution established by the appellant
is not equipped with the infrastructure required under the
NCTE Act and the Regulations. It is not in a position to
impart quality education, no matter admissions for the
session 2011-2012 were made pursuant to the interim
directions issued by the High Court. We have, therefore,
no hesitation in rejecting the prayer for permitting the
students to continue in the unrecognised institution of the
appellant or directing that they may be permitted to appear
in the examination. We, however, make it clear that this
order will not prevent the respondent-University from
examining the feasibility of reallocating the students who
were admitted through the University process of selection
and counselling to other recognised colleges to prevent any
prejudice to such students. Such re-allocation for the next
session may not remedy the situation fully qua the students
16
who may have to start the course afresh but it would
ensure that if such admissions/reallocation is indeed
feasible, the students may complete their studies in a
recognised college instead of wasting their time in a college
which does not enjoy recognition by the NCTE. We,
however, leave this aspect entirely for the consideration of
the University at the appropriate level, having regard to its
Rules and Regulations and subject to availability of seats
for such adjustment to be made as also the terms and
conditions on which the same could be made. This order
shall also not prevent the affected students from seeking
such reliefs against the appellant college as may be legally
permissible including relief by way of refund of the fee
recovered from them.
18. With the above observations, these appeals fail and
are hereby dismissed with costs assessed at Rs.20,000/-.
.....................................J.
(Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)
17
.....................................J.
(T.S. THAKUR)
New Delhi
December 16, 2011
18
