My photo




Saturday, July 2, 2016

permanent affiliation = As per Time Schedule prescribed by the State Government, the Inspection Report was not received within the prescribed date. In the absence of the required Inspection Report, the University did not grant permanent affiliation to the appellant for the Academic Session 2015-16. No appeal was preferred before the State Government.- Coming to the present case. As is evincible, the University has not granted affiliation as the schedule for the same was over. No appeal was preferred by the appellant College. The High Court rightly held that it cannot issue a writ contrary to the judgment of this Court. However, we observe that the University shall consider the application for affiliation, if not considered already, within a span of four weeks and, if the affiliation is granted, the students who had been granted admission shall be treated as students as admitted for the academic session which would be covered by the affiliation to be granted in future. We have so directed so that the appellant College would not be in a position to admit any other student after affiliation is granted.


                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                        CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1894 OF 2016
                   (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) 5995 OF 2016)
                            (CC NO. 1652 OF 2016)

Committee of Management Anuragi Devi       ...Appellants
Degree College & Anr.

State of U.P. & Anr.                              ...Respondents

                               J U D G M E N T

Dipak Misra, J.
      The first respondents vide  its  letter  no.  Aff.333/Seventy-6-2012-2
(356)/2012  dated  12.09.2012,  granted  prior  permission  for  provisional
affiliation to the appellant for a period of 3 years w.e.f. 01.07.2012  i.e.
for the period 01.07.2012 to 30.06.2015 for imparting Education in the  Arts
Faculty for the  subjects  Hindi,  Political  Science,  Sociology,  Medieval
History, Education Sanskrit and Home Science. In pursuance of the  aforesaid
Government  order  No.  333  dated  12.09.2012,  the  Deen  Dayal   Upadhyay
Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur vide its letter no.  7539/  Affi.2012  dated
27.11.2012 permitted the appellant to admit  the  students  in  the  various
subjects of the Arts Faculty.
2.     The  appellant  applied  on  10.03.2015,  to   the   University   for
constituting an Inspection Panel for granting permanent affiliation  to  the
University.  Upon perusal of the application dated 10.03.2015  submitted  by
the   aforesaid   appellants,   the   University   vide   its   letter   No.
DDUGU/Aff.2015/5096 dated 20.03.2015  constituted  an  Inspection  Panel  to
submit status  report  of  the  appellant  as  far  as  the  Infrastructural
Facilities existing in the appellant’s college were concerned. The  Regional
Higher Education  Officer  Gorakhpur  submitted  its  inspection  report  on
06.11.2015 to the University.
3.     As  per  Time  Schedule  prescribed  by  the  State  Government,  the
Inspection Report was not  received  within  the  prescribed  date.  In  the
absence of the required Inspection Report,  the  University  did  not  grant
permanent  affiliation  to  the   appellant   for   the   Academic   Session
 2015-16.  No appeal was preferred before the State Government.
4.    As the permanent affiliation was not  granted  the  appellant  college
preferred a writ petition-C No. 42336 of 2015 and the learned  Single  Judge
of the High Court taking note  of  the  fact  that  writ  petitions  seeking
similar  reliefs  had  been  dismissed,  vide  its  order  dated  20.08.2015
declined to interfere.  However, it observed that “the petitioner  would  be
entitled for consideration  of  his  claim  for  the  next  session”.  Being
dissatisfied with  the  order  passed  by  the  learned  Single  Judge,  the
appellant preferred Special Appeal No.  610  of  2015  before  the  Division
5.    The Division Bench, as the factual scenario would unveil,   took  note
of the prayer of the college that it was in effect seeking issuance of  writ
of mandamus requiring the University to  extend  temporary  affiliation  for
the courses  of  Hindi,  Political  Science,  Sociology,  Medieval  History,
Education, Sanskrit  and  Human  Science  at  the  graduate  level  for  the
academic session 2015-2016 and accordingly  adverted to  the  reasonings  of
the learned Single Judge and concurred with him.
6.    It was urged before the Division Bench that application for  grant  of
permanent affiliation in respect of subjects  was  made  well  within  time,
that is,12.12.2014; that the three-member committee that was constituted  by
the University on 20.3.2015 had visited the  institution  on  14.4.2015  and
submitted  the  report;  and  that  the  inspection  team  had   recommended
extension of temporary affiliation in respect of subjects  in  question  for
the academic session 2015-2016 but there had been failure  on  the  part  of
the University which  had  caused  grave  prejudice  to  the  college.   The
Division Bench noted the stand of the University, referred to the  authority
in Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya v. State  of  U.P.  and  others[1],
reproduced the time schedule fixed in the said judgment  and  observed  that
pursuant to the directions so issued the State Government formulated a time-
frame for consideration of applications for affiliation the  particulars  of
which stood embodied in the Government Order dated 14 November, 2014 and  in
terms of the government order the last date for the grant of affiliation  by
a University is fixed as 30 May and  a  person  aggrieved  by  the  decision
taken by the University was entitled to  prefer an appeal against  the  same
by 15 June and the State Government was  liable  to  decide  the  appeal  so
preferred latest by 15 July. The appellate-Bench stated that  in  the  facts
of the case the affiliation was neither granted by the time fixed under  the
Government Order dated 14  November,  2014  nor  was  any  appeal  preferred
before the State Government and, therefore, bearing in mind  the  directions
issued in Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya (supra), it was not open  to
either the second respondent or the  State  Government  to  pass  orders  of
affiliation after 30 May, 2015.  Being of this view, it dismissed the intra-
court appeal. Hence, the present appeal by special leave.
7.    We  have  heard  Mr.  R.P.  Bhatt,  learned  senior  counsel  for  the
appellant, Mr. Kavin Gulati, learned counsel for  the  respondent-university
and Mr. Gaurav Bhatia, learned Additional Advocate General for the State  of
8.    At the very beginning, we may note that  in  College  of  Professional
Education and others v. State of Uttar  Pradesh  and  others[2],  the  Court
recorded that for the academic year 2012-13 and subsequent  academic  years,
institution and the State  Government  had  arrived  at  a  broad  consensus
regarding the procedure and terms and conditions of  admission,  recognition
and affiliation.  The terms and conditions which had been  accepted  by  all
concerned were reproduced in the said judgment.    In the said judgment,  as
is evident, the Court has referred to the order dated  11.3.2011,  and  also
provided for the time by which the  affiliation  could  be  granted  to  the
colleges.  Paragraph (vi) (b) clearly stipulated that after  the  counseling
is over, the university concerned will  continue  to  allot  the  candidates
from the relevant waiting list against the vacant seats till all  the  seats
in the colleges were filled up and the organizing university  would  provide
students only to the existing B.Ed  college  and  all  those  B.Ed  colleges
which would get affiliation up to  7.7.2011  would  not  be  considered  for
counseling to the year 2011-2012 and for  the  next  consecutive  years  and
onward the colleges which will get affiliated on or before  10th of  May  of
that year, would be considered for counseling.   Certain  affiliations  were
granted to the colleges which  were  interefered  with  by  the  High  Court
primarily on the ground that the court had no  jurisdiction  to  extend  the
cut-off date.
9.    In Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya (supra),  the  Court  dealing
with various aspects, taking into consideration the provisions of  the  NCTE
Act, 1993 and the NCTE Rules 1997, opined that:-
“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  infrastructure  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  Department  of  the  State
concerned 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. The 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,  there
is not much conflict on this issue, but it needs to be clarified that  while
the State grants its approval,  and  the  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  the  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”.

10.   And again:-
“67. In the present case, we are concerned with the provisions of  the  NCTE
Act which is a Central legislation referable to Schedule VII  List  I  Entry
66. Thus, no law enacted by  the  State,  which  is  in  conflict  with  the
Central law, can be permitted to be operative.

68. 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

69. 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 Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan  Shastra  Mahavidyalaya[3]  where  the
Court stated that after coming  into  operation  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
the  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 NCTE”.

11.   After so stating, the Court further proceeded to state:-
“76. 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  Meerut
University, affiliation of new colleges is dealt with under  Statutes  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 13.05, 13.06 and 13.07. Besides, it requires  the  conditions  like
adequate financial resources, suitable  and  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.

77. 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 insofar 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  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  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. 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  NCTE  forthwith  of  the  shortcomings  and   non-
compliance with 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 NCTE.

78. 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  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 NCTE during such  resolution.
The opinion of the State, therefore, has to be read and  construed  to  mean
that it would keep the factors determined by 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  the  bare  minimum,  non-
interfering and non-infringing.

79. It is on record and the Regulations framed under the  Act  clearly  show
that upon receiving an application for recommendation,  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  is  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 NCTE and  examined  in  conjunction  with
the report of the experts, it may  grant  or  refuse  recognition.  Once  it
grants recognition, then such grant attains supremacy  vis-à-vis  the  State
Government as well  as  the  affiliating  body.  Normally,  these  questions
cannot be  reagitated  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  the  life  of
the students  working  in  the  school  because  of  non-compliance  with  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

80. In Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra  Mahavidyalaya  the  view  of  this
Court was that the State Government has  no  role  whatsoever.  However,  in
Bhartia Education Society[4] it was  stated  that  the  role  of  the  State
Government was limited to the manner  of  admission,  eligibility  criteria,
etc. without interfering with the conditions of  recognition  prescribed  by
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. Johns Teachers Training  Institute[5]
the Court stated that the State Government or the  Union  Territory  has  to
necessarily  confine  itself  to  the  guidelines  issued  by   NCTE   while
considering  the  application  for  grant  of  “no-objection   certificate”.
Minimisation 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

12.   After laying down  the  principles  of  law,  the  Court  opined  that
adherence to the schedule is the essence of granting  admission  in  a  fair
and transparent manner as well as to maintain  the  standard  of  education.
The Court further observed that:-
“….. None in the hierarchy of the State Government, university, NCTE or  any
other authority or body involved in this 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

13.   In that context, the Court further proceeded to state:-
“83. Undoubtedly, adherence to the 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.

84. We may very clearly state here that we adopt and reiterate the  schedule
stated by this Court in College of Professional  Education  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 College of Professional Education.

86. There appear to be some  overlapping  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 College  of
Professional Education, the last date for grant of affiliation is  10th  May
of the year concerned, 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.

87. Compelled by 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:

87.1. Schedule for Recognition and Affiliation

|87.1.1.|Submission of            |1st September to 1st |
|       |applications for         |October of the year  |
|       |recognition in terms of  |immediately preceding|
|       |Regulation 5(4)          |the relevant academic|
|       |                         |year                 |
|87.1.2 |Communication of         |Within 45 days from  |
|       |deficiencies,            |the date of receipt  |
|       |shortcomings or any other|of the applications  |
|       |discrepancy in the       |                     |
|       |application submitted by |                     |
|       |the applicant to the     |                     |
|       |applicant in terms of    |                     |
|       |Regulation 7(1)          |                     |
|87.1.3.|Removal of such          |Within 60 days from  |
|       |deficiencies by the      |the date of receipt  |
|       |applicant                |of communication     |
|87.1.4.|Forwarding of copy of the|Within 90 days from  |
|       |application to the State |the date of receipt  |
|       |Government/UT            |of the application   |
|       |Administration for its   |                     |
|       |recommendations/comments |                     |
|       |in terms of Regulation   |                     |
|       |7(2)                     |                     |
|87.1.5 |Recommendations/comments |Within 30 days from  |
|       |of the State             |the date of issue of |
|       |Government/UT            |letter to it         |
|       |Administration to be     |                     |
|       |submitted to the Regional|                     |
|       |Committee under          |                     |
|       |Regulation 7(3)          |                     |
|87.1.6.|If                       |Within seven days    |
|       |recommendations/comments |from the date of     |
|       |are not received within  |expiry of the period |
|       |30 days, the Regional    |of 30 days           |
|       |Committee shall send to  |                     |
|       |the State Government/UT  |                     |
|       |Administration a reminder|                     |
|       |letter for submission of |                     |
|       |the                      |                     |
|       |recommendations/comments |                     |
|87.1.7.|State Government/UT      |Within 15 days from  |
|       |Administration shall     |the date of receipt  |
|       |furnish the              |of such reminder     |
|       |recommendations/comments |letter               |
|87.1.8.|Intimation regarding     |Within 10 days from  |
|       |inspection by the        |final scrutiny of the|
|       |Regional Committee to the|application          |
|       |applicant under          |                     |
|       |Regulation 7(4)          |                     |
|87.1.9.|Report by the Inspection |20 days thereafter   |
|       |Committee under          |                     |
|       |Regulation 7(5)          |                     |
|87.1.10|Letter of intent to the  |10th of February of  |
|.      |institution with respect |the succeeding       |
|       |to grant or refusal of   |year/relevant year   |
|       |recognition in terms of  |                     |
|       |Regulation 7(9)          |                     |
|87.1.11|Time to comply with      |20 days from the date|
|.      |certain specified        |of issuance of letter|
|       |conditions, in terms of  |of intent            |
|       |Regulations 7(10) and    |                     |
|       |7(11)                    |                     |
|87.1.12|Issuance of formal order |By 3rd March of each |
|.      |of recognition           |year                 |
|87.1.13|Last date for submitting |By 10th March of each|
|.      |proposal for affiliation |year                 |
|87.1.14|Forwarding of proposal by|By 10th March of each|
|.      |the University to the    |year                 |
|       |State Government/UT      |                     |
|       |Administration after     |                     |
|       |inspection by expert team|                     |
|87.1.15|Comments to be submitted |By 10th March of each|
|       |by the State             |year                 |
|       |Government/UT            |                     |
|       |Administration, if any   |                     |
|87.1.16|Final date for           |By 10th March of each|
|.      |issuance/grant of        |year                 |
|       |affiliation for the      |                     |
|       |relevant academic year   |                     |

87.2.  All  notices/orders/requirements/letters  in  terms  of   the   above
schedule or under the provisions of the  Act  or  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
Authority/Committee/ Council/Government concerned.

87.3. The recognition and affiliation granted  as  per  the  above  Schedule
shall be applicable for the current academic year. For example,  recognition
granted up to 3-3-2013 and affiliation granted  up  to  10-5-2013  shall  be
effective for the academic year 2013-2014 i.e. the courses starting from  1-
4-2013. For the academic year 2013-2014,  no  recognition  shall  be  issued
after 3-3-2013 and no affiliation shall  be  granted  after  10-5-2013.  Any
affiliation or recognition granted after the above cut-off dates shall  only
be valid for the academic year 2014-2015.

87.4. We make it clear that no Authority/person/Council/Committee  shall  be
entitled to vary the Schedule for any reason whatsoever. Any  non-compliance
shall amount to violating the orders of the Court.”

14.   We  are  obliged  to  state  here  that  there  is  justification  for
reproducing the above paragraphs from the  aforesaid  decision.   The  Court
has taken pains to explain the scheme of the Act,  role  of  the  university
and the purpose of fixing a time schedule for each purpose.  Certain  action
of the authorities can be flawed  and  eventually  fall  in  the  sphere  of
illegality.  It has to be so declared by the Court.  In the  case  at  hand,
the benefit could not be extended as the appellants have not maintained  the
time schedule fixed by the State Government pursuant to  judgments  of  this
Court. Therefore, the order passed by the learned single Judge  as  well  as
the Division Bench cannot be found fault with.
15.   The controversy does not end here.  The stand  of  the  University  is
that  the  appellant  College  has  admitted  students  without  having  the
necessary affiliation  for  the  academic  session  2015-16.  This  kind  of
conduct has become a disease, and when the conduct becomes  a  disaster,  it
is  a  disastrous  phenomenon.   While  dealing  with   admissions   without
affiliation from CBSE, the Court in Sunil  Oraon  (minor)  through  guardian
and others v.  CBSE and others[6] referred  to  earlier  decisions  and  was
constrained to state thus:-
“Time and again, therefore,  this  Court  had  deprecated  the  practice  of
educational  institutions   admitting   the   students   without   requisite
recognition or affiliation. In all such cases the usual plea is  the  career
of innocent children who  have  fallen  in  the  hands  of  the  mischievous
designated school authorities. As the factual  scenario  delineated  against
goes to show that the school has shown scant  regards  to  the  requirements
for affiliation and as rightly highlighted by learned counsel for CBSE,  the
infraction was of very serious  nature.  Though  the  ultimate  victims  are
innocent students that cannot  be  a  ground  for  granting  relief  to  the
appellant. …”

16.    In  Adarsh  Shiksha   Mahavidyalaya   v.   Subhash   Rahangdale   and
others[7]the Court has laid down that:-
“(xv) The students admitted by  unrecognised  institution  and  institutions
which are not affiliated to any examining body are not  entitled  to  appear
in the examination conducted by the examining body or any  other  authorised

 The Court further proceeded to direct:-
“88.  (ii)  The  result  of  the  students  admitted  by   an   unrecognised
institution or by an institution which had not been granted  affiliation  by
the examining body shall not be declared. The result  of  the  students  who
were admitted without qualifying the entrance examination shall also not  be
declared. In other words, the students admitted by the private  institutions
on their own shall not be entitled to declaration of their  result.  If  any
private institution had not complied with  the  requirements  of  completing
the prescribed training, then the result of  students  of  such  institution
shall also not be declared.”

17.   In National Council for Teacher Education and another v. Venus  Public
Education Society  and  others[8]   the  two-Judge  Bench  ingeminating  the
anguish of the Court was compelled to observe:-

“… It is urged by him that NCTE had procrastinated  its  decision  at  every
stage and  such  delay  was  deliberate  and,  therefore,  the  Society  was
compelled to admit the students and impart education, regard  being  had  to
the fact that there were really no deficiencies. As has been  laid  down  in
many a pronouncement of this Court that without recognition  from  NCTE  and
affiliation from the university/examining body, the educational  institution
cannot admit the students. An educational  institution  is  expected  to  be
aware of the law. The students who take admission  are  not  young  in  age.
They are graduates. They are expected to  enquire  whether  the  institution
has recognition and affiliation. If  we  allow  ourselves  to  say  so,  the
institution had given  admission  in  a  nonchalant  manner.  Possibly,  its
functionaries harboured the idea that they had  incomparable  fertile  mind.
The students who had taken admission possibly immersed with  the  idea  that
ignorance is a bliss. It is also necessary to  state  that  the  institution
had the  anxious  enthusiasm  to  commercialise  education  and  earn  money
forgetting the factum that  such  an  attitude  leads  to  a  disaster.  The
students exhibited tremendous anxiety to get a degree without bothering  for
a moment whether their effort, if any, had the sanctity of law. ..”

18.   Coming to the present case. As is evincible, the  University  has  not
granted affiliation as the schedule for the same was  over.  No  appeal  was
preferred by the appellant College.  The High Court  rightly  held  that  it
cannot issue a writ contrary to the judgment of  this  Court.   However,  we
observe that the University shall consider the application for  affiliation,
if not considered  already,  within  a  span  of  four  weeks  and,  if  the
affiliation is granted, the students who had been  granted  admission  shall
be treated as students as admitted for the academic session which  would  be
covered by the affiliation to be granted in future.  We have so directed  so
that the appellant College would not be in a position  to  admit  any  other
student after affiliation is granted.
19.   Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed.  There shall  be  no  order
as to costs.

                                                               [Dipak Misra]

                                             ..........................., J.
                                                         [Shiva Kirti Singh]
New Delhi;
June 29, 2016
[1]     (2013) 2 SCC 617
[2]     (2013) 2 SCC 721
[3]     (2006) 9 SCC 1
[4]     (2011) 4 SCC 527
[5]     (2003) 3 SCC 321
[6]    (2006) 13 SCC 673
[7]    (2012) 2 SCC 425
[8]    (2013) 1 SCC 223


No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.