whether this Court should direct the respondents including the Medical Council of India (for short `MCI’), the University of Calicut and the Mahatma Gandhi University, Kottayam to permit the appellants to continue and complete the MBBS course to which they were admitted in the different Private Unaided Medical Colleges in Kerala in the academic year 2007-08, though they were not eligible for such admissions as per the Regulations of the MCI, but had satisfied all the eligibility criteria stipulated in the “Prospectus for MBBS Admission, 2007″ issued by the respondent-Medical Colleges. The appellants are stated to be victims of a mistake or omission crept in the Prospectus as regards the eligibility criteria for admission.=Since the mistake or omission occurred even before the applications were invited, it is not possible to attribute any malafides on the part of the respondent-Colleges as it does not appear to be a deliberate act to violate the MCI Regulations and since the irregular admissions have not resulted in any pecuniary gain for the management. Even if the appellants were not admitted, the Colleges could have admitted equal number of other candidates from the management quota and collected from them the very same fees applicable to management quota students. There was also no attempt to favour the appellants, as the Colleges could not have anticipated that the appellants would apply and fail to secure 50% marks in the CEE. Moreover the respondent-Colleges inspite of bonafide lapse are adequately punished as we have directed them to surrender equal number of seats from the management quota in the coming years. As a result of such surrender of management quota seats, there will be considerable reduction in the income of the Colleges from the fees of the students, because, the fees to be paid by a student admitted in the management quota are admittedly much higher than the fees to be 2 paid by the student admitted in the Government quota. Hence in the facts and circumstances of this case, we are not persuaded to accept the suggestion of the learned counsel for the MCI to impose a penalty on the Colleges.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1015 OF 2012 [arising out of SLP (C) No. 27551 of 2010] Deepa Thomas & Ors. ... Appellants versus Medical Council of India & Ors. ... Respondents with CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1016-1017 OF 2012 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 27950-27951 of 2010) Anu Rubina Ansar & Ors. Etc. ... Appellants Versus Medical Council of India & Ors. ... Respondents CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1018 OF 2012 [arising out of SLP (C) No. 28474 of 2010] Anjana Babu & Ors. ... Appellants versus Medical Council of India & Ors. ... Respondents CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1027 OF 2012 [arising out of SLP (C) No. 28611 of 2010] Abhay Babu & Ors. ... Appellants versus Medical Council of India & Ors. ... Respondents J U D G M E N T CYRIAC JOSEPH, J. 1. Leave granted. 2 2. The short question that arises for consideration in these Civil Appeals is whether this Court should direct the respondents including the Medical Council of India (for short `MCI'), the University of Calicut and the Mahatma Gandhi University, Kottayam to permit the appellants to continue and complete the MBBS course to which they were admitted in the different Private Unaided Medical Colleges in Kerala in the academic year 2007-08, though they were not eligible for such admissions as per the Regulations of the MCI, but had satisfied all the eligibility criteria stipulated in the "Prospectus for MBBS Admission, 2007" issued by the respondent-Medical Colleges. The appellants are stated to be victims of a mistake or omission crept in the Prospectus as regards the eligibility criteria for admission. When the MCI Regulations insist on a minimum of 50% marks both in the qualifying examination and in the Competitive Entrance Examination (for short `CEE') separately, the Prospectus did not specify that separate 50% marks were required in the CEE also. Though the appellants had secured more than 50% marks in the qualifying examination, they could secure only less than 50% marks in the CEE. Without noticing and without being aware of the difference between the MCI Regulations and the Prospectus in respect of the eligibility criteria, the appellants took admission in the medical colleges. Immediately after the admission the colleges sent the list of admitted students and their marks to the MCI. There was no objection from the MCI and the appellants continued their studies. However, several 3 months thereafter, MCI directed the colleges concerned to discharge the appellants on the ground that they were not eligible for admission as they had secured only less than 50% marks in the CEE. Though the appellants and the colleges represented to the MCI and requested to reconsider its decision, the MCI refused to change its stand. Hence, the appellants were constrained to approach the High Court of Kerala for redressal of their grievance and on the basis of interim orders passed by the High Court in the writ petitions filed by them, the appellants continued their studies and appeared in the examinations conducted by the University. However, the writ petitions filed by the appellants were ultimately dismissed by the High Court on 16th September, 2010. Faced with the threat of discharge from the colleges, the appellants have filed these appeals by special leave. On the strength of the interim orders passed by this Court, the appellants continued their studies and appeared in the examinations and they are now in the fourth year of the MBBS course. The appellants claim that they are innocent victims of an inadvertent and bona fide mistake or omission crept in the Prospectus as regards the eligibility criteria for admission. They contend that even if there was some discrepancy between the eligibility criteria mentioned in the Prospectus and the eligibility criteria mentioned in the MCI Regulations, they were not in any way responsible for such discrepancy and they may not be penalised for no fault of theirs. The appellants seek intervention of this Court to save their career and future. 4 3. The appellants are students of Jubilee Medical Mission College and Research Institute, Thrissur, M.E.S. Medical College, Perinthalmanna, Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church Medical College, Kolenchery and Pushapagiri Institute of Medical Sciences & Research Centre, Thiruvalla. Admittedly all these medical colleges are members of the Kerala Private Medical College Management Association (for short, `Management Association') and the Prospectus for admission to MBBS course, 2007 issued by the Management Association was followed by these medical colleges except the M.E.S. Medical College. The prospectus issued by the M.E.S. Medical College also contained identical provisions relating to eligibility criteria for admission. 4. As per Clause 1.1 of the Prospectus, it was made clear that the Management Association had decided to introduce a separate selection procedure for admission to MBBS course, 2007-2008 in the member colleges of the Management Association as per the directions of the Supreme Court in the matter. As per Clause 2.2(i), the academic qualification required for admission was "Pass in Higher Secondary Examination of the Board of Higher Secondary Education of Kerala or examination recognised equivalent thereto with 60% marks in Biology separately and 60% marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology put together or equivalent grade". Clause 4.1 of the Prospectus provided as follows: 5 "Preparation of Merit List and Allotment of Candidates: Admission will be on the basis of marks obtained in the entrance examination and marks obtained for Physics, Chemistry and Biology in the qualifying examination. The marks will be apportioned in the ratio of 50:50. After the entrance test, the marks obtained for the Physics, Chemistry and Biology at the qualifying examination will be added to the marks obtained at the entrance test and a combined merit list will be published. Separate merit list also will be published for categories for which seats are reserved. Allotment to colleges and admission will be on the basis of centralized counselling." As per the above provisions in the Prospectus, even though a candidate was required to pass the Higher Secondary Examination of the Board of Higher Secondary Education of Kerala or examination recognised equivalent thereto with 60% marks in Biology separately and 60% marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology put together, there was no requirement of any minimum marks in the entrance examination. 5. It cannot be disputed that admissions to MBBS Course in the respondent-Medical Colleges are governed by the MCI Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997 (for short `MCI Regulations'). 6. According to Regulation 4(2) of the MCI Regulations, no candidate shall be allowed to be admitted to the MBBS course until he/she has passed one of the qualifying examinations mentioned therein. According to Regulation 5(2) of the MCI Regulations, in States having more than one University/Board/Examination Body conducting the qualifying examination or where there is more than one medical 6 college under the administrative control of one authority, a competitive entrance examination should be held so as to achieve a uniform evaluation as there may be variation of standards of qualifying examinations conducted by the different agencies. Clause 5(ii) of Regulation 5 reads as follows: "5. Procedure for selection to MBBS course shall be as follows: (i) xxx xxxx xxx (ii) In case of admission on the basis of competitive entrance examination under clause (2) to (4) of this regulation, a candidate must have passed in the subjects of Physics, Chemistry, Biology and English individually and must have obtained a minimum of 50% of marks taken together in Physics Chemistry and Biology at the qualifying examination as mentioned in clause (2) of regulation 4 and in addition must have come in the merit list prepared as a result of such competitive entrance examination by securing not less then 50% marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology taken together competitive examination. In respect of candidates belonging to Schedule Caste, Schedule Tribes or other Backward Classes the marks obtained in Physics, Chemistry and Biology taken together in qualifying examination and competitive entrance examination be 40% instead of 50% as stated above: Provided that a candidate who has appeared in the qualifying examination the result of which has not been declared, he may be provisionally permitted to take up the competitive entrance examination and in case of selection for admission to the MBBS course, he shall not be admitted to that course until he fulfils the eligibility criteria under regulation 4." Thus, as per the MCI Regulations, in the case of admission on the basis of competitive entrance examination, a candidate must have obtained a minimum of 50% marks taken together in Physics, Chemistry and 7 Biology at the qualifying examination and in addition, must have secured not less than 50% marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology taken together in the competitive examination. However such a requirement of minimum 50% marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology taken together in the competitive examination was not mentioned in the Prospectus issued by the colleges. 7. Admittedly the appellants were eligible for admission as per the criteria laid down in the Prospectus, but they were not eligible for admission as per the criteria laid down in the MCI Regulations, as they secured only less than 50% marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology taken together in the competitive examination. 8. In the impugned judgment, the High Court has held that the regulations framed by the MCI are mandatory in nature. For this purpose, the High Court relied on the judgment dated 14 th July, 2008 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Writ Petition No. 13379 of 2007 and connected cases. In the said judgment, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh held that the Regulations framed by the MCI are mandatory in nature. In the order dated 4th September, 2008 passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 5518-5519 of 2008 (Monika Ranka & Ors. v Medical Council of India & Ors.) and Civil Appeal Nos.5520-5521 of 2008, this Court upheld the principle laid down by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, though the appellants therein were granted personal relief treating it as a special case. Learned counsel for the appellants in 8 these appeals did not seriously contest the proposition that the MCI regulations are mandatory in nature. They only pleaded that the indulgence shown to the students by this Court in the above-mentioned Monika Ranka's case may be extended to the appellants, as their case is better than the case of the students in Monika Ranka's case. Learned counsel for the appellants also did not dispute that the appellants had secured only less than 50% marks in the CEE. Therefore, the High Court was right in holding that the admission of the appellants was irregular and the MCI was justified in directing the colleges to discharge the appellants. 9. Therefore, the only question to be considered in these appeals is whether, having regard to the facts and circumstances of these cases, the appellants should be allowed to continue and complete the MBBS course as was done by this Court in Monika Ranka's case. We may now refer to some of the aspects which are relevant for answering the above question. 10. The appellants had applied for admission in response to the Prospectus for admission to MBBS 2007 issued by the colleges. It was not disputed that the Prospectus was approved by the Admission Supervisory Committee constituted by the Government of Kerala under the Kerala Professional Colleges or Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee, Regulation of Admission, Fixation of Non exploitative Fee and Other Measures to Ensure Equity and Excellence in 9 Professional Education) Act 19 of 2006. The CEE was conducted and the merit list was prepared under the supervision of the said Committee. 11. However, there was a minor discrepancy between the eligibility criteria for admission prescribed by the MCI Regulations and the eligibility criteria mentioned in the Prospectus. The requirement of securing not less than 50% marks in the CEE was not mentioned in the Prospectus. According to the appellants and the colleges, it was only an inadvertent and bona fide mistake or omission while preparing the Prospectus. It was contended that Regulation 5(5)(ii) is clumsily worded, with the words "taken together" appearing in several places giving an impression that minimum 50% is required when the marks of qualifying examination and the marks of the CEE are taken together. It was also contended that such an omission or mistake occurred due to lack of sufficient clarity in Regulation 5(5)(ii). There is some substance in the contention. 12. It was pointed out that, when the MCI Regulations require only minimum 50% marks in the qualifying examination, the Prospectus issued by the Management Association stipulated a higher standard of minimum 60% marks in the qualifying examination and the appellants did satisfy the said requirement by securing 60% to 99% in the qualifying examination. Hence, it cannot be said that the appellants were not meritorious candidates, though unfortunately they could 1 secure only less than 50% marks in the CEE. The Prospectus however did not mention the requirement of minimum 50% marks in the CEE separately. The Prospectus was submitted to the Admission Supervisory Committee constituted under Act 19 of 2006 but the Committee did not raise any objection to the eligibility criteria mentioned in the Prospectus. Possibly, the Admission Supervisory Committee also failed to notice the omission. 13. It was specifically averred by the appellants that the marks obtained in the CEE were not communicated to the candidates and consequently the appellants were not aware that they had secured only less than 50% marks in the CEE. Hence it cannot be said that the appellants took admission knowing that they were not eligible for admission. The CEE was conducted under the supervision of the Admission Supervisory Committee which scrutinized and approved the merit list. It was also averred that though the list of selected candidates was submitted by the colleges to the Admission Supervisory Committee, no objection was raised by the Committee to the admission of the appellants for a very long time. In this context, it may be remembered that Section 4(6) of Act 19 of 2006 provides as hereunder: "The Admission Supervisory Committee shall supervise and guide the entire process of admission of students to the unaided professional colleges or institutions with a view to ensure that the process is fair, transparent, merit based and non exploitative under the provisions of the Act". 1 In such circumstances, the appellants had no reason to suspect that they were ineligible for admission. The list of admitted candidates, along with the marks obtained by them in the qualifying examination and the CEE, was submitted by the colleges to the MCI immediately after the admissions. It was from the list of admitted candidates and their marks that the MCI found that the appellants had secured only less than 50% marks in the CEE. Possibly, in view of the delay in conducting the scrutiny, the above irregularity was brought to the notice of the colleges by the MCI long after they were admitted to the course. Having realised the mistake or omission in the Prospectus for the year 2007, the colleges rectified the mistake/omission in the prospectus for the subsequent years. 14. The appellants have secured 60% to 99% marks in the qualifying examination as against the 50% required under the MCI Regulations. They have also secured more than 50% of the aggregate marks, if the marks of the qualifying examination and the CEE are taken together. 15. The High Court has noticed in the impugned judgment that the appellants in Writ Petition (C) Nos. 13810, 13817, 13818, 13819 and 21534 of 2010 contended that though they had not obtained 50% in the CEE, they had obtained more than 50% marks in other Competitive Entrance Examinations like the Entrance Test conducted 1 by Christian Medical College, Ludhiana, the Karnataka Common Entrance Examination for Private Colleges and the Common Entrance Examination conducted by the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations, Government of Kerala. Some of the appellants claimed that in view of their admission in the respondent-Colleges, they gave up admissions offered to them in medical colleges outside Kerala. 16. Long before the MCI directed the colleges to discharge the appellants, admissions for the academic year 2007-2008 had been closed everywhere. 17. The respondent - Colleges or the MCI had not received any complaint against the admission of the appellants from any other candidate who sought admission to MBBS. 18. Realising that the admissions given to the appellants were irregular and that such irregularity occurred due to the inadvertent omission to include in the Prospectus the requirement of minimum 50% marks in the CEE, the respondent-Colleges except the M.E.S. College, through their counsel offered before the High Court to surrender equal number of seats from the management quota to the Government quota in the next year. Though the offer has been noted by the High Court in paragraph 13 of the impugned judgment, it was not accepted by the High Court. Learned counsel for all the respondent - Colleges including the M.E.S. College stated before this 1 Court that the said Colleges are willing to surrender from the management quota number of seats equal to the number of students sought to be discharged. However, learned counsel for the M.E.S. College further submitted that considering that the number of seats to be so surrendered by them is 27, the said college may be permitted to surrender them over a reasonable period. 19. The learned counsel for respondent-Colleges also submitted that the MCI has not been implementing the Regulations uniformly. For example, admissions to MBBS course in the State of Tamilnadu are allowed to be made without any entrance test and only based on the marks in the qualifying examination. This was not disputed by the learned counsel for the MCI. It was also alleged that in State of Kerala itself the MCI had regularized the irregular admissions in other Private Medical Colleges like the Gokulam Medical College, but the correctness of the allegation could not be verified by the learned counsel for MCI for want of time. 20. On the strength of the interim orders passed by the High Court and subsequently by this Court, the appellants have continued their studies for 4= years and have appeared in the University examinations. 21. In the light of the peculiar facts and circumstances stated above, we are of the view that it is quite unjust and unfair to 1 discharge the appellants at this stage. This is an eminently fit case for invoking this Court's powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to permit the appellants to continue and complete the MBBS course to which they were admitted in the year 2007. Such an order is necessary for doing complete justice in the matter. In taking such a view, we are supported by the precedent in the order dated 4th September, 2008 passed by a 3-Judge Bench of this Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 5518-5519 of 2008 (Monika Ranka & Ors. v. Medical Council of India & Ors.). In that case though the admission was held to be irregular, this Court showed indulgence to the students and permitted them to continue and complete the course on the ground that there was nothing on record to show that the students were informed of the marks secured by them in the entrance examination and the students had already completed one year of their MBBS course. In fact, the facts and circumstances pointed out in the earlier paragraphs show that the case of the appellants is much better than the case of the students in Monika Ranka's case. In Monika Ranka's case, there was no confusion regarding the eligibility criteria whereas in this case the Prospectus omitted to mention the requirement of securing minimum 50% marks for the CEE as provided in the MCI Regulations. The appellants in Monika Ranka's case had completed only one year of their course, whereas in this case the appellants are completing the 4th year of the MBBS course. As in Monika Ranka's case, the appellants herein also were not informed of the marks secured by them in the entrance examination. Though the appellants 1 had specifically pleaded so in the writ petitions and also in these appeals, there is nothing on record to show that the marks secured by them in the entrance examination were communicated to them. The High Court has noted in the impugned judgment that since there was nothing on record to show that the appellants in Monika Ranka's case were informed of the marks secured by them in the entrance examination, the Apex Court indulged to give them the personal relief of permitting them to continue with the course. Even though the case of the appellants herein also is similar, the High Court has not given any reason for not extending the same relief to the appellants. There is also no finding anywhere in the judgment that the marks of the CEE were communicated to the appellants. 22. We also notice that an almost identical situation arose in Chowdhury Navin Hemabhai and Others v. State of Gujarat and Others [(2011) 3 SCC 617]. In that case, the conflict was between the provisions in the MCI Regulations and the provisions in the Gujarat Professional Medical Educational Colleges or Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Payment of Fees) Rules, 2008 (for short, "State Rules"). Under the MCI Regulations, the candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes were required to secure in the common entrance test a minimum of 40% marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology taken together, but in the State Rules there was no such requirement. Thus, the State Rules had prescribed a qualification standard which was less than that of 1 the MCI. The appellants before this Court belonged to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes and though they did not secure 40% marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology taken together, they were given admission to the MBBS course. The High Court of Gujarat had struck down the provision in the State Rules which provided that a candidate who appeared in the common entrance test was eligible for admission to the MBBS course even if he obtained less than 40% marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology taken together in the common entrance test and also upheld the directions given by the MCI to discharge the appellants from the college. This Court upheld the decision of the High Court observing that the qualification requirements prescribed by the State cannot be lower than those prescribed by the MCI. However, this Court also found that the admissions of the appellant-students took place due to the fault of the rule-making authority in not making the State Rules in conformity with the MCI Regulations and that if the appellants are discharged from the MBBS course for the fault of the rule-making authority, they will suffer grave injustice. This Court further found that the appellants were not to be blamed for having secured admission in the MBBS course and that the fault was entirely on the rule-making authority in making the State Rules. Even though the appellants were not eligible for admission under the MCI Regulations, considering that the appellants had gone through the pains of appearing in the common entrance test and had been selected on the basis of their merit and admitted into the MBBS course in accordance 1 with the State Rules and had pursued their studies for a year, this Court, for the purpose of doing complete justice in the matter, directed that the admissions of the appellants should not be disturbed. Though this Court observed that the said direction was not to be treated as a precedent, we find sufficient justification for giving a similar direction in the case of the appellants before us. 23. In Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India and Another [(1998) 4 SCC 409] (in para 48), a Constitution Bench of this Court held: "The Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 has the power to make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice "between the parties in any cause or matter pending before it". The very nature of the power must lead the Court to set limits for itself within which to exercise those powers and ordinarily it cannot disregard a statutory provision governing a subject, except perhaps to balance the equities between the conflicting claims of the litigating parties by "ironing out the creases" in a cause or matter before it. Indeed this Court is not a court of restricted jurisdiction of only dispute-settling. " Having regard to the special facts and circumstances of this case and the extra-ordinary situation arising in the case, we do not in any way feel inhibited to invoke our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India for doing complete justice in the matter before us. 1 24. For the reasons stated above, we although agree with the view of the MCI and the High Court that the admissions of the appellants were irregular as they did not satisfy the requirement of securing not less than 50% marks in the CEE as prescribed in the MCI Regulations, we are inclined to take a considerate view in the special facts and circumstances mentioned in the earlier paragraphs and hence we direct that, as a special case, the appellants shall be allowed to continue and complete their MBBS course and also permit them to appear in the University examinations as if they had been regularly admitted to the course. 25. Since irregular admissions were made by the respondent -Colleges in violation of the MCI Regulations, though due to the mistake or omission in the Prospectus issued by the respondent colleges, they should be directed to surrender from the management quota, number of seats equal to the number of such irregular admissions. Such surrenders shall be made in a phased manner starting with the admissions of the year 2012. However, any of the respondent-Colleges shall not be required to surrender more than eight (8) seats in one academic year. 26. Learned counsel for the MCI strongly pleaded that as a deterrent against irregular admissions in future a penalty or fine should be imposed on the respondent-Colleges and for the said 1 purpose he suggested that the respondent-Colleges may be directed to deposit with the Legal Services Authority the entire amount of fees collected by the colleges from the appellant-students. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find sufficient justification for such a harsh treatment, as in our view, the irregularity in the admissions occurred due to an inadvertent and bona fide mistake or omission on the part of the Colleges while issuing the Prospectus. Since the mistake or omission occurred even before the applications were invited, it is not possible to attribute any malafides on the part of the respondent-Colleges as it does not appear to be a deliberate act to violate the MCI Regulations and since the irregular admissions have not resulted in any pecuniary gain for the management. Even if the appellants were not admitted, the Colleges could have admitted equal number of other candidates from the management quota and collected from them the very same fees applicable to management quota students. There was also no attempt to favour the appellants, as the Colleges could not have anticipated that the appellants would apply and fail to secure 50% marks in the CEE. Moreover the respondent-Colleges inspite of bonafide lapse are adequately punished as we have directed them to surrender equal number of seats from the management quota in the coming years. As a result of such surrender of management quota seats, there will be considerable reduction in the income of the Colleges from the fees of the students, because, the fees to be paid by a student admitted in the management quota are admittedly much higher than the fees to be 2 paid by the student admitted in the Government quota. Hence in the facts and circumstances of this case, we are not persuaded to accept the suggestion of the learned counsel for the MCI to impose a penalty on the Colleges. 27. The appeals are disposed of in the above terms. There will be no order as to costs. ........................................J. (CYRIAC JOSEPH) .......................................J. (GYAN SUDHA MISRA) New Delhi; January 25, 2012.

Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Writ Petition No. 31587 of 2011 whereby it had permitted JSS Medical College, Respondent No. 1 herein, to increase the seats for MBBS Course from 150 to 200 for the academic year 2011-2012,= "14. In the normal circumstances, the High Court ought not to issue an interim order when for the earlier year itself permission had not been granted by the Council. Indeed, by grant of such interim

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2012 (@ SLP (C) No. 27239 of 2011) MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA ... Appellant Versus JSS MEDICAL COLLEGE & ANR. ... Respondents J U D G M E N T CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J. 1. Medical Council of India, aggrieved by the interim order dated 24th August, 2011 passed by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Writ Petition No. 31587 of 2011 whereby it had permitted JSS Medical College, Respondent No. 1 herein, to increase the seats for MBBS Course from 150 to 200 for the academic year 2011-2012, has preferred this special leave petition. 2 2. Leave granted. 3. In view of the order which we propose to pass in this appeal it is inexpedient to give in detail the facts of the case. Suffice it to say that JSS Medical College, Respondent No. 1 herein (hereinafter referred to as `the College'), is recognized for imparting MBBS education with intake capacity of 150 students. On 27th of November, 2010, the College submitted an application for increase of intake capacity for the MBBS Course from the academic year 2011-2012 from 150 to 250. The Board of Governors, the body to which power has been vested to carry out the functions and duties of the Medical Council of India (hereinafter referred to as `the Board of Governors') appointed assessor by order dated 23rd of February, 2011 to assess the physical and other teaching facilities available for grant of letter of permission for the increase of MBBS seats from 150 to 250 to the College for the academic year 2011-2012. 4. In the light of the aforesaid order the assessor visited the College and made assessment of the 3 physical and other teaching facilities available for grant of letter of permission for increase of MBBS seats from 150 to 250 and submitted its report. The assessment report was considered by the Board of Governors which decided not to issue letter of permission for increase of seats as the infrastructure facilities, clinical material and faculty were inadequate. It also found deficiency in equipments and other deficiencies as pointed out in the assessment report. Accordingly, the Board of Governors by its letter dated 5th of May, 2011 called upon the College to submit its response as to why its proposal for increase of seats be not disapproved and returned. The College by its letter dated 21st May, 2011 submitted its response and claimed that it has adequate infrastructure, clinical material and teaching facilities to meet the teaching and training requirement for the enhanced intake of 250 students and, at the same time, wrote that in the event of the Board of Governors finding that the same are not adequate for granting increase of seats to 250, the request may be considered for enhanced intake from 4 150 to 200 seats. The compliance report submitted by the College along with assessment reports of the assessor were forwarded by the Board of Governors to the assessor by letter dated 1st of June, 2011 for their perusal and for carrying out the assessment for increase of MBBS seats from 150 to 250. It is relevant here to state that the College by its letter dated 3rd of June, 2011 wrote to the Coordinator of the assessment team "to revise the assessment for increase of MBBS seats from 150 to 200 admissions instead of 250 seats". By the said letter the College claimed that it had infrastructure facilities, clinical materials and teaching facilities including the instruments for 200 admissions for MBBS Course. 5. The claim for increase of seats from 150 to 250 was considered and the Board of Governors decided "to return the applications as disapproved for increase of seats from 150 to 250" for the academic year 2011- 2012 by its letter dated 30th of June, 2011. The College by its letter dated 8th of July, 2011 made request for reconsideration of increase of seats from 5 150 to 200 inter alia stating that "the team of assessors who visited the College on 3rd of June, 2011 after assessing the seats have not only recommended for continuation of 150 seats but also have recommended for additional 50 seats intake taking into account adequacy of additional facilities, book space, equipment and other facilities". The Board of Governors reconsidered the claim of the College with regard to increase of seats in MBBS Course from 150 seats to 200/250 seats and decided to reiterate its earlier decision as the cut of date for issuance of letter of permission, i.e., 30th of June, 2011 is already over. 6 6. Aggrieved by the same, the College filed the writ petition inter alia praying for quashing the decision of the Board of Governors dated 30th of June, 2011 and 5th of August, 2011 by issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ and further prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Medical Council of India for issuance of letter of permission for increase of intake in its MBBS Course from 150 to 200 for the year 2011-2012 as also to admit 200 students. By way of interim relief the petitioner made the following prayer : "Pending disposal of the above writ petition, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner institution to admit to an intake of 200 students for its MBBS course as per recommendation of its expert body, subject to further orders of this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice and equity" By the order impugned the High Court passed the following interim order : "The petitioner institution is permitted to increase the intake of MBBS students from 150 to 200 for the academic year 2011-2012. Medical Council of India is at liberty to indicate any deficiency if it comes across for the intake of 200 seats in MBBS for the academic year 2011-2012 and direct 7 compliance of the same within three months from the receipt of their communication. This order is subject to final result in the writ petition". 7. Mr. Nidesh Gupta, Senior Advocate appears on behalf of the appellant whereas Respondent No. 1 is represented by Mr. K.K. Venugopal, Senior Advocate. To put the record straight Senior Counsel representing the parties had addressed us in detail and invited us to finally pronounce the judgment on all issues. At one stage we were inclined to do that but finding that the present appeal is against an interim order and the High Court is yet to finally pronounce the judgment on merits, we declined to take the final call and intend to decide the validity of the interim order only. 8. Power to grant final relief implies within itself power to grant interim relief unless it is specifically prohibited by law. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the opinion that the High Court erred in permitting the increase of the seats by an interim order. It is not 8 in dispute that the Board of Governors for exercise of its statutory power under Section 10.A of the Medial Council of India Act, 1956 has fixed various schedules including last date for submission of the application for increase in the seats as also the date till when the Board of Governors had to take the decision. It is an admitted position that the College had made request for increase of seats from 150 to 250 within the time prescribed. It had not filled application for increase from 150 seats to 200 seats within the time stipulated but made request for increase of 200 seats after the assessor's report. It is not on prescribed format but by means of a letter. By that time the schedule fixed for increase of seats by the Board of Governors had already expired. 9. In view of these facts, following questions arise for consideration: 1. Whether or not the application filed by the College later on for consideration of its claim for the reduced seat of 200 after the expiry of period will date 9 back to the date of original application? 2. Whether or not the application for increase filed after the scheduled date is required to be considered? 3. Whether or not the assessors exceeded in its jurisdiction to consider the claim of the College for increase of 200 seats, when undisputedly they were assigned the task of assessing the College's claim for increase of 250 seats? 4. Whether or not the Board of Governors was right in rejecting the claim of the College on the expiry of the outer limit by which the decision to increase the number of seats was to be taken by it? 5. Whether or not the High Court while exercising the power under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India 10 could straightaway permit increase of seats or direct for consideration of the claim by the competent authority? 10. Without adverting to the aforesaid issues and many other issues which may arise for determination, the High Court, in our opinion, erred in permitting increase in seats by interim order. In normal circumstances the High Court should not issue interim order granting permission for increase of the seats. High Court ought to realize that granting such permission by an interim order has a cascading effect. By virtue of such order students are admitted as in the present case and though many of them had taken the risk knowingly but few may be ignorant. In most of such cases when finally the issue is decided against the College the welfare and plight of the students are ultimately projected to arouse sympathy of the Court. It results in very awkward and difficult situation. If on ultimate analysis it is found that the College's claim for increase of seats is untenable, in such an event the admission of students with reference to the increased 11 seats shall be illegal. We cannot imagine anything more destructive of the rule of law than a direction by the court to allow continuance of such students, whose admissions is found illegal in the ultimate analysis. This Court is entrusted with the task to administer law and uphold its majesty. Courts cannot by its fiat increase the seats, a task entrusted to the Board of Governors and that too by interim order. In a matter like the present one, decisions on issues have to be addressed at the interlocutory stage and they can not be deferred or dictated later when serious complications might ensue from the interim order itself. There are large number of authorities which take this view and instead of burdening this judgment with all those authorities it would be sufficient to refer to a three Judge Bench decision of this Court in the case of Medical Council of India v. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, (2004) 6 SCC 76, in which it has been held as follows: "14. In the normal circumstances, the High Court ought not to issue an interim order when for the earlier year itself permission had not been granted by the Council. Indeed, by grant of such interim 12 orders students who have been admitted in such institutions would be put to serious jeopardy, apart from the fact whether such institutions could run the medical college without following the law. Therefore, we make it clear that the High Court ought not to grant such interim orders in any of the cases where the Council has not granted permission in terms of Section 10-A of the Medical Council Act. If interim orders are granted to those institutions which have been established without fulfilling the prescribed conditions to admit students, it will lead to serious jeopardy to the students admitted in these institutions." 11. For all these reasons we are of the opinion that the interim order passed by the High Court is unsustainable. Any observation made by us in this judgment is for disposal of the present appeal and shall have no bearing on the merits of the case. Further, as the matter pertains to increase in seats in educational institution, we deem it expedient that the High Court considers and disposes of the case on merit expeditiously. 12. Resultantly, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned interim order of the High Court with the observation aforesaid. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 13 ...................................................................J (H.L. DATTU) ...................................................................J (CHANDRAMAULI KR PRASAD) New Delhi, January 11, 2012.

apex court upheld the cancellation of recognisation of B.Ed. college=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

                                                     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