IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7749 OF 2012
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 11385 of 2012)
National Council for Teacher
Education and another. ... Appellants
Versus
Venus Public Education Society and others ...
Respondents
J U D G M E N T
Dipak Misra, J.
Leave granted.
2. Acquisition of knowledge and obtaining of necessary training for
imparting education have their immense signification. As C. Simmons would
like to put it “The secret of successful teaching is to teach accurately,
thoroughly, and earnestly” and one may fruitfully add that accuracy and
thoroughness can be achieved by cultivated education, matured training and
keen intellect. That is why teaching becomes a teacher’s passion and
religion. A good teacher, in a way, represents country’s orderly
civilization. A teacher is expected to kindle interest in the taught by
method of investigation, incessant implantation of knowledge and
demonstration of experience that is replete with intellectual pragmatism.
A student who is keen on getting training has to keep in mind the concept
of reason, conception of logic and sanctity of rationality. He is expected
to distance himself from habitual disobedience and unfettered feeling, for
a civilized society which is governed by Rule of Law does not countenance
such characteristics. The aspiration to become a teacher after obtaining
training requires these qualities as they constitute the base on which the
superstructure is built.
3. Importance of teachers and their training, significance of qualified
teachers in schools and colleges and their centripodal role in building of
the nation have been highlighted in Ahmedabad St. Xavier’s College Society
v. State of Gujarat[1], Andhra Kesari Educational Society v. Director of
School Education[2], State of Maharashtra v Vikas Sahebrao Roundale[3], St.
John’s Teachers Training Institute (for Women) v. State of T.N.[4] and N.M.
Nageshwaramma v. State of A.P.[5], and recently reiterated in Adarsh
Shiksha Mahavidyalaya and others v. Subhash Rahangdale and others[6].
4. It is to be clearly stated that an institution that is engaged or
interested in getting involved in imparting a course for training has to
obey the command of law in letter and spirit. There cannot be any
deviation. But, unfortunately, some of the institutions flagrantly violate
the norms with adamantine audacity and seek indulgence of the court either
in the name of mercy or sympathy for the students or financial constraint
of the institution or they have been inappropriately treated by the
statutory regulatory bodies. None of these grounds justify deviation. The
case at hand graphically depicts deviations but the High Court putting the
blame on the statutory authority has granted relief to the respondent-
institution which is impermissible.
5. The factual exposition of the present litigation demonstrably
reflects the combat between the truth and falsehood, battle between justice
and injustice, the contestation between the accord and discord, the
collision between fairness and manipulation, the scuffle betwixt the
sacrosanctity of the majesty of law and its abuses and the clash between
the mandated principles and invocation of sympathy. Such a controversy
emerges because majesty, sanctity and purity of law have been corroded and
truth, however, relative it may be in the mundane world, has its own
command and the same has been deliberately guillotined forgetting the
fundamental fact that none can afford to build a castle in Spain in the
realm of truth. It is worthy to note that justice in its connotative
expanse engulfs the liberalism of an ocean, the magnanimity of the Sun, the
sternness of a mountain, the simplicity of a saint, the austerity of a
Spartan and the humility of a river. The concept of justice has to remain
embedded in spite of adversities. It should remain unshaken, unterrified,
unperturbed and loyal to the Rule of Law. In the case at hand, as a
maladroit effort has been made to give an indecent burial to the command of
law and pave the path of injustice, the same has to be dealt with sternly
sans sympathy.
6. Presently to the factual narration. The respondent-society submitted
an application on 27.10.2009 to the Western Regional Committee (for short
“the WRC”) of National Council for Teacher Education (for brevity “the
NCTE”) for grant of recognition for the purpose of conducting D.El.Ed.
course from the academic session 2010-11. On receipt of the said
application the WRC, after scrutiny of the same, issued a communication
dated 10.2.2010 to remove certain deficiencies, namely, the institution had
submitted the lease deed issued by Gwalior Development Authority in favour
of the Society for a period of thirty years but the same was not certified
by the competent authority; that it had submitted copy of the building plan
approved by Nagar Nigam, Gwalior meant for school purposes and not for the
college; that the land use certificate issued by the competent Government
authority was not submitted; that the building completion certification
from the competent Government authority was not filed; that the encumbrance
certificate from the competent Government authority was not submitted; and
that necessary undertaking in the prescribed format was not enclosed. The
respondent institution was advised to remove the deficiencies within a span
of sixty days. It was also required to submit a reply pertaining to the
deficiencies pointed out by the WRC. The respondent submitted its reply on
20.3.2010 and the same was considered in the 133rd meeting of the WRC held
on 20-21.04.2010. On 11.5.2010 the WRC informed the respondent that it
would conduct an inspection for D.El.Ed. course for the academic session
2010-11 on a date between 21.5.2010 to 30.5.2010. The visiting team
carried out the inspection and submitted its report to the WRC which, in
its 136th meeting held on 5-7.6.2010, decided to issue a show cause notice
under Section 14(3)(b) of the National Council for Teacher Education Act,
1993 (for brevity ‘the 1993 Act’) and, accordingly, a show cause notice was
issued on 19.6.2010 requiring the respondent to file its representation
within twenty one days. The reply to show cause notice was received on
7.7.2010 and the WRC considered the same and took the decision on 20-
21.7.2010 to refuse recognition on the ground that the approved building
plan submitted by the college showed a square building with ground and two
floors, whereas the videograph showed the building was rectangular and
having ground and one floor. The said decision was communicated vide order
dated 3.8.2010 whereunder the WRC refused recognition in exercise of power
under Section 14(3)(b) of the 1993 Act.
7. As the factual matrix further gets unfolded, the respondent preferred
an appeal on 29.9.2010 under Section 18 of the 1993 Act and the appellate
authority by order dated 10.11.2010 opined as follows: -
“AND WHEREAS Shri Vivek Gupta, President, Venus Public
Education Society, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh presented the case of
the appellant institution on 20.10.2010. In the appeal and
during personal presentation, it was submitted that there was
not at all any mismatch between the approved plan and
videography. The building with Ground and two floors was
constructed in the same shape according to the building plan
which was also proved by the completion certificate. The
similarity was also proved with the relevant clip of the
videography which was submitted wherein the building was visible
with ground and two floors with the visiting team. The position
of the existing building with ground plus two floors was also
proved by the photographs of the building taken from different
angles. The ground taken by the WRC that the building was
square and rectangular was an after thought which was totally
unlawful. The WRC did not communicate such type of objection
earlier. The building was more than sufficient and fulfills the
norms and standards of the NCTE.
AND WHEREAS the Council noted that the VT report did not
indicate the dimensions of the rooms as well as the total built
up area available for the proposed course. The report also did
not contain an essential data sheet in which the particulars
with regard to land and built up area details are to be filled.
It merely stated the infrastructural facilities were as per the
NCTE norms. Further the photographs annexed with the appeal do
not confirm to the VCD available in the WRC’s file. In view of
this the Council came to the conclusion that an inspection of
the institution may be conducted by the NCTE Hqrs. for taking a
final decision in the appeal.”
On the basis of the aforesaid order a team was constituted which
submitted the report and eventually, after perusal of the report, the NCTE,
on 11.3.2011, passed the following order: -
“AND WHEREAS the Council noting that the report of the
visiting team from the Hqrs. of the Council has clarified the
position, came to the conclusion that the appeal deserves to be
accepted and the order of the WRC reversed with a direction to
process the case further on merits.
AND WHEREAS after perusal of documents, memorandum of
appeal, affidavit and after considering oral arguments advanced
during the hearing, the Council reached the conclusion that
there was adequate ground to accept the appeal and reverse the
WRC’s order dated 03.08.2010 with the direction to the WRC to
process the case further on merits. Accordingly, the appeal was
accepted and the order of the WRC dated 03.08.2010 reversed.”
8. After the appeal was disposed of, the WRC decided to constitute a
visiting team. In the meantime the respondent preferred Writ Petition No.
4541 of 2011 for issue of writ of mandamus to the NCTE to grant recognition
for the academic session 2010-11 for D.El.Ed. course. During the pendency
of the writ petition, on 22.7.2011 the WRC decided to conduct further
inspection between 22.7.2011 to 30.7.2011. The inspecting team visited the
respondent institution on 27.7.2011 and submitted its report to the WRC.
The report indicated that a functionary of the Society told the team that
as the matter was subjudice, the WRC had no authority to inspect. However,
the team went to the institution and took photographs of the building.
When the matter came up before the High Court on 28.7.2011, it, after
narrating the chronological events and the order passed by the appellate
authority, issued the following directions: -
“(i) That the decision of the Respondent No. 1 for inspection
of the petitioner institution vide letter dated 22.7.2011
is hereby quashed;
ii) The respondent is directed to consider the case of the
petitioner for grant of recognition in accordance with the
order passed by Appellate Authority dated 11.3.2011.
iii) The case of the petitioner shall be considered for grant of
recognition within a period of two weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.”
9. As the order was not complied with within the stipulated time, the
respondent preferred Writ Petition No. 5776 of 2011. The High Court
disposed of the same by observing that the grievance of the petitioner was
that in spite of direction issued by the court in the earlier writ
petition, the respondents had yet not complied with the direction and for
the aforesaid purpose, the petitioner was at liberty to file a contempt
petition. The High Court further observed that it was expected that the
respondents shall obey the direction issued by the court in W.P. C No.
4541/2011.
10. As is perceptible, the WRC in its 154th meeting held on 11-12.9.2011
considered the matter and vide order dated 22.9.2011 issued a “letter of
intent” for grant of recognition for D.El.Ed. course under clause 7(9) of
National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition, Norms and Procedure)
Regulations, 2009 (for short “2009 Regulations”). The relevant part of the
said letter of intent reads as follows: -
“3. Before grant of formal recognition under Regulation 7(11)
of the NCTE Regulations 2009, is considered, you are requested
to submit the following:
i) The institution shall initiate the process of appointments
of qualified staff as per Policy of State Government or
University Grants Commission or University and ensure that
the staff or faculty is appointed as per the NCTE norms
within two months. (in case of M.Ed. six months). The
Institute shall submit the list of faculty as approved by
the affiliating body to the Western Regional Committee. An
affidavit on the enclosed format of Rs.100/- Non-Judicial
Stamp Paper from each faculty member appointed are to be
submitted.
ii) The institute shall launch its own website covering
interalia, the details of the institution, its location,
name of the course applied for with intake, availability of
physical infrastructural (land, building, office, class
rooms and other facilities/amenities), infrastructural
facilities (laboratory, photographs, Permanent Account
Number (PAN) or Unique Identity Number (UIN) of the teacher
educator whenever issued by the NCTE), for information of
all concerned. The institution shall also make available
on its website information relating to:
i. Sanctioned programmes along with annual intake in the
institution.
j. Name of faculty and staff in full as mentioned in school
certificate along with their qualification, scale of pay
and photograph.
k. Name of faculty Members who left or joined during the
last quarter.
l. Names of students admitted during the current session
alongwith qualification, percentage of marks in the
qualifying examination and in the entrance test, if any,
date of admission etc.
m. Fee charged from students
n. Facilities added during the last summer.
o. Number of books in the library, journals subscribed to
and addition, if any, in the last quarter.
p. The institution shall be free to post additional
relevant information, if it so desires.
iii) The institution shall submit FDR of Rs.500 Lakhs towards
Endowment Fund and Rs.300 Lakhs towards reserve fund in the
joint name of authorised representative of the management
and the Regional Director, WRC, NCTE and the same shall
be maintained perpetually by way of renewal of FDR’s at the
intervals of every five years. The FDRs submitted by the
institution are returned herewith for conversion/renewal
(this time to be added in case FDRs are not in the office).
4. Any wrong or incomplete information on website shall render
the institution liable for withdrawal of recognition, under
the Act of NCTE.
5. Admission should not be made until formal recognition order
under Clause 7(11) of the NCTE (Recognition, Norms and
Procedures) Regulation, 2009 is issued by Western Regional
Committee, NCTE and affiliation is obtained from the
University/examining body concerned.
6. You are advised to comply the above requirement before
formal recognition is considered under regulation 7(11) of
NCTE (Recognition, Norms and Procedures) Regulation, 2009
under section 14(3)(a) of the Act.”
[emphasis supplied]
11. Be it noted, in the meantime the respondent had filed Contempt
Petition No. 677 of 2011 for non-compliance of order dated 28.7.2011 passed
in Writ Petition No. 4541 of 2011. On 28.9.2011 a submission was put forth
that as the court had decided to grant recognition to the respondent-
institution, an interim direction should be issued to admit the students
for D.Ed. course because after 30.9.2011 it would not be able to admit the
students. The High Court, dealing with the said submission, opined as
follows: -
“In our opinion, no such interim direction can be issued
in favour of the petitioner vide clause 3 of the letter, the
petitioner has been directed to submit certain information and
documents and that has to be verified by the NCTE. Even apart,
in a contempt matter, by way of interim direction, a relief
could not be granted. However, we observe that if the
petitioner is eligible, the authority shall consider the case of
the petitioner on 30th September, 2011.”
12. It is worthy to note that the WRC was to file the reply within three
weeks. During the pendency of the contempt petition, the respondent
preferred Writ Petition No. 6674 of 2011 for grant of recognition for
academic session 2011-12 for D.El.Ed. course. The High Court, vide order
dated 30.9.2011, directed the Regional Director of the WRC to remain
present and explain as to why the decision had not been taken in regard to
grant of recognition of the respondent institution. As is perceived, the
WRC vide order dated 27.10.2011 issued an order of recognition. The
relevant portion of the same is reproduced hereinbelow: -
“4. .......the institution is required to comply with all post-
recognition conditions enumerated from clause 8 (11) to Clause
8(16) of NCTE (Recognition, Norms and Procedures) Regulations
2009.
6. The institution shall make admission only after it obtains
affiliation from the examining body in terms of clause 8(12) of
the NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedures) Regulation, 2009 for
the academic session .........
7. The institution/permission will operate for 2012-13 only
if the requirement of 200 teaching days in the session is
fulfilled as per calendar of the university/affiliating body.”
[emphasis supplied]
13. Being grieved by the aforesaid order the respondent preferred Writ
Petition No. 7664 of 2011 with a prayer to command the NCTE to grant
recognition from the academic session 2011-12 for D.El.Ed. course or to
treat the recognition dated 27.10.2011 for the academic session 2011-12
instead of 2012-13. The High Court dealt with the said writ petition along
with the contempt petition and, after referring to its earlier order passed
in Writ Petition No. 4541 of 2011, the chronology of events, the issue of
“letter of intent” and eventual grant of recognition, concluded as under: -
“8. In this view of the matter, in our opinion, the petitioner
is entitled to have recognition for the academic session 2011-12
also because the case of the petitioner was pending before the
Western Regional Committee and in pursuance to the directions of
the Court dated 28.07.2010 passed in writ petition No.
4541/2010, it was obligatory on the part of the respondents to
include the claim of the petitioner for recognition from the
academic session 2011-12 also. In our opinion, the respondents
have deliberately not included the same due to pendency of the
Contempt Proceeding and other proceedings.”
14. After so stating the Bench disposed of the contempt petition and the
writ petition by directing that in the recognition order dated 27.10.2011
it shall be added that the institution was entitled for recognition for the
D.El.Ed. course with an annual intake of 50 students for academic session
2011-12 also. The said order is the subject-matter of assail in this
appeal.
15. The thrust of the matter is whether the High Court by the impugned
order passed on 7.12.2011 could have issued a direction as has been stated
hereinabove.
16. It is submitted by Mr. Amitesh Kumar, learned counsel for the
appellants that the order of recognition passed in favour of the respondent
was conditional and there was a clear stipulation that admission should not
be made until formal recognition under clause 7(11) of the 2009 regulations
is issued by the WRC and affiliation is obtained from the
University/examining body. That apart, the order of recognition dated
27.10.2011 clearly laid a postulate that the institution shall make
admission only after it obtains affiliation from the examining body in
terms of clause 8(12) of 2009 Regulations for the academic session and,
therefore, the High Court has fallen into error by holding that it was
obligatory on the part of the NCTE to include the aim of the respondent for
recognition for the academic session 2011-12 as the same was not
deliberately done. The learned counsel would submit the direction given by
the High Court that the institution was entitled for recognition with
annual intake of 50 students for academic session of 2011-12 also is
legally impermissible inasmuch as the institution had not fulfilled the
NCTE norms and further the recognition could not have been made
retrospectively effective.
17. Mr. Varun Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, per
contra, would contend that the WRC had acted mala fide in constituting the
inspection team and after the High Court quashed the same it was obligatory
on its part to confer recognition without any delay. It is canvassed by
him that the appellant under the circumstances was compelled to admit the
students and, therefore, the students who have been admitted for the
academic session 2010-11 should be allowed to undertake the examinations in
respect of added intake seats as directed by the High Court. It is
vehemently proponed by him that the educational institutions cannot remain
at the total mercy of the WRC and such an attitude on the part of the WRC
is likely to lead to anarchy and a state of uncertainty which would corrode
the financial backbone of the educational societies that are devoted to
imparting education. It is also urged by him that such a situation would
smother the legitimate expectations of the students.
18. Mrs. Vibha Datta Makhija, learned counsel appearing for respondent
No. 2, M.P. Board of Secondary Education, has contended that it is
obligatory on the part of the Board to verify whether an educational
institution has obtained recognition from the NCTE and affiliation from the
Board and then only the said institution can admit the students, but in the
case at hand as the respondent No. 1 has admitted the students without
recognition and affiliation, they cannot be permitted to appear in the
examination and conferment of such privilege would destroy the fundamental
fibre of the education system.
19. At this juncture, we may fruitfully refer to Section 14 of the 1993
Act which deals with recognition of institutions offering course or
training in teacher education. It reads as follows: -
“14. Recognition of institutions offering course or training in
teacher education. – (1) Every institution offering or intending
to offer a course or training in teacher education on or after
the appointed day, may, for grant of recognition under this Act,
make an application to the Regional Committee concerned in such
form and in such manner as may be determined by regulations:
Provided that an institution offering a course or training
in teacher education immediately before the appointed day, shall
be entitled to continue such course or training for a period of
six months, if it has made an application for recognition within
the said period and until the disposal of the application by the
Regional Committee.
2) The fee to be paid along with the application under sub-
section (1) shall be such as may be prescribed.
3) On receipt of an application by the Regional Committee from
any institution under sub-section (1), and after obtaining
from the institution concerned such other particulars as it
may consider necessary, it shall –
a) if it is satisfied that such institution has adequate
financial resources, accommodation, library, qualified
staff, laboratory and that it fulfills such other conditions
required for proper functioning of the institution for a
course or training in teacher education, as may be
determined by regulations, pass an order granting
recognition to such institution, subject to such conditions
as may be determined by regulations; or
b) if it is of the opinion that such institution does not
fulfill the requirements laid down in sub-clause (a), pass
an order refusing recognition to such institution for
reasons to be recorded in writing:
Provided that before passing an order under sub-clause (b), the
Regional Committee shall provide a reasonable opportunity to
the institution concerned for making a written representation.
(4) Every order granting or refusing recognition to an
institution for a course or training in teacher education under
sub-section (3) shall be published in the Official Gazette and
communicated in writing for appropriate action to such
institution and to the concerned examining body, the local
authority or the State Government and the Central Government.
(5) Every institution, in respect of which recognition has
been refused shall discontinue the course or training in
teacher education from the end of the academic session next
following the date of receipt of the order refusing recognition
passed under clause (b) of sub-section (3).
(6) Every examining body shall, on receipt of the order under
sub-section (4) –
(a) grant affiliation to the institution, where recognition
has been granted; or
(b) cancel the affiliation of the institution, where
recognition has been refused.”
20. Section 32 of the Act empowers the council to make regulations not
inconsistent with the provisions of the Act and rules framed thereunder
generally to carry out under the provisions of the Act. Sub-section (2)(d)
provides for the norms, guidelines and standards in respect of certain
categories of employees who are to be employed in the institution. The
said provision reads as follows:-
“(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the
foregoing power, such regulations may provide for all or any of the
following matters, namely—
(a) ..........
(b) ..........
(c) ..........
(d) the norms, guidelines and standards in respect of —
(i) the minimum qualifications for a person to be employed as
a teacher under clause (d) of Section 12;
(ii) the specified category of courses or training in teacher
education under clause (e) of Section 12;
(iii) starting of new courses or training in recognised
institutions under clause (f) of Section 12;
(iv) standards in respect of examinations leading to teacher
education qualifications referred to in clause (g) of
Section 12;
(v) the tuition fees and other fees chargeable by institution
under clause (h) of Section 12;
(vi) the schemes for various levels of teachers education, and
identification of institutions for offering teacher
development programmes under clause (l) of Section 12;”
21. It is apt to note that in exercise of the aforesaid power, the NCTE
has, from time to time, framed certain regulations. Initially, regulations
were framed in the year 1995. Thereafter in 2002, 2005, 2007, and the
latest one in 2009 have been framed.
22. The lis in the present case is governed by 2009 Regulations. Clause
5(5) of 2009 Regulations provides as follows: -
“5(5) All applications received on-line on or before the 31st
day of the October of the year shall be processed for the next
academic session and final decision, either recognition granted
or refused, shall be communicated to the applicant on or before
the 15th day of May of the succeeding year.”
23. On a perusal of the said Regulation, it is clear as noon day that
recognition can only be granted for the next academic session. Regulation
7(9) provides for issue of “letter of intent”. The said regulation is as
follows: -
“7(9) The Institution concerned shall be informed through a
letter of intent, regarding the decision for grant of
recognition or permission subject to appointment of qualified
faculty members before the commencement of the academic session.
The letter of intent issued under this clause shall not be
notified in the Gazette but would be sent to the Institution and
the affiliating body with the request that the process of
appointment of qualified staff as per policy of State Govt. or
University Grants Commission or University may be initiated and
the Institution may be provided all assistance to ensure that
the staff or faculty is appointed as per National Council for
Teacher Education Norms within two months. The Institution
shall submit the list of the faculty, as approved by the
affiliating Body, to the Regional Committee.”
24. Regulation 7(9) stipulates what the institution is required to do
after receipt of the “letter of intent”. Regulation 7(11) of the 2009
Regulations provides when a formal order of recognition is to be issued.
The said Regulation is as follows: -
“7(11) The institution concerned, after appointing the
requisite faculty or staff as per the provisions of sub-
regulation (9) and after fulfilling the conditions under sub-
regulation (10), shall formally inform the Regional Committee
concerned that the faculty has been appointed as per National
Council for Teacher Education Norms and has been approved by the
affiliating body. The letter granting approval for the
selection or appointment of faculty shall also be provided by
the institution to the Regional Committee with the document
establishing that the Fixed Deposit Receipt of Endowment Fund
and Reserve Fund have been converted into a joint account. The
Regional Committee concerned shall then issue a formal order of
recognition which shall be notified as per provision of the
National Council for Teacher Education Act.”
[emphasis added]
25. Regulations 8(1) and 8(12) of the 2009 Regulations which deal with
norms and standards being in a composite compartment are quoted below: -
“8(1) An institution must fulfill all the prescribed conditions
pertaining to norms and standards as prescribed by National
Council for Teacher Education for conducting course or training
in teacher education. These norms, inter-alia, cover conditions
relating to financial resources, accommodation, library,
laboratory, other physical infrastructure, qualified staff
including teaching and non-teaching personnel etc.
(12) The University or Examining Body shall grant affiliation
only after issue of the formal recognition order under sub-
regulation (11) of Regulation 7 of these Regulations. Further,
admissions by the institution shall be made only after
affiliation by the University or Affiliating body and as per the
State policy.”
[emphasis supplied]
26. On a keen scrutiny of Section 14 and the aforesaid Regulations it is
vivid that the university or examining body is required to issue letter of
affiliation after formal recognition under sub-regulation (11) of
Regulation 7 of the 2009 Regulations is issued. It is also clear that
certain obligations are to be carried out by the institution after letter
of intent is received. It is clear as a cloudless sky that the letter of
intent was communicated to the institution as well as to the affiliating
body with a request that the process of appointment of qualified staff as
per the policy of the State Government or University Grants Commission or
university may be initiated and the institution may be provided all
assistance to ensure that the staff or faculty is appointed as per the
norms of the NCTE within two months. It was obligatory on the part of the
institution to submit the list of the faculty, as approved by the
affiliating body, to the Regional Committee. Thus understood, the letter
of intent laid down the conditions which were to be fulfilled by the
institution. The said letter was issued on 22.9.2011 and the formal order
of recognition was issued on 27.10.2011. Clause 6 of the same clearly
stipulates that the institution shall make admission only after it obtains
its affiliation from the examining body in terms of clause 8(12) of the
2009 Regulations. Clause 8(12), which has been reproduced hereinabove,
clearly lays a postulate that the university or the examining body shall
grant affiliation only after issue of formal recognition order under sub-
clause (11) of Regulation 7 and thereafter the institution shall make the
admissions.
27. In Chairman, Bhartia Education Society and another v. State of
Himachal Pradesh and others[7] this Court in the context of 1993 Act after
drawing a distinction between “recognition” and “affiliation” proceeded to
state as follows: -
“The examining body can therefore impose its own requirements in
regard to eligibility of students for admission to a course in
addition to those prescribed by NCTE. The State Government and
the examining body may also regulate the manner of admissions.
As a consequence, if there is any irregularity in admissions or
violation of the eligibility criteria prescribed by the
examining body or any irregularity with reference to any of the
matters regulated and governed by the examining body, the
examining body may cancel the affiliation irrespective of the
fact that the institution continues to enjoy the recognition of
NCTE. Sub-section (6) of Section 14 cannot be interpreted in a
manner so as to make the process of affiliation, an automatic
rubber-stamping consequent upon recognition, without any kind of
discretion in the examining body to examine whether the
institution deserves affiliation or not, independent of the
recognition. An institution requires the recognition of NCTE as
well as affiliation with the examining body, before it can offer
a course or training in teacher education or admit students to
such course or training.”
28. In Shri Morvi Sarvajanik Kelavni Mandal Sachalit MSKM BEd College v.
National Council for Teachers’ Education and others[8] a two-Judge Bench,
after referring to the decisions in N.M. Nageshwaramma (supra), State of
T.N. v. St. Joseph Teachers Training Institute[9], Vikas Sahebrao Roundale
(supra) and Bhartiya Education Society case (supra), eventually opined that
there was no justification to strike a discordant note.
29. In Adarsh Shiksha Mahavidyalaya (supra) this Court, after referring
to Sections 12, 14 to 16, 17, 17-A, 18, 20, 29 and 32 of the 1993 Act,
Regulations 3, 5, 7 and 8 of the 2005 Regulations and further referring to
paras 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 of the amended Regulations made by
notification dated 12.7.2006, has categorically laid down thus:-
“What needs to be emphasised is that no recognition/permission
can be granted to any institution desirous of conducting teacher
training course unless the mandatory conditions enshrined in
Sections 14(3) or 15(3) read with the relevant clauses of
Regulations 7 and 8 are fulfilled and that in view of the
negative mandate contained in Section 17-A read with Regulation
8(10), no institution can admit any student unless it has
obtained unconditional recognition from the Regional Committee
and affiliation from the examining body.”
30. After laying down the aforesaid principle the Bench proceeded to deal
with the cases of students who had taken admission in unrecognized
educational institutions. The question posed by the Bench is as follows: -
“The question which remains to be considered is, whether the
students who had taken admission in unrecognised institutions or
the institutions which had not been granted affiliation by the
examining body have the right to appear in the examination and
whether the Court can issue a mandamus for declaration of the
result of such students simply because they were allowed to
provisionally appear in the examination in compliance with the
interim orders passed by the High Court and/or this Court. An
ancillary question, which would require consideration is,
whether the students who had not completed the requirement of
minimum teaching days were entitled to appear in the examination
and a direction can be given for declaration of their result.”
31. Thereafter, the Bench referred to the pronouncements in A.P.
Christian Medical Educational Society v. Govt. of A.P.[10], N.M.
Nageshwaramma (supra), Vikas Sahebrao Roundale (supra) and St. John’s
Teachers Training Institute (for Women) (supra) and eventually recorded its
conclusions in paragraph 87 by reiterating certain conclusions some of
which are apposite to be reproduced regard being had to the fact situation
of the present case: -
“87. ................
(iv) The recognition granted by the Regional Committees under
Section 14(3)(a) of the 1993 Act read with Regulations 7 and 8
of the Regulations and permission granted under Section 15(3)(a)
read with the relevant Regulations shall operate prospectively
i.e. from the date of communication of the order of recognition
or permission, as the case may be.
xxx xxx xxx
(x) In view of the mandate of Section 16, no examining body, as
defined in Section 2(d) of the 1993 Act, shall grant affiliation
unless the applicant has obtained recognition from the Regional
Committee under Section 14 or permission for starting a new
course or training under Section 15.
(xi) While granting affiliation, the examining body shall be
free to demand rigorous compliance with the conditions contained
in the statute like the University Act or the State Education
Board Act under which it was established or the guidelines/norms
which may have been laid down by the examining body concerned.
(xii) No institution shall admit any student to a teacher
training course or programme unless it has obtained recognition
under Section 14 or permission under Section 15, as the case may
be.
(xiii) While making admissions, every recognised institution is
duty-bound to strictly adhere to Paras 3.1 to 3.3 of the Norms
and Standards for Secondary/Pre-School Teacher Education
Programme contained in Appendix 1 to the Regulations.
(xiv) ..........
(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 agency.”
[emphasis supplied]
32. The direction contained in paragraph 88(ii), being relevant for the
present purpose, is reproduced hereinbelow: -
“(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.”
[underlining is ours]
33. On a studied scrutiny of the statutory provisions, the relevant
Regulations of 2009 Regulations framed under section 32 of the 1993 Act and
the pronouncements in the field, we are disposed to think that the High
Court has clearly erred in misconstruing its earlier order passed in Writ
Petition 4541 of 2011. True it is, there was some delay and, therefore,
the High Court was moved in another writ petition wherein the it had
granted liberty to file a contempt petition expecting that the directions
in the earlier order would be duly complied with. Thereafter, as is
manifest, letter of intent was issued but the institution instead of
complying with the same moved the High Court for grant of recognition. As
has been stated earlier, the High Court in the initial order had directed
to consider the case of the respondent-institution for grant of recognition
without further inspection. Issuance of letter of intent was necessary
prior to grant of formal letter of recognition. However, the High Court
being moved directed for issuance of formal letter of recognition which was
issued with a postulate that the institution shall only grant admission
after obtaining affiliation from the examining body in terms of clause
8(12) of 2009 Regulations. The order of recognition clearly mentioned that
it was meant for the academic session 2012-13.
34. Adjudged in the aforesaid perspective the High Court could not have
directed the recognition to be retrospectively operative because certain
formalities remained to be complied with. It could not have put the clock
back. It needs no special emphasis to state that the High Court did not
keep itself alive to the conceptual difference between “letter of intent”
and “formal recognition”. True it is, there was delay but that could not
have enabled the High Court to issue a writ for treating the recognition to
be effective for the year 2011-12 with intake of fifty students. That
apart, the respondent-institution had not obtained affiliation from the
university. Therefore, the direction of the High Court is contrary to the
provisions of law and the interpretation of the Act and the Regulations
made by this Court and, accordingly we are compelled to set aside the same,
and we so direct.
35. Now, to the last plank of submission of the learned counsel for the
appellant. It is urged by him that the 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 the 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 commercialize 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. Such attitudes only bring
nemesis. It would not be wrong to say that this is not a case which put
the institution or the students to choose between Scylla and charybdis. On
the contrary, both of them were expected to be Argus-eyed. The basic motto
should have been “transparency”. Unfortunately, the institution betrayed
the trust of the students and the students, in a way, atrophied their
intelligence. The institution decidedly exhibited characteristics of
carelessness. It seems that they had forgotten that they are accountable
to law. The students, while thinking “vision of hope”, chose to play
possum. The law does not countenance either of the ideas. Hence, the plea
propounded with anxiety, vehemence and desperation on behalf of the
appellant is not acceptable and, accordingly we unhesitatingly repel the
same.
36. Before parting with the case, we are obliged to state that the NCTE
should have acted in quite promptitude, for a statutory authority which is
conferred with the power, is required to act within the parameters of law
and the directions given by the court and further not to create a feeling
among the educational institutions that they are harassed. This Court
expects that the NCTE shall function with propriety regard being had to the
statutory responsibility bestowed on it by the Parliament. Its actions
neither should show arbitrariness nor should it reflect any indulgence.
Objectivity, reliability and trust are to be the motto of the NCTE and the
committees working under it. We say no more on this score.
37. In view of our aforesaid premised reasons, the appeal is allowed, the
order passed by the High Court is set aside and that of the NCTE is
restored. There shall be no order as to costs.
……………………………….J.
[K. S. Radhakrishnan]
……………………………….J.
New Delhi; [Dipak Misra]
November 01, 2012.
-----------------------
[1] (1974) 1 SCC 717
[2] (1989) 1 SCC 392
[3] (1992) 4 SCC 435
[4] (1993) 3 SCC 595
[5] 1986 Supp SCC 166
[6] (2012) 2 SCC 425
[7] (2011) 4 SCC 527
[8] (2012) 2 SCC 16
[9] (1991) 3 SCC 87
[10] (1986) 2 SCC 667
-----------------------
32
